103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on Sept 25, 2016 12:05:12 GMT
I saw this yesterday afternoon as well, and have to agree with Elanor. I have always found Lear to be a very boring, bloated and aimless play, especially compared with Shakespeare's other epic tragedies. However, I expected more from Sher. I also really enjoyed his Falstaff, but found his Lear to be totally uninteresting, and his deliveries were all very choppy and drawn out. I wouldn't be surprised if his slow delivery were responsible for pushing the show past the 3-hour mark (I'm exaggerating a bit, of course, but still). I also found the production to be pretty fairly uninspired. Not BAD, necessarily, but uninteresting. In defense of both Doran and Sher, I will say that I've seen 5 or 6 versions of King Lear now, and I've yet to see an interpretation (of either the role or the play) that I have found interesting. So in that sense, Doran and Sher were right on the mark.
The inconsistent design bothered me. What on earth was the story behind those bizarre glass boxes? Particularly the one at the beginning of the 2nd half. It worked fine in and of itself, but it felt like something out of a sci-fi movie. Totally and completely out of place in the context of the rest of the production.
I went with my university class, and almost all of my fellow theatre students were bored to tears as well. Suddenly I don't feel so alone in my dislike for King Lear as a play.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2016 12:10:06 GMT
To me, they just seemed to be going through the motions. Almost as though, we've got to put on King Lear because we're doing all of them, but we don't have any great ideas so let's just get through it. There wasn't much WRONG with it, it was just... nothing exciting.
The boxes were odd. There's a box in Cymbeline too. I understand the practicality of the big box for the eye gouging scene, but it was a bit pointless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2016 12:12:16 GMT
The best part of the day was the Unwrapped in the morning - they grabbed a girl out of the audience to play Regan because the actress (who REALLY reminded me of Samantha Bond by the way) wasn't very well. I hope the girl was a drama student because she was excellent.
|
|
103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on Sept 25, 2016 12:56:09 GMT
Interesting to confirm that the Regan actress wasn't feeling well. Did you notice she wasn't present during the curtain call yesterday afternoon?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2016 13:34:03 GMT
Interesting to confirm that the Regan actress wasn't feeling well. Did you notice she wasn't present during the curtain call yesterday afternoon? No, I didn't! Apparently she has a bad chest infection and wanted to do the show but couldn't manage the unwrapped as well. |
|
1,119 posts
|
Post by martin1965 on Sept 25, 2016 18:44:26 GMT
Oh well am sorry to hear some negative comments! I stand by my more positive view. Bit puzzled by the comments on the running time, it is King Lear, its a long play, ive seem much longer productions believe me. Will be interesting to see comments when it goes to London.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2016 7:46:12 GMT
I've seen much longer plays too, but they don't always feel so long. I saw Two Noble Kinsmen the same day and they're about the same length before the interval, but TNK's first half flew by.
|
|
5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Sept 26, 2016 20:25:51 GMT
Ashamed to admit I didn't know about the death of Queen Lear and funeral possibility idea. Marvellous. Why not do this I wonder though I have never seen a production with a suggestion of this. I suppose we have to run with what we think Willy has actually written for us. What I'm waiting for is the production that makes it clear what they are fighting for..a kingdom. There is a suggestion of 'gorgeous ' clothes but I've never seen a really lavish, wealthy kingdom and why wouldn't the contemporary audience have thought of ancient Britain as wealthy and comparable to France and Burgundy in ostentation? I've seen plenty of old fur, wooden tables and rough stuff but I think there should be a real contrast between the wealth of the court, the out and out extravagance of it and the poverty of the beggars. Isn't it all about greed and wanting more, more expressed love, more than you need including promiscuity with the two women both wanting the same man?
Love reading this thread as so much gets thrown up..not literally though I trust. Note: this show's eye job far too tame.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Sept 26, 2016 21:28:32 GMT
Rather like the idea of Mrs Lear and since you often get 'additions' from directors am rather surprised that this doesn't get done more, or at least not when i've seen it. Interesting point Lynette, i've always assumed it's a power strugglle, a third starts out okay and then a half and I assume if Edmund hadn't provided another reason for their warring that Regan and Goneril would have come to blows over the country pretty quickly but yes it is often a country apparently full of bits of fur clothing and wooden tables. The McKellen one was fairly opulent from what I remember but I've never really thought of a huge contrast between the court and everyone else.
No squishing eye ball? Poor show, I faint at the blood but am always found a good eye scene goes down rather well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 27, 2016 5:47:00 GMT
Ashamed to admit I didn't know about the death of Queen Lear and funeral possibility idea. Marvellous. Why not do this I wonder though I have never seen a production with a suggestion of this. I suppose we have to run with what we think Willy has actually written for us. What I'm waiting for is the production that makes it clear what they are fighting for..a kingdom. There is a suggestion of 'gorgeous ' clothes but I've never seen a really lavish, wealthy kingdom and why wouldn't the contemporary audience have thought of ancient Britain as wealthy and comparable to France and Burgundy in ostentation? I've seen plenty of old fur, wooden tables and rough stuff but I think there should be a real contrast between the wealth of the court, the out and out extravagance of it and the poverty of the beggars. Isn't it all about greed and wanting more, more expressed love, more than you need including promiscuity with the two women both wanting the same man? Love reading this thread as so much gets thrown up..not literally though I trust. Note: this show's eye job far too tame. The best casting out of an eye was in the Rupert Goold/Pete Postlethwaite one - once you saw it was going to take place in the banal surroundings of a garden shed with all the tools hanging up it made you queasy from the start, then when it happened one of his eyes was actually sucked out by one of the daughters who then walked across the stage and spat it out into a water tank and all the audience went "Euuugh !". |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2016 7:06:40 GMT
Plus the staging was basically a thrust, so auduence members on the sides could see other horrified audience faces reflected back at them.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Sept 27, 2016 12:38:24 GMT
The best casting out of an eye was in the Rupert Goold/Pete Postlethwaite one - once you saw it was going to take place in the banal surroundings of a garden shed with all the tools hanging up it made you queasy from the start, then when it happened one of his eyes was actually sucked out by one of the daughters who then walked across the stage and spat it out into a water tank and all the audience went "Euuugh !". Wow, now that's impressive though yes all those tools and the implied threat would probably have sent me running for the hills. I do rather like a joint audience reaction of drawn breath or in this case 'Euuugh'. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 27, 2016 13:44:22 GMT
The best casting out of an eye was in the Rupert Goold/Pete Postlethwaite one - once you saw it was going to take place in the banal surroundings of a garden shed with all the tools hanging up it made you queasy from the start, then when it happened one of his eyes was actually sucked out by one of the daughters who then walked across the stage and spat it out into a water tank and all the audience went "Euuugh !". Wow, now that's impressive though yes all those tools and the implied threat would probably have sent me running for the hills. I do rather like a joint audience reaction of drawn breath or in this case 'Euuugh'. There was a loud operatic-type soundtrack as it was happening. Goold is (or was) very good at on stage violence. He's obviously influenced by film and Scorcese in particular, those silent episodes of violence in Goodfellas to a music soundtrack. I am always a bit worried he'll direct Titus Andronicus. |
|
20 posts
|
Post by grit on Sept 30, 2016 16:02:15 GMT
I was a little disappointed in this Lear. I want my Lear to go properly, deeply, mad; I want, as an audience member, to reach that point where I glance at the rest of the audience and think 'Someone DO something! Call an ambulance! He's ILL!' I've certainly felt this way watching Simon Russell Beale's Lear (although to be fair, Beale could put a Co-op bag on his head and I'd still revere him as Greatest-Actor-Ever). For me, Sher never tipped over that edge where I am moved to pity and sorrow for Lear's loss and mess of life. Perhaps it was Sher's flawless control over the role, or the pacing, or even the costumes (too much black all round? A little bit heavy handed with the black and white distinction?). But it is a good Lear in being attentive and careful, and I'd recommend it for getting to know the play. I liked the elevation of Lear at key plot points: it set our kids on a good discussion about power, authority, high chairs, and why the adults always want to sit down.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 30, 2016 16:49:03 GMT
I was a little disappointed in this Lear. I want my Lear to go properly, deeply, mad; I want, as an audience member, to reach that point where I glance at the rest of the audience and think 'Someone DO something! Call an ambulance! He's ILL!' I've certainly felt this way watching Simon Russell Beale's Lear (although to be fair, Beale could put a Co-op bag on his head and I'd still revere him as Greatest-Actor-Ever). For me, Sher never tipped over that edge where I am moved to pity and sorrow for Lear's loss and mess of life. Perhaps it was Sher's flawless control over the role, or the pacing, or even the costumes (too much black all round? A little bit heavy handed with the black and white distinction?). But it is a good Lear in being attentive and careful, and I'd recommend it for getting to know the play. I liked the elevation of Lear at key plot points: it set our kids on a good discussion about power, authority, high chairs, and why the adults always want to sit down. I thought Simon Russell-Beale's performance was more like Lear the Opera - singing the lines in the way John Gielgud was always accused of doing. I've seen these ones, none entirely convincing: Michael Gambon Antony Hopkins Eric Porter Brian Cox John Wood Robert Stephens Ian Holm Nigel Hawthorne Timothy West Ian McKellen Pete Postelthwaite Derek Jacobi Jonathan Pryce SRB Michael Pennington |
|
1,119 posts
|
Post by martin1965 on Sept 30, 2016 17:23:37 GMT
I was a little disappointed in this Lear. I want my Lear to go properly, deeply, mad; I want, as an audience member, to reach that point where I glance at the rest of the audience and think 'Someone DO something! Call an ambulance! He's ILL!' I've certainly felt this way watching Simon Russell Beale's Lear (although to be fair, Beale could put a Co-op bag on his head and I'd still revere him as Greatest-Actor-Ever). For me, Sher never tipped over that edge where I am moved to pity and sorrow for Lear's loss and mess of life. Perhaps it was Sher's flawless control over the role, or the pacing, or even the costumes (too much black all round? A little bit heavy handed with the black and white distinction?). But it is a good Lear in being attentive and careful, and I'd recommend it for getting to know the play. I liked the elevation of Lear at key plot points: it set our kids on a good discussion about power, authority, high chairs, and why the adults always want to sit down. I thought Simon Russell-Beale's performance was more like Lear the Opera - singing the lines in the way John Gielgud was always accused of doing. I've seen these ones, none entirely convincing: Michael Gambon Antony Hopkins Eric Porter Brian Cox John Wood Robert Stephens Ian Holm Nigel Hawthorne Timothy West Ian McKellen Pete Postelthwaite Derek Jacobi Jonathan Pryce SRB Michael Pennington Have seen all these (save Gambon, am too young!) and more besides. John Wood at Stratford in 1990 still my benchmark. Its Shakey's greatest play. Still got Glenda and the intriguing sounding double bill at Derby to come this year😁. May go to Sher cinema showing on 12 Oct as well, see you there Jan?🙉🙉 |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Sept 30, 2016 19:16:30 GMT
I was a little disappointed in this Lear. I want my Lear to go properly, deeply, mad; I want, as an audience member, to reach that point where I glance at the rest of the audience and think 'Someone DO something! Call an ambulance! He's ILL!' I've certainly felt this way watching Simon Russell Beale's Lear (although to be fair, Beale could put a Co-op bag on his head and I'd still revere him as Greatest-Actor-Ever). For me, Sher never tipped over that edge where I am moved to pity and sorrow for Lear's loss and mess of life. Perhaps it was Sher's flawless control over the role, or the pacing, or even the costumes (too much black all round? A little bit heavy handed with the black and white distinction?). But it is a good Lear in being attentive and careful, and I'd recommend it for getting to know the play. I liked the elevation of Lear at key plot points: it set our kids on a good discussion about power, authority, high chairs, and why the adults always want to sit down. Is Lear mad? I'm not sure i've ever thought of him as such, making mad decisions that aren't necessarily logical or rational, ageing, emotional, rage driven, mad moments but entirely mad, will have to ponder that one though I may have somewhat misconstrued your meaning. SRB did opt to play his Lear as having some kind of illness didn't he, I remember reading some article about. I think i've come to think of Lear as not entirely more sinned against than sinning, at school we were told he makes a fatal mistake but that basically his daughters, well two at least, are just evil and that's why they treat their father as they do, watching it i now tend to think it moments at least of what a nightmare he'd be to be around, with his insistence on flattery and retaining the perks of power without the responsibility and that if he's been playing favourites for years he's rather brought some of it on himself. I do feel pity in parts but it is probably proportional to how provoking a Lear it is. I pitied SRB's Lear in the let me be not mad bit. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 30, 2016 19:17:51 GMT
No, as I mentioned before after 15 of them I've given up on the play. I've also given up on Sher after a few more than 15 chances. I concur with Trevor Nunn on the greatest Shakespeare play in performance (rather than on the page) and it ain't Lear.
|
|
617 posts
|
Post by loureviews on Sept 30, 2016 21:46:38 GMT
At the Royal Exchange, Manchester's production (with Tom Courtenay, surprisingly fantastic in the lead) some years ago one audience member on the front row of the round fainted dead away at the eye-gouging scene.
The Sher will be my eleventh stage Lear I think (following Brian Cox, Robert Stephens, Courtenay, Ian Holm, Ian McKellen, Jonathan Pryce, Derek Jacobi, Simon Russell Beale, Timothy West, Glenda).
|
|
20 posts
|
Post by grit on Oct 1, 2016 14:40:38 GMT
Jan, I would have loved to have seen some of these actors in your list! I am still coming to terms with the cost of the Old Vic for a Glenda Jackson moment to feed the 4 Shakespeare addicts in the family. Perhaps someone can tell me ... how restricted is the view on a 'severely restricted bench' at the Old Vic for £12? Is the view truly dispiriting? ...I can take my own cushion for the bench. At the RSC for £16 the pillar is never as bad as I'd imagined!
|
|
20 posts
|
Post by grit on Oct 1, 2016 14:44:38 GMT
hi Peggs, I think the question, 'is Lear mad?' a good one and will form the stuff of conversation round the table tonight with the three teens... thank you!
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Oct 1, 2016 17:42:37 GMT
hi Peggs, I think the question, 'is Lear mad?' a good one and will form the stuff of conversation round the table tonight with the three teens... thank you! For real? The only place I could ever have that conversation would be on here, or perhaps if i bump into a badge wearing board member. Do feed back and let us know their thoughts. |
|
20 posts
|
Post by grit on Oct 4, 2016 8:38:58 GMT
Hi Peggs, a consensus from our teens is that Lear is mad. We had a brief discussion about states of mental illness being more complex in our 21st C understanding, but they prefered a more straightforward ' madness = acting irrationally with no self awareness ' definition. They point to the following to support their argument: mood changes referred to by other characters, which tells us this is a sudden change and not a steady character development over time; his treatment of Cordelia which goes way beyond a parent just being pissed off (phew .. some boundary norms do exist at home then); his behaviour and undressing in the storm, which no right thinking person would ever do; his return to some sort of lucidity at the end with Cordelia which proves that he was beside himself in the storm. As a fine example of madness, they all approved of the version at the National where Lear beats the fool to death, because 'you'd have to be mad to kill the one person who's stood by you.'
|
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on Oct 4, 2016 9:47:56 GMT
No, as I mentioned before after 15 of them I've given up on the play. I've also given up on Sher after a few more than 15 chances. I concur with Trevor Nunn on the greatest Shakespeare play in performance (rather than on the page) and it ain't Lear. Go on then? Mine is Henry IV part 2. This week. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 4, 2016 10:53:38 GMT
No, as I mentioned before after 15 of them I've given up on the play. I've also given up on Sher after a few more than 15 chances. I concur with Trevor Nunn on the greatest Shakespeare play in performance (rather than on the page) and it ain't Lear. Go on then? Mine is Henry IV part 2. This week. Winters Tale (next chance to see it, Cheek by Jowl 2017) |
|
