King Lear

This production was performed Live on the Omnibus TV series, which was the fore-runner to much of what PBS has become. The actors were directed by Peter Brook in 3 whirlwind weeks, and it features incidental music by Virgil Thompson... an impressive array of talent. It centers on a bravura performance by Welles in the title role, although Alan Badel also shines as the Fool.

Shot on a circular, 6-segment set with 2 cameras that traveled around the perimeter, it required innovative camera-work, especially at the end of scenes, where one camera had to sneak off to the next set to begin the following scene. The lighting is very contrasty and daring, sometimes even flaring the camera (unheard of for TV lighting). The confrontation between Lear and his two wicked daughters, for instance, is handled on one camera, very tight on Lear framed by the profiles of the daughters. The camera moves inches to the left or right, deftly shifting the dramatic axis of the scene moment by moment.

The production manager told me that during rehearsals, the prop man approached him in an agitated state, saying, "I just talked to Orson. For the mad scene, he wants a crown of thorns. Like Christ's... only bigger."

This production of King Lear, which seems to be the fairy-tale version of Shakespeare's play, eliminates large portions of the script and some of the characters, and fails to achieve the emotional intensity of the text.

The costuming is rather outlandish, the ladies wearing Elizabethan ruffs and Lear sporting a cartoonish cape and crown.

Edgar does not exist except as Poor Tom, and Edmund has been eliminated entirely.

Orson Welles - large, surly, and fierce - is neither overblown nor understated; the rest of the actors, however, are frequently melodramatic in their readings.

The sets are stylized, and the film creates little real feeling of Lear being exposed to the elements; the only concession to realism is an occasional token gust of wind. The violence is also surrealistic, with slow-motion stabbings and bloodless eye-gouging.

Once again IMDB is full of reviewers like coxxx011 who are too dumb to provide a rational review. Had he listen to the Alistair prolog he would have known thatn Peter took the sub characters out on purpose. In fact, he goes on at length to desribe this and explain why. What a jerk. This not withstanding, it's not a great production. The acting is rather wooden and the sets sparse -- perhaps due to limitations of an early TV adaption. I suspect Welles did his own makeup and it baely looks like him. Still, it's an interesting period peice from when TV actually broadcast real culture.

The film is in black and white video, and takes liberties with the plot. The Duke of Gloucester and his evil son Edmund, major characters in the play, are absent from the film. Orson Welles' King Lear costume makes him look like a refugee from Mystery Science Theater 3000.

This version of "King Lear" is worth seeing despite a low-budget look and some significant omissions from the original play. Orson Welles could do as much as anyone could with limited resources, and the rest of the cast perform their parts well enough - which is important, because the acting really has to carry this version almost by itself.

The concise version of the story about Lear and his daughters, which may have been affected by broadcasting constraints, leaves out some interesting and important characters who are meant to complement the main part of the story. Likewise, it probably could have been much more absorbing if they had devoted just a little more time and expenditure on the meager sets. Still, the main story is more than adequate when it is told well, and Welles always gives a distinctive interpretation to a weighty character like Lear.

Overall, this cannot be considered as one of the very best filmed versions of the play, since the accommodations made for television are all too obvious. But it is worth seeing, as it brings out the most important ideas in the play, and has some strengths of its own.