King Lear

Anthony Hopkins deserves his King Lear. The film is a good proof. And only problem about the new version of play could be only the expectation of the viewer. Maybe, too high. Because it is a beautiful film and it is not a real surprise . Impecable performances, seductive use of modern ingredients, political correctness. And the feeling to discover a sort of version of Titus Andronicus. Something is missing in the performance of Sir Hopkins. It is a correct Lear but nothing more. Like a well known lesson presented front to the class. A sort of sketch using familiar, for public, skills. After its end, not exactly The King Lear remains in memory but an admirable Regan, a precise Earl of Kent, a fine Goneril, an inspired Cordelia. King Lear is more a reflection of the other characters. So, a beautiful version. But one in the shadow of the others.

My word not many laughs in King Lear. My son who fancied a bit of Shakespeare got put off by the eye gouging scene of Gloucester. He went off to watch a James Bond movie, Spectre I think!

Richard Eyre who worked with Anthony Hopkins in the film version of The Dresser, reunited with him again as Eyre adapts and directs the film version of King Lear.

The setting is modern day Britain as a military dictatorship.

The ageing Lear has gathered his family to divide up his kingdom in what proves to be unwise. One part to his daughter Goneril (Emma Thompson), the other to Regan (Emily Watson) and the remainder would had gone to Cordelia (Florence Pugh) until she fails to show her father enough devotion and flattery. She is disinherited and banished.

The declaration of love and devotion from Goneril and Regan are false. The autocrat is usurped from his power by two of his offspring with Cordelia who was the only daughter true to him. Lear descends into madness.

Eyre has wisely cut the text down so the running length is less than two hours but I still found the play dense and also at times choppy. I liked some of the updates. Edgar and Edmund's battle is a mixed martial arts contest. Lear walks around the shopping precinct, homeless and pathetically pushing a shopping trolley with rubbish.

Hopkins, maybe due to his Celtic temperament delivers a shouty performance. A man in rage and also pathetic as he is played like a puppet on a string by Goneril and Regan.

This Lear is wonderfully filmed, the picture gets desaturated as the story gets bleaker by the end.

The film is heavily abridged. It's a real tragedy. If they had filmed the whole play this might have been the best Lear ever televised. Nevertheless there's much to like in this telling of Lear.

Casting the Fool as an old man was a stroke of minor genius - his rapport with Lear is the best I've ever seen it on film OR stage; The modern setting (not often my preference) works well here and lends the whole a seriousness for modern viewers that too many ruffled shirts might've threatened; The photography and cinematography are honestly world-class; The cast has no weak links and many excellent performances. Andrew Scott as Edgar, Karl Johnson as the Fool, and Jim Carter as Kent were the stand-outs for me.

As for Anthony Hopkins's Lear I have only good things to say. His Lear stands with the very best, I honestly believe. He's all the madness and all the pity, and he plays it so easily that it somehow never once sounds theatrical, pompous or silly - quite a feat for any Shakespearean role in the 21st century, but dubly so for Lear.

With Shakespeare there's no substitute for a live performance, but this film is a real accomplishment regardless. Bravo all. Highly recommended!

Most Shakespeare plays have been set in modern times by now, so the idea is far from revolutionary, but it is done well. The cast is stellar, and the production is focused on them and the original text, instead of the setting, which gives this adaptation a theater feel, which will appeal to most Shakespeare fans.

Really did want to like this version of 'King Lear' more. The play itself is wonderful, very haunting and moving even if the titular character frustrates you at first (but one does grow to sympathise with him). Richard Eyre has done a fair share of interesting and well done theatre, film and television productions and is no stranger to Shakespeare, being director of the brilliant 'The Hollow Crown' adaptations of both 'Henry IV' parts. And of course the cast is a dream one.

'King Lear' (2018) has a lot of great things about it, but in my mind it didn't completely come together. It does laudably with a difficult play, but is rather uneven. As the cast are great and all give great performances in their own way, the atmosphere is strong and there are many memorable scenes and interactions. The truncations do hurt the pacing and storytelling sadly and quite badly and this is not one of Eyre's better overall directing efforts.

Lets start with the good things. The best thing about this 'King Lear' is the acting, which is very good to superb throughout in all the roles. Antony Hopkins mesmerises as Lear, showing poignant tragedy and titanic, near-histrionic fury in equal measure in a way that is intense, noble and affecting. Emma Thompson is a suitably venomous Goneril and Emily Watson was never this blood-thirsty, manipulative or deceptively caring. Jim Broadbent is tremendously powerful as Gloucester. Florence Pugh is very touching without being passive as Cordelia and John MacMillan is effectively creepy as Edmund. Very interesting portrayal of the Fool, not overplayed or annoying thankfully. The character interaction is also strongly handled, especially between Lear and Cordelia.

Enough of the production values are fine, the austerity of the setting and costumes suits the atmosphere of the story perfectly as it is an austere play without going too over the top in it. Steven Warbeck's score is haunting. Shakespeare's text is still complex emotionally and sheer poetry, it is a shame though that it is so heavily abridged. The story is compelling enough and has some great moments, the big scene between Lear and Cordelia brought tears to my eyes and the film has one of the most unsettling renditions of the gouging of the eyes scene.

However, there are quite a number of glaring flaws. The text is heavily abridged and with so much cut out the pacing and story suffer. As does some of the character writing. The pacing feels very rushed frequently and the story feels choppy and regularly confuses, even for somebody who is familiar with the play so goodness knows how those that are not would feel. A shame as there are scenes that are done very well, especially those aforementioned.

Furthermore, not all the characters are done justice. Lear, Cordelia and Gloucester are. Less successful in particular are Edmund and Regan, though as indicated they are both played excellently. Edmund is very sketchily written with underdeveloped motivations and Regan is not enough of the seemingly sympathetic and "we can trust her" character one thinks she is at first but comes over as manipulative and all round evil from the start. Eyre's direction has enough flashes of brilliance, but tends to be too heavy-handed. Some of the camerawork veers on gimmicky.

In conclusion, a lot to like but some big drawbacks too. Frustratingly uneven. 6/10.