User reviews

Ah, now for my 100th review, chalked up after roughly four years of semi-regular sly-winking IMDb usury... What better for the "occasion" than a controversial adaptation of perhaps William Shakespeare's finest tragedy?

I watched this as part of my degree work on Shakespeare; I decided to focus on Shakespeare films, tracked down as many as I could and watched a good few. This was the first I viewed, and can I emphasise how contrasting a view of "Lear" it is as compared to Kurosawa's "Ran"? Whereas that film is wilfully expansive and an epic, if not a history, Brook's "King Lear" is a pared down, Beckettian film visualisation of the play. There are very few backgrounds, characters' faces frame so many shots, creating a claustrophobic focus. The interiors that there are are bleak, barren, less than inviting places; there is no sense of a royal grandeur (unlike "Ran") from which Lear falls.

Lear himself is played as an unfeeling, almost robotically callous chap early on, with Scofield delivering the lines in a very restrained, unexpressive way. This is far from the passionate, headstrong character of most performances. He is a husk of a man, and a dulling bully of a monarch, shown by the naturalistic, unbalanced violence he displays when in Goneril's castle. The feeling of Lear, later on in the play as genuinely a "fond" as well as "foolish" man, is downplayed deliberately. Again, the delivery of Shakespeare's poetry is muted. He comes across as perhaps too restrained and passionless in the later stages. The shift from power to impotence is however excellently conveyed during the storm scene, as first we see a shot of Lear from below, which then shifts quickly to one from a bird eye's view – Lear has been shown first as in control and central and then rendered a mere insignificant human being, with no control over anything.

Scofield however, does do very well, carrying out this very distanced, disquieting Lear of Brook's instruction, to the letter.

Other actors impress, and are much as restrained; there is little or no actorly show here, the emphasis is on Beckettian delivery of lines, paring down the expression to suggest the futility of expression; words as a mechanical act churned out by humanity, making no difference in a barren, Godless universe. Brook uses Beckett's adage: 'There is nothing to express, nothing with which to express, nothing from which to express… together with the obligation to express'. One can well say this is a reductive reading of Shakespeare, but it is spectacularly successful at its perhaps narrow aim. There are countless grounds in Shakespeare's Lear from which such an interpretation is born – the play on 'nothing' – 'Nothing will come of nothing' – and the example of Cordelia's death, which suggest a Godless, reasonless world in its arbitrariness.

Visually, Jack MacGowran and Patrick Magee, notable Beckett actors, make strong impressions, like Scofield, even if their parts are smaller. Susan Engel and Irene Worth are excellent and look just right as Regan and Goneril respectively, whereas a particularly downplayed Cordelia doesn't make much impression - the Christ-like element is absolutely not dwelt upon here, predictably, for what is a nihilistic interpretation.

Peter Brook's film could perhaps be argued to take place in the Dark Ages, but Brook is clearly interpreting the play in a universally, timeless Beckettian sense. One could liken the film's austerity to the Swedish writer-director Ingmar Bergman, but this film is certainly pared down in terms of setting and costume when compared with 'The Virgin Spring' or 'The Seventh Seal'. Brook's approach to Shakespeare shares none of the solace that Bergman finds in humanity in 'The Seventh Seal' with Max von Sydow's Knight's sublime moments with the couple of players. Brook's world-view is clearly informed by the Jan Kott school of Shakespeare criticism; the natural world is a reflection of the human one. Both spheres are bleak and hopeless, as marked by the indiscriminate, desolate Northern landscapes and the equally random acts of cruelty and violence perpetrated by the characters. A complete lack of incidental music suggests Brook is trying not to distract the viewer in any way from the effect he is trying to create.

It has been argued this interpretation is reductive to the play's language, and single-mindedly closes off many avenues in the play – Kingship, courtly manners and politics are but a few concerns that are neglected by Brook. Brook's film continually attempts to alienate the viewer, with jarring, incessantly restive camera movement and unorthodox angles. The moment of Gloucester's blinding sees Brook metaphorically blind the viewer to the action by having the screen blank; a Brechtian distancing technique, exposing the artifice of cinema and the subjective power the director has. Brook opts to make the play's usual climax point – the Edmund-Edgar duel – deliberately anti-climatic. He undercuts any heroism on Edgar's part by making the fight short and brutish, devoid of any skill whatsoever – Edgar arbitrarily wins. Likewise, the fates of Goneril and Regan are dispatched with a hurried violence. This 'Lear' ends inconclusively with no hope for the future – it does not end directly with Edgar's 'The weight of this sad time' speech, but with the shot of Lear's head tilting back, gradually out of sight against a completely white sky. This expression of emptiness – both that Lear is going neither to Heaven or Hell and that things are not likely to get any better or worse.

A very impressive film, that certainly has divided critics. While the "ultimate" film "Lear" may not have been made yet (at least from the ones I have seen), this is a brilliant, bleak, Beckett-informed version. A powerful, wonderfully alienating and stark Shakespeare.

in a moment of irony that could occur only in cinema, the definitive version of Shakespeare's 'king Lear' is Kurosawa akira's 1985 'ran'. only Kurosawa - at the end of his own career and looking back at at a century of blindness socially and politically, that dragged his culture through the horrors of the Tojo regime and the second world war - could grasp the essential insight of Shakespeare's vision of political perversion arising from simple but fundamental personal mistakes in judgment.

brook, of course, doesn't go after that. in fact, the issues just noted have been missed just about entirely by every American and British version of the play i've seen, even Laurence Olivier's farewell performance on television just before he died.

so when we come to brook's film, we have to let go of the hope that this will be the 'ur-Lear' that we seem to have misplaced in the west ever since the Elizabethan era.

in fact, let's let go of Shakespeare completely, here - this is a peter brook film, and brook is actually after something fundamentally cinematic - but not necessarily Shakespearean.

brook's film is a relentless portrayal of the world turned upside down. the most memorable quality of the film - and it stuck to me for many years - is the camera work, that gets unsteadier and more rapidly cut as the film goes on, until the audience feels trapped inside a house in a hurricane - and one that's quickly falling apart.

to find some ground in this visual catastrophe, the audience will desperately grab onto Shakespeare's words or the fine performances by the wonderful cast - but be warned - that's not really going to help much, and it's not supposed to.

brook, who made his name by approaching theatrical stage performances in a rather daring visual style, clearly wanted to see how far he could push the medium - the audience will have to decide whether he's successful - but the effort itself is worthy of respect.

Protagonists for William Shakespeare's plays run the gamut of age. From teenagers Romeo&Juliet to the ancient King Lear. Shakespeare was an ardent observer of mankind at all ages.

I've often wondered if Shakespeare got the germ of an idea for Lear when in his lifetime he saw Emperor Charles V who had a lot of Europe and a lot of the new world under his control. Politics of the time dictated he divide his empire and half went to his son who became Philip II of Spain and the other half went to brother Maximilian of Austria. Charles died in a monastery 2 years later.

It might have been better for Lear if he had locked himself up in a monastery and stayed there. But he was a tired old man and he had daughters instead of suns. Two daughters flatter the old guy and they get two halves of the kingdom. The third doesn't play that game and he cuts her off.

Then instead of staying in a monastery, the daughters and their husbands make it real clear to Lear that his advice and counsel aren't needed or wanted. Quite a shock coming from his 'faithless' children.

Peter Brook directed and also augmented Shakespeare's plot with some of his own ideas. More than Bard purists denounced the production, but as I remember they fit into the play structure nicely.

Brook also shot the film on the bleak and craggy shores of the Danish coastline. You can hardly tell this is a color film. But that also fit in well with the bleak and moody atmosphere of the play itself.

One undeniable asset this King Lear has is Paul Scofield in the title role. He is nothing short of superb in the title role and he underplays a lot more than either Laurence Olivier or Orson Welles in the same part. His closeups tell a great deal of the story.

This is not the best King Lear, but for Paul Scofield fans an absolute must.

As has happened so many times with the Oscars, another great film-actor-ensemble has been neglected. Recognised nearly universally as the ultimate test of an actor's craft, Paul Scofield as Lear in this 1971 version could be deified for his performance, even more complex than his Oscar-winning Thomas More in 1966's best pic "A Man For All Seasons". Viewing this film should be a prerequisite not just for R.A.D.A. acting students. Incorporating as he did the essence of Lear so organically, Scofield sadly was not even nominated, another nod to the lowest common denominator public taste. This review, nearly forty years after the pic's release, was an on-the-spot spontaneous impulse after yet another viewing of the film. People are afraid of Shakespeare(a.l.a. DeVere); don't be. All, but especially any pained by their own offspring, will turn away from the screen with much more than a penny's worth of thought and a rediscovery of the art of Paul Scofield and ensemble. It is a cliché, but they just don't make movies like this one anymore.

"King Lear" is not one of my favourite Shakespeare plays (sacrilege indeed!) but I must say I find this film version immensely impressive and the best film version of Shakespeare I have seen.

The key to this is the direction of Peter Brook. Unquestionably this is an "arty" avant-garde production that has echoes of Bergman and Beckett as other reviewers have noted. For me this works extremely well. The choice of a barren Danish landscape in winter, the use of black and white, and unusual decision to eschew music all contribute to a very dark and bleak atmosphere. The director keeps viewers on their toes and presents a despairing tragedy.

There is nothing theatrical about this - quite rightly as this is a film version. The performances are restrained and measured. The acting is very strong - Patrick Magee particularly stands out as a very menacing Cornwall while Susan Engel and Irene Worth are fine as the manipulative elder sisters.

My only real reservation is that the climax of the film is rather rushed, with the numerous deaths needing a little more reflection. The suicide of Goneril is though extremely powerful. Lear's death is always poignant but the direction of it doesn't work completely.

Opinions are very mixed on this film but I certainly think it deserves attention. It would especially appeal to followers of Bergman and anyone who is struck by a dark tale.

Scofield is a great actor, and Peter Brook is a great director, but this production lacks moxie. Scofield doesn't seem old enough, weak enough, or mentally decayed enough. He doesn't have enough force in the storm. "Nothing will come of nothing" is not a line to throw away.

Also, the narrative was insufficiently clear: it was difficult to understand what anybody's motivation was, other than that the daughters were fed up with their father's demands. Why did the rest of the cast behave in the way that they did ? I don't think it was at all clear, and one would really have to know the play backwards already to get any satisfactory meaning from it.

Still, it was an interesting experience to have seen it, which I don't regret. Olivier was better.

Despite a mixed reception, there was more than enough to persuade me to see this film version of 'King Lear'. That the play itself is one of Shakespeare's best, regardless of one's feelings of the titular character in the first act the play does contain a lot of emotional impact, iconic characters and scenes and some of the best dialogue he ever wrote. The cast are an immensely talented one, with Paul Scofield especially always an actor that had the ability to make anything he was in better. That it was directed by Peter Brook.

Although there will be people who disagree, to me there isn't a "bad" available version of 'King Lear' and the best versions (such as the 70s Russian film) are brilliant. Even the weaker versions, which left me conflicted if anything, have a good deal to recommend. This film is one of the lesser adaptations, with, like the version with Antony Hopkins, a lot to like but also some serious reservations. It is a laudable attempt at a mammoth play, with the cast (though more the men than the women) being one of the better aspects overall but that it's heavily cut is an undoing as well as that it tries to do too much.

Shall start with the good things. The best aspect is Scofield's insightful and intensely moving Lear, and other standouts are Jack McGowran's refreshingly sinister Fool (a character that can be annoying, but McGowran gives one of the best interpretations of the role of any available version of the play in my view), Patrick Magee's creepy Cornwall and Alan Webb's poignant Gloucester. Was not as keen on the ladies overall, but coming off best easily is Susan Engel's venomous and chillingly manipulative Regan.

Did like the suitably darkly foreboding costumes and sets a lot and the film is scored hauntingly. Shakespeare's dialogue wrenches the gut and is both beautiful and uncompromising, then again this aspect is consistently wonderful in every play of his regardless of the story (that quality overall is a lot more variable). Brook's direction does do very well at most of the character interactions, all the male roles are directed vividly and there are some gripping dramatic moments, such as one of the most moving interpretations of Gloucester's death scene seen in any version of 'King Lear'.

There are shortcomings sadly however. At too many points, Brook's direction comes over as too eccentric and has too much of a showing off feel visually. Despite loving the sets and costumes, the photography and editing generally are too stylised and the worst of it amateurish. The camerawork tends to be too frantic and the abruptness of the closeups and editing disorientated rather than fascinated.

Adaptation-wise, this 'King Lear' is heavily cut, so there is a jumpy feel to the dialogue and structure that can affect the coherence of the already complex drama and motivations. Doing so while also having some dull stretches. The female roles are not near as interesting as the male ones, only Engel registers. Irene Worth has her unsettling moments as Goneril but generally is too soft spoken. Faring worst is Annelise Gabold's very bland Cordelia, whose role felt somehow underwritten here.

Concluding, some great things but also some not so good. 6/10.

Easily one of my favorite movies of all time, Peter Brook's King Lear demands that you think, and will disturb you because you are alive and will one day (statistically speaking) be an old, foolish, feeble, mistake-laden human. Comment to the angles and lighting and all the things that seem to consistently disturb viewers: place yourself in the mind of a slowly ebbing ego, driven to rage over confusion and denied shame--an old man of four score and not a day more, in love with his youngest daughter, living his final days having denied and banished her... of course you are never going to see someone clearly, steadily, squarely, or in the same screen area. This masterfully bleak representation of one of Shakespeare's more difficult plays is unjustly in moratorium. I have shown it to many of my classes and will continue until the tape is worn with holes. Brook's treatment of Edgar is so haunting, so perfect, if you leave this feeling empty and lost, bravo! He who scoffs at their first viewing of this film is simply not watching the film, but is watching their expectations dashed on the wall.

First of all, even though I didn't like this film, it certainly deserves a lot more than the 23 votes and one user review (mine) that it currently has. After all, we're talking about a film version of "King Lear!" Unfortunately, this version looks like someone slipped some heavy sedatives into the actors and didn't give them time to recover before filming started. Paul Scofield is undoubtedly a fine actor, but his version of "King Lear" strikes me as being too phlegmatic instead of choleric, the way I imagine Lear to be. On the other hand, maybe this play is just so tragic that it is way more difficult to stage than "Hamlet", "Julius Caesar" or "Macbeth". If this doesn't seem plausible, than just consider which one of the "Big Four" tragedies seems to be the least commonly staged and filmed. In "Hamlet," something is rotten in the state of Denmark; in "Lear" almost everything and everyone in the entire world is rotten. Is it possible for someone out there in Tinseltown to make a really epic film version of this epic tragedy? I don't know, but I'd certainly like to see Kenneth Branagh give it a try...

What's good: Alan Webb's Gloucester and Jack MacGowran's Fool both threaten to steal the picture. Webb is immensely touching in his attempted suicide, but then, I have trouble thinking of a bad Gloucester. Cyril Cusack as Albany and Tom Fleming as Kent should also be praised, and Patrick Magee is creepy as ever as Cornwall.

Henning Kristiansen's cinematography is stunning, rendering Jutland in winter the most inhospitable Learscape ever, and this is the same fellow who shot the lush "Babette's Feast" in the same general location! When Lear and friends are outside being battered by the storm, we see the ungrateful villains inside basking in the warmth of a gigantic roaring fireplace. The visual contrast has never been greater. When Poor Tom's cold, he's really cold in real snow, not just clasping himself and shivering on cue.

Peter Brook's productions often involve wholesale cuts and rearrangements, plus hefty doses of non-authorial content. Yes, this Lear is cut to the bone, the style owes much to Bergman, Beckett, Brecht, etc.

The criminal waste is that Paul Scofield was a major Lear of his generation, and it's gutted here. His magnificent voice is thinned out to a thread, and much of the time the character is distant, veiled and under-energized. His disintegration arouses pity, but no audience involvement. We watch him die from a million miles away, and lose more than we gain with this application of alienation technique.

By the same token, Irene Worth's whispered Goneril is not the volcano we want. For example, she is incapable of expressing lust for Edmund, and that's a crucial omission, not in the text, but in the performance. Two fine actors are caught at considerably less than their best, giving the director what he wanted.

The energy level all around is a bit low, which kills much of what remains of Shakespeare's language, but what really hurts is the leaden pace. Considering half the play is missing, we start slowly, and after Gloucester hits the beach, grind to a complete halt. Entropy is total. Even with the text gutted and filleted, the last half hour of the film feels longer than many complete plays.

For DVD versions with complete texts, don't overlook Jonathan Miller's neurologically-informed production for the BBC with Michael Hordern and Brenda Blethyn. The more mainstream, star-studded Olivier video is an automatic choice for many.

However, another abbreviated version directed by Peter Brook features perhaps the best reading of Shakespeare's Lear of them all, from Orson Welles. This 90-minute condensation from the early days of live television also features Alan Badel, Beatrice Straight and Micheal MacLiammoir. First you must get past the resourceful but limited visuals, two cameras in a single studio running the whole play live without a break. The reward is that no one, no one does Lear's poetry more clearly, simply, powerfully and beautifully than Orson Welles.

Peter Brook has the knack of making his stagings completely his own while at the same time enhancing the character of the play. Thus in "Carmen" he turns it into something of a chamber play, and here in King Lear he stresses the primitivism of the play turning into almost something like a documentary of the dark ages. In especially the first part including the storm he is entirely successful, in spite of the rather experimental expressionism,and the realism of the primitive middle age settings in a landscape of only moors and snows, not a tree in the whole film, is effectively impressing. The actors are superb throughout, and Paul Scofield renders a very interesting interpretation of the old man losing himself with occasional magnificent outbursts of powerful rage. The play is shortened, of course, you can't put all of a Shakespeare play into a film, (I believe the only successful attempt at that was Kenneth Branagh's "Hamlet" and very commendable as such,) while here the text abbreviations unfortunately suffer, the cuts being so obvious. Another flaw is that the articulation is not very good - it was fashionable in the end of the 60s to allow actors to talk on stage like as if they talked naturally, but theatre can't do without rhetoric; and especially with a language like this, which is the very essence of the play, you can't trifle with it, every word has to be pronounced distinctly, or it isn't Shakespeare.

Towards the end the direction gets more sloppy, the intensity loses its grip, while the apocalyptic battle scenes crown the direction. The austere scenery throughout I believe will be what you most will remember of this film adaptation, which couldn't be more impressive, while I think I would prefer the Russian version from about the same time as more convincingly Shakespearian. Since many years I have been waiting for an opportunity to see the Laurence Olivier version from 1983.

Peter Brook dressed his characters in animal skins, loaded them into wagons, and set them in a black-and-white, minimalist world. The verse is lopped and hacked rather than merely cut, and it is spoken with a brutality that sometimes seems to smash it into prose. This Lear is expressionist and absurdist, cruel and bleak.

Except for the Fool's songs and some electronic sounds, the film features no music, only harsh human voices.

Sometimes beautiful, sometimes hateful, this production at times reaches the levels of pain that Shakespeare built into the play. However, the bleakness is so uninterrupted that it occasionally becomes boring.

The cast is powerful, with Paul Scofield especially impressive.

It was a really good film... but I HATED IT. Objectively, it was a really fantastic and apt adaptation of the play, but subjectively, I would have rather watched paint dry. Set in some desolate, almost dystopian, icy, barren landscape; the production design was brilliant and unique, perfectly capturing the desperation of the play. Unlike so many other filmic Shakespeare adaptations, it actually worked really well as a movie, and made the most of "film" as a medium; making the set and the costumes add to the feel of the play. However... It was dull, boring, tortuously long, depressing.... I couldn't stand it. I'm a Shakespeare fan, and I thought I knew this play, but the adaptation still left me thoroughly confused, primarily because I struggle with faces, and every character looked exactly the same. Overall, I'd say steer very clear unless you are a very dedicated King Lear fan, or a very dedicated Peter Brook fan.

King Lear is a very complex and powerful tragedy, and therefore adapting it is difficult. Peter Brook's 1971 film, shot in black and white, actually does a great job and summons up most of the titanic power of its source material. This has been a divisive film, and I can partially see why. With its drained, melancholy black and white cinematography, gloomy line delivery, subtle camera movements and dark, nightmare-like atmosphere, this does not hold back at all in its bleakness, and is not for the faint of heart. This is one highly nihilistic movie, so do not watch this for a good time. Still, King Lear is one of the most depressing plays ever written so perhaps that's appropriate. Despite the liberties it takes with the play (It cuts out much of the dialogue and its unrelenting misery occasionally causes the play's more optimistic, tender moments to lose some of their impact), this is a very good film which urgently needs more attention. Peter Brook's direction is haunting and brutally bleak, yet best of all very subtle and intelligently understated. Paul Scofield is brilliant as Lear, and gives a wonderful and pleasingly quiet performance as the tragic protagonist. Another highlight is the Fool, who is drained of all his normal humour. A miserable film for sure, but a very compelling one with a terrific finale. This is a very worthy adaptation overall and shows just how much of a gut-punch King Lear is.

9/10

I have read altogether too many reviews of this film which bash it all to hell because the reviewer doesn't agree with Brook's reading of KING LEAR. To all such folk I would like to say: We Shakespeare fans should positively glory in the fact that every reader (and a fortiori every director) has his or her own interpretation of all the plays. Given Brook's interpretation, the film is wonderful.

This version of Shakespeare's greatest tragedy is not only consistent with itself, which most aren't, it is acted to a hilt. The characters are brilliantly portrayed. The interactions between them appear as the absolute and utter epitome of conflict and love, of the heroic and villainous way people act when confronted with a situation that is calculated to freak a human being out.

My favorite characterization is that of the Fool, who utterly steals the show and who becomes almost a Greek chorus. The way he interacts with Lear suggests a metaphysical mood of "We know exactly what's going on here, don't we?" The understanding between these two is too deep to be expressed in normal language; in the conversation around "The reason why the seven stars are only seven" (which would have struck any of the other characters, except maybe Kent, as a demented sequence of non sequiturs) suggests that Lear knows, at least at that moment, how the story will turn out, and that his attitude is one of "what is't to leave betimes? Let be." The Fool is here a prophet of absurdity, a Dark Age cross between a Marx Brother and Lenny Bruce.

And I challenge anyone to show me any actors who could do Kent and Gloucester better than those who portrayed them in this film. To say nothing of the wonderful job Scofield does with the title role.

Brook's Lear is almost sociopathically unfeeling until disaster begins to overtake him. To be sure, this view of Lear is not mine. But again, Shakespeare's characters are topics inexhaustible, and there is no such thing as a Lear to end all Lears. Whether one agrees with Brook or not, he carries his idiosyncratic reading off brilliantly---just as brilliantly as Laurence Olivier and Ian Holm in their utterly un-Brookish TV versions. I say: Let it ride! Let's have as many defensible and indefensible Lears as possible, and let's have them as utterly contradictory of each other as the 1945 and 1991 film versions of Henry the Fifth are.

By the way, I am a recent convert to this position. Before I saw the light, I was (for example) utterly ticked off at Kenneth Branagh's film of HAMLET, because it portrayed the Prince as having had sex with Ophelia way back when, and because its Fortinbras was an uncultured creep who dissed Hamlet by tearing down his father's monument. Wasn't it obvious that the text utterly contradicts both notions? Yep! But Branagh would have every right to say to me, "The hell with you, go make your own film." And so would Brook to his critics.

See it, friend. I look forward to our friendly argument.

The above reviewer certainly completely missed the point of this production. Perhaps he needs to do some research into King Lear before he berates this particular interpretation. Certainly it's challenging to watch, but that was entirely Brook's intention. He's taken King Lear and emphasised the absurdist elements of the play to draw out its nihilism. It's supposed to be bleak/non-sensical in some parts/incoherent/challenging for an audience to watch. I suggest you understand it before you berate it. If it just didn't tickle your fancy then that's fine. In the post-modern tradition Brook removes and alters significant chunks of the original Shakespeare text. The film is chaotically edited, reinforcing the theme of Order to Chaos within the play. Brook's interpretation is definitely challenging to watch. Absurdist theatre is intended to be confronting for a viewer. It is totally bleak, but keep an open mind as you watch it.

From Scofield's soporific destruction of Lear's initial scene which he staggers through as if asleep, to the bland, dead sets, even to the woeful miscasting of Goneril (Irene Worth), where the actress is two decades too old to be credibly cursed by Lear with sterility (Worth was 54 during filming, an absurd choice)---the production blunders at nearly every step.

Lear is an arrogant prattler, a blowhard, a noxious villain, and it's very difficult to feel any empathy for him at all. This version drains all life from him and any reason to give a damn about his character's development. Great language, of course, but a difficult play to do well, and abysmal choices throughout even down to line readings and basic set design, sink it entirely.

Skip this one.

What makes Shakespeare such a classic production is the talented actors like Paul Scofield C.B.E., C.H. and Irene Worth Honorary C.B.E. in their roles as King Lear and Goneril. I saw Irene Worth on Broadway in Lost in Yonkers but that was nothing compared to her role as Goneril. You forget the other actresses who play Cordelia and Regan. Her role of Goneril is chilling, complicated, icy, yet divine to watch. She really packs punches into this supporting role. Why Paul Scofield and Irene Worth were not nominated for Academy Awards is a shame because this film really works with the both of them in these roles. I can't imagine a better Goneril or a King Lear. The film was edited for the obvious reasons that all of Shakespeare's language cannot be used effectively but Peter Brook is a genius in knowing what Shakespeare would have wanted in this film. Peter Book C.B.E., C.H. is a Shakespeare expert and well-respected and beloved British director. He has done a remarkable job in bringing King Lear to life with a master such as Paul Scofield and Irene Worth's Goneril is absolutely divine! You can't take your eyes off her in this role.

Much reviled at the time of it's release, this heavily cut, Danish

co-production horrified critics with it's bleak as possible take on what

some consider the world's greatest play.

Obviously influenced by nortic flicks from Dryer to Bergman,

Peter Brook shot this as a midevil horror show; and Pauline Kael called

it his "Night Of The Living Dead."

While certainly unfair to the scope of the Bard's vision, the

film is undeniably facinating; though sometimes tedious too. In the best

parts it comes alive with a vivid wickedness, you can certainly see how

Lear's daughter's came to hate his guts!

So, even if it does mutilate a classic, this film is pretty

amazing and highly recommendable. A dark product of it's own time, you

will scarcely see a Lear like this again.

Shamefully overlooked and unavailable on DVD in the United States (though viewers can order the region 2 disc from Britain), this is one of the best Shakespearean films--no one will ever call it "stagy"! Inspired by Peter Brook's legendary 1962 stage production, this version of Lear is absurdist and Beckettian, unfolding in a cruel universe devoid of meaning. Filmed in stark black-and-white in the most barren regions of Denmark, the setting is almost post-apocalyptic; the barbaric costumes, assembled from masses of fur and leather, make the cast look truly "like monsters of the deep."

Brooks directs and edits in a rough-edged style that will confuse those who mistake innovation for incompetence. Lines are often addressed toward the camera, characters melt in and out of focus during moments of crisis, negative space abounds along with inserts of complete blackness, zooms are timed to the endings of lines, and the finale features brutal shock cuts. These effects are not intended as mere flashiness--they convey the alienation and disorientation at work in Shakespeare's cruelest play. Brook's handling of the storm scene exemplifies this. It's hard to imagine anyone doing a better job--the screen flashes black one minute and is scorched white the next, thunder seems to converse with Lear, whose initially blurry image (thanks to rain streaking down the camera lens) is replaced by low angle shots of him raging at the void of the sky.

The casting is often perfect, with Tom Fleming's rough-edged but jovial Kent; Jack Macgowran's low-key, sharp Fool; Alan Webb's Gloucester, initially fussy before turning into the film's most moving performance; Robert Lloyd's vigorous Edgar; Irene Worth's Goneril, with her lizard smile and she-wolf's eyes; and Patrick Magee's Cornwall, the epitome of banal, soft-spoken evil.

The only disappointment is Paul Scofield's Lear, which like the film itself diminishes during the last third. Scofield is the impressively imposing and monolithic Lear on film (when he says "Unnatural hags!" the cameraman shakes), speaking in a tone somewhere between a grumble and growl. But the voice grows monotonous; his Lear seems stolid. Neither madness not compassion seem to really touch him. Scofield occasionally breaks free in moments of extreme distress, like the storm scene, where he hints how magnificent his voice can be, but not often enough. Brook's emphasis on bleakness limits the range of a play that is meant to be emotionally wrenching. A scene like the wounding of Cornwall is almost comically rushed, as if Brook was embarrassed by a scene involving genuine decency (the old man who aids the wounded Gloucester is cut of course).

As noted, the final third of this adaptation feels rushed, almost like a digest, though Brook ingeniously improves on Shakespeare when handling the comeuppance of Regan and Goneril. Regardless of its flaws, Brook's King Lear perhaps the most daring and experimental film made from one of Shakespeare's plays. Wintry, brutal, and thrilling, its images will stay with you for years to come.

I can think of few other films that carry such epic and classical themes, yet have been so fully and masterfully realized on the screen. I have been returning of late to my 25 favorite films, and "King Lear" has not faded one bit, albeit a poor transfer to video. Peter Brook's vision is staggeringly bleak, yet every actor, scene, and line reading is deeply suited to the text and Brook's vision. The camera work and editing, a tour de force. I think it is his finest film.

Paul Scofield may have been the greatest actor in the English-speaking world, yet he made relatively few films, prefering the stage. Yes, he was honored for A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS, but that was an easy roll for him. His Lear demands to be seen: from his opening shot in the stoney silence of his tree-trunk throne to his moaning in the storm with his Fool to his howl of grief at his lifeless, cherished daughter, this is a performance to be returned to time and again.

Plus, there is a supporting cast to beat all: Irene Worth as Goneril (with a surprising death scene), the great Jack MacGowran as the Fool, Patrick Magee as Cornwall, Cyril Cusak as Albany, and Brook stalwart Robert Lloyd in the difficult roll of Edgar. The film was shot in Jutland, Denmark, during the winter, and the setting is as bleak and barren as Lear's eldest daughters' feelings for their confused father.

Why is this film so rarely seen? It deserves a new, letter-boxed print, and it seems a project right up Criterion's alley. In the meantime, make the effort to find a copy. It's on DVD in England.

This overwhelmingly bleak and desolate portrayal of my favorite Shakespeare play leaves little to be desired. I fashion myself a purist and am all but completely unbothered by the abridged nature of Brook's vision. Everything that should be there is. The transplanting of setting to some scandanavian tundra is little problem, for it provides the harshness and nothingness of Lear's pre-Christian environment to be all the more oppressive. Perhaps the most memorable scene is when Kent is out in the stocks, and in Brook's setting all the horror, pain, and humiliation of his punishment is put center stage. This is one of if not the best Shakespeare adaptations I have ever seen.