Re Lear

This early one-reel "King Lear" suffers from being an overly condensed adaptation of Shakespeare's play, told with wordy title cards (in Pathé's typical red lettering) explaining proceeding action and a static camera in the tableau style. Moreover, even compared to the other early films included on the Silent Shakespeare video, this one features some very dated and bad acting. They over gesticulate, with lots of ludicrous arm waving, even by the standards of 1910. The brief sword fight in one scene is remarkably lame. In that same scene, they're unable to realistically bind a character in shackles, which is followed by another character drawing attention to this fault by trying to adjust the shackles before he looks at the camera and stops doing so--perhaps as a response to direction. Retakes were apparently not an option. Just about every scene is an example of some of the worst acting of the era.

Francesca Bertini, who plays the daughter Cordelia here, was an operatic and screen diva in her day, for some reason I cannot appreciate. In addition, she's in "The Merchant of Venice" (1911) included on the same video and starred in "Assunta Spina" (1915), which I, at least, think she was awful in--committing similar histrionics, but for an entire feature-length film. The brevity of this "King Lear" is a benefit, in that respect. Bertini isn't the worst offender this time, though. About the only thing this film has in its favor is Pathé's stencil-coloring, although the film changes between this and tints, but that might just be due to film deterioration. There's also some spotting on the print in parts.

This silent Italian film gives a colorful treatment of the basic plot of Shakespeare's "King Lear". It leaves out much of the plot, and of course has to make do without the dialogue, but it gives a reasonable portrait of Lear and his three daughters, and of some of the tragic events that unfold in their relationships. Lear is rendered believably as he goes through his various experiences.

What's really noteworthy about this little film, though, is the color. For large stretches of the movie, the characters' costumes and a few other details were given color, using the old method of frame-by-frame hand tinting. Some of the resulting scenes look very nice, and it is especially effective with Lear's costumes as his fortunes change. It must have been a real labor of love, and it really adds to the film.

This truncated silent version of Shakespeare's King Lear is an interesting curiosity piece. Color tinted and naturally without spoken words it obviously cuts the power of the Bard off at the knees forcing the actors to wildly gesticulate to get the drama across.

King Lear is a merry old soul who decides to divide his kingdom among his daughters. The two elder he gives large portions while youngest and most faithful daughter Cordelia asks for nothing and gets crumbs. With the shift in power both daughters turn on their father and caste him from his domain with the faithful Cordelia by his side.

Ermette Novelli as Lear has an imposing larger than life look about him as he responds to praise that turns into rage upon betrayal. Francesca Bertini as the suffering Cordelia is the most retrained and touching of the thespians while Ragan and Goneril built like Chicago Bear interior linemen throw their weight around with disdain.

Rickety and physically showing the ravages of age this treatment is worth the little time it asks of you (16 minutes). Not so much for its faithfulness to the folio but for the techniques of the era employed and for the audacity like all the other Shakespeare silents to present him without uttering a word.

If you have not seen this, it is a pantomime of a play with all the characters and plot of "Lear," but wonderfully colored. Just looking at the coloring is an adventure because they are so abstract, so unnaturally pure. But the sad thing is that many people, including actors I suppose, think these plays have much to do with their plot. This resembles "Lear" in only the most superficial of ways.

The concern in Lear is what is seen and what unseen, so would be an obvious choice for an experiment like this, if only they weren't so concerned with parading the story in front of us. The color, the hand thrusting acting style, even the silence would have worked on the "crazy trial" scene if it were taken alone (and knowing what happened before).

As it is, its a colorful curiosity from a community who never lucidly read the play.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

I have seen quite a few very early Shakespeare films--probably because I am some sort of masochist!! Just think about it--there were many silent versions of Shakepeare's plays made around the turn of the 19th century that lasted from three to twenty minutes long--not nearly enough time to do any of his plays any justice at all. It's like trying to condense the Encyclopedia Brittanica into a bumper sticker!! And given the low production values of the average picture of the time and generally poor acting, the films aren't especially watchable today like those of early film geniuses like Georges Méliès. However, for a bad early version of Shakepeare, this is among the best because at least a novice will have a general idea of what the play was about when the movie concludes and it's nice to see a hand painted color film--I have got to admire all the hard work that went into making it.