Re Lear

They like their costume films do the Italians, so it's hardly any wonder that they were quick to adapt Shakespeare's plays for the screen. Here, many of the scenes are stencil-coloured, although these are spliced with conventional monochrome prints in the version I watched. To be honest, these black-and-white scenes are something of a relief after all the gaudy colours.

The film is a prestige production from Film d'Arte Italiana, an offshoot of the French company that dedicated itself to raising the cultural quality of cinema (with only limited success). As with most early silent films, the film relies heavily on titles to explain what is happening, and too frequently the titles are inadequate, leaving the viewer to scratch their head as they try to make sense of what's going on. The pace is fairly measured, and it seems to be quite an earnest adaptation. One point the commentator on the DVD soundtrack made: note how the actors always leave stage left or right – never towards or away from the character or at an oblique angle. It emphasises not only the stage roots of the source material but the halting way in which cinema was still finding its way as a medium (and art form) in its own right.

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.

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.

This Italian version of King Lear is memorable mainly because of the primitive hand-tinting, which remains bright and good to look at. In the lead, Ermente Novelli is touching and mesmerising, while Francesca Bertini is a charming and naive Cordelia. Novelli's wife plays one of the other daughters.

Silent Shakespeare productions were curious since these plays do rely so much on their message being conveyed by the use of dialogue. That short examples like this one still work when nearly a century has passed is staggering. The BFI are to be particularly commended in making productions like 'Re Lear' available on home video.

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.