What do you think?
Rate this book
King Lear
King Lear, widely considered Shakespeare's most deeply moving, passionately expressed, and intellectually ambitious play, has almost always been edited from the revised version printed in the First Folio of 1623, with additions from the quarto of 1608. Now for the first time, this new volume presents the full, scholarly edition to be based firmly on the quarto, now recognized as the base text from which all others derive. A thorough, attractively written introduction suggests how the work grew slowly in Shakespeare's imagination, fed by years of reading, thinking, and experience as a practical dramatist.
This editition consists of a new, modern-spelling text; a full index to the introduction and commentary; production photographs and related art. The on-page commentary and detailed notes to this edition offer critical help in understanding the language and dramaturgy in relation to the theaters in which King Lear was first performed. Additional sections reprint the early ballad, which was among the play's earliest sources, and provide additional guides to understanding and appreciating one of the greatest masterworks of Western civilization.
- GenresShakespeare
110 pages, Hardcover
First published December 1, 1988
7 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
November 13, 2011
Alexander Leggatt's second edition of his 'King Lear' (one of the publications under the 'Shakespeare in Performance' series from Manchester University Press) examines several productions of the play during the 20th century. It covers four British productions: in 1940 (Harvey Granville Barker, with John Geilgud as Lear), in 1962 (Peter Brook/Paul Scofield), in 1979 (Robin Phillips/Peter Ustinov), and in 1982 (Adrian Noble/Michael Gambon); two films: in 1970 (Russian director Grigori Kozintsev, with Yuri Yarvet as Lear) and in 1971 (Peter Brook/Paul Scofield); three television productions: in 1982 (Jonathan Miller/Michael Horden), in 1983 (Michael Elliot/Laurence Olivier), and in 1998 (Richard Eyre/Ian Holm); and finally, in 1985, film director Akira Kurasawa's astonishing Japanese take on the story in his 'Ran'.
This is obviously meant to be read by students of the theatre: a basic familiarity with the text of the play is necessary, and the greater the access to as many of the productions listed, the better. We are dealing here with the problems facing the producer (in theatre) or the director (in film) in how one is to approach the play. And this is where the book comes into its own. Not only are the general ideas about the play by the producer/director are discussed, and how they hoped to realise those ideas (not only from the finished production, but often enough even to working script notes and instructions which may or may not have made it into the final presentation. The opinions as to whether these ideas were successful or not are also canvassed, from reports and reviews of the work by those outside the production.
Shakespeare's 'King Lear' is perhaps the play which most often than not evokes superlatives of all kinds: the greatest, the most powerful; the most moving; the most difficult, the most contradictory, the most bleak, etc. Leggatt deals not only with the major concerns, but also with the interpretations needed by the other players in the work as envisaged by the producer/director, some of whose original decisions will alter the way the actors act/react, dress, come to the fore, or recede to the background. Problems abide: the setting — should it reflect only a 'cosmic' view on humanity? or one linked to a particular time and place? which time? and which place? How should Lear enter the stage/scene? How show the grandiose matters together with the more intimate? How significant is the 'dysfunctional family' motif? How significant is the 'lust for power' motif? How 'regal' should Lear be to those around him? how 'familiar'? how 'foolish'? how 'mad'? Should special colours we used to 'identify' certain character types? or should colour be reduced to a minimum? Does the play deal with issues that affect all humans and thus human society as a whole, or just those who rule? Apply each decision so that it impacts on the full cast, and apply the consequences to each of the main characters, and a dizzying complexity of possibilities emerge. For a period in pre-20th-c productions, it was even felt that the pain and grief of the ending was too unbearable for audiences, so it was re-written to have a happy ending, with Cordelia and Lear surviving to live a contented life together!
The overall impression is that interpretation is rife and fecund: so much so that it makes one wonder whether any single interpretation could possibly ever do 'justice' to the play. There is much insight and education provided by this analysis of different approaches; but at the same time, there is the sneaking suggestion that too much analysis will only get in the way of the whole thing. Over-intellectualisation of any text almost inevitably ends up in increasingly weird interpretations and maybe even misguided approaches — something that seems to be rampaging unchecked in many interpretations of works today — and the real losers are mostly the audience, that most put-upon group of people by 'directors' who sneer at their 'passivity' (a misguided perception, in my opinion), and who want to 'shock' and basically abuse or outrage them, rather than being a catalyst for illuminating a deeper understanding of the human condition.
In the end, as Leggatt points out, one is left ultimately with the text, not with the interpretations, or the sub-texts. The play remains, as challenging as ever, as disturbing as ever, and as great as ever. Perhaps in the end, also, one should 'forget' about past interpretations, and that the best modern producers should do is use the text to elicit feelings and emotions appropriate to the times we live in, while still remaining true to the text itself. Shakespeare, and Lear, can take it. They have so far!
This is obviously meant to be read by students of the theatre: a basic familiarity with the text of the play is necessary, and the greater the access to as many of the productions listed, the better. We are dealing here with the problems facing the producer (in theatre) or the director (in film) in how one is to approach the play. And this is where the book comes into its own. Not only are the general ideas about the play by the producer/director are discussed, and how they hoped to realise those ideas (not only from the finished production, but often enough even to working script notes and instructions which may or may not have made it into the final presentation. The opinions as to whether these ideas were successful or not are also canvassed, from reports and reviews of the work by those outside the production.
Shakespeare's 'King Lear' is perhaps the play which most often than not evokes superlatives of all kinds: the greatest, the most powerful; the most moving; the most difficult, the most contradictory, the most bleak, etc. Leggatt deals not only with the major concerns, but also with the interpretations needed by the other players in the work as envisaged by the producer/director, some of whose original decisions will alter the way the actors act/react, dress, come to the fore, or recede to the background. Problems abide: the setting — should it reflect only a 'cosmic' view on humanity? or one linked to a particular time and place? which time? and which place? How should Lear enter the stage/scene? How show the grandiose matters together with the more intimate? How significant is the 'dysfunctional family' motif? How significant is the 'lust for power' motif? How 'regal' should Lear be to those around him? how 'familiar'? how 'foolish'? how 'mad'? Should special colours we used to 'identify' certain character types? or should colour be reduced to a minimum? Does the play deal with issues that affect all humans and thus human society as a whole, or just those who rule? Apply each decision so that it impacts on the full cast, and apply the consequences to each of the main characters, and a dizzying complexity of possibilities emerge. For a period in pre-20th-c productions, it was even felt that the pain and grief of the ending was too unbearable for audiences, so it was re-written to have a happy ending, with Cordelia and Lear surviving to live a contented life together!
The overall impression is that interpretation is rife and fecund: so much so that it makes one wonder whether any single interpretation could possibly ever do 'justice' to the play. There is much insight and education provided by this analysis of different approaches; but at the same time, there is the sneaking suggestion that too much analysis will only get in the way of the whole thing. Over-intellectualisation of any text almost inevitably ends up in increasingly weird interpretations and maybe even misguided approaches — something that seems to be rampaging unchecked in many interpretations of works today — and the real losers are mostly the audience, that most put-upon group of people by 'directors' who sneer at their 'passivity' (a misguided perception, in my opinion), and who want to 'shock' and basically abuse or outrage them, rather than being a catalyst for illuminating a deeper understanding of the human condition.
In the end, as Leggatt points out, one is left ultimately with the text, not with the interpretations, or the sub-texts. The play remains, as challenging as ever, as disturbing as ever, and as great as ever. Perhaps in the end, also, one should 'forget' about past interpretations, and that the best modern producers should do is use the text to elicit feelings and emotions appropriate to the times we live in, while still remaining true to the text itself. Shakespeare, and Lear, can take it. They have so far!
April 18, 2011
Think about "The Stone Angel" along with this.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews