Spoilers herein.
`King Lear' is one of the richest literary experiences in the world. Among its several threads is the examination of madness and sight and how witchcraft plays in this. As with all Shakespeare, actors have to focus on a reduction of this richness, usually caterwauling into storms.
So it is very hard to have an acceptable presentation of Lear, and nearly impossible in film. The actors just get in the way because they have some limited concerns. So here we have a very clever accommodation; to make a film about just that sort of actor/Lear problem - a sort of metaLear.
On that ground alone, this is worth watching, its basing on what we see and what we know of madness that lies below our stumbles through life, placing Shakespeare himself as the source of the witchcraft.
Cast this way, the two leads CAN overact. That's the point. Cheap exaggerations is what it is all about, and identity based on those deviations.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
`King Lear' is one of the richest literary experiences in the world. Among its several threads is the examination of madness and sight and how witchcraft plays in this. As with all Shakespeare, actors have to focus on a reduction of this richness, usually caterwauling into storms.
So it is very hard to have an acceptable presentation of Lear, and nearly impossible in film. The actors just get in the way because they have some limited concerns. So here we have a very clever accommodation; to make a film about just that sort of actor/Lear problem - a sort of metaLear.
On that ground alone, this is worth watching, its basing on what we see and what we know of madness that lies below our stumbles through life, placing Shakespeare himself as the source of the witchcraft.
Cast this way, the two leads CAN overact. That's the point. Cheap exaggerations is what it is all about, and identity based on those deviations.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.