King Lear

Audience Reviews

View More

06/14/2011 My Favorite Version of King Lear, Powerfully Played by Orson Welles See more 11/06/2010 It has technical issues, due to it being done on live television. There is equipment visible often, with there even being a big wardrobe malfunction that couldn't get fixed. The audio gets quiet enough at times that you won't be able to hear what is being said, while the characters are overacted as one would do on the stage. This doesn't translate well to television though, and it makes the production seem silly. There are better versions of King Lear out there. See more 11/06/2010 I don't think I've ever wanted a film to end more than while I was watching Andrew McCullough's adaptation of Shakespeare's <i>King Lear</i>. This comes as even more of a shock when I found out that it was only actually 73 minutes long. <i>King Lear</i> is a play that, while interesting, wasn't a play I liked all that much. It certainly had things to like in it, particularly because of the fact that it had many subplots going on at the same time. In this version, these subplots are removed, so that we focus solely on King Lear. The plot itself does stay quite close to the play of <i>King Lear</i>, the removed subplots aside. Lear is an aging king, and he has decided to split up his kingdom among his daughters. One of his daughters won't tell him that she loves Lear, and he decides to disown her. Soon, his other daughters turn on him, and the story turns into one of Lear trying to figure out life. It's a tragedy, so you can be sure that a lot of people will die along the way, often times, their deaths coming out of nowhere. I really didn't like how Gloucester and his sons were all but removed from the play, except in the scenes where they interact with Lear. This happens with a lot of the other characters, and often times this means they aren't even introduced to the audience. We don't even learn a few of their names, so if you hadn't read the play in advance, you are going to be confused with all the characters appearing on the screen. This isn't helped out by the fact that the quality of the film is average at parts, while lousy at others. This is due to the fact that it wasn't actually on film. This was a live television production, and in order to preserve it, a TV was filmed. That's the version that is available now, and while it is quite impressive to, have it, it doesn't hold up. There are also a few issues with the filming itself. There are many times in which stage equipment appears on-screen, making you notice that more than whatever is happening with the actors. There is even a time where Lear's (Orson Welles) mustache comes off, and since this was a live production, this problem could not have been remedied. It would have been nice to have this digitally edited out with today's technology, or covered up, but I'm not sure how plausible that would be due to the way that the film was preserved. Sometimes the audio quality takes a dip as well, meaning that you will miss out on some of the words spoken, unless you have the volume turned up higher than you should need it to be. The acting doesn't help this fact. It isn't all that impressive with most of the characters being far overacted. This works decently on the stage, where you need to overact a fair bit, but with this version being recorded as a movie would, as in, close to the characters, you definitely notice the overacting. There is also a problem with Orson Welles' performance as the King. Welles seemed to only be able to deliver his lines in two ways. He was either incredibly quick and hysteric in his delivery, or he was quiet. These switches often times come in the same scene, with almost no reason for them. I know Lear is supposed to act crazy, but this was way too over-the-top for this kind of play. There really isn't any reason to watch this adaptation of <i>King Lear</i>. There are better versions out there, surely. If you want to watch the story so that you can understand it better, this isn't going to help you out much. It will give you a basic idea of the main story, but it won't help you with any of the subplots. These subplots are the main reason to read/watch <i>King Lear</i>, as they make it a deeper play. Without them, it's a basic story that isn't worth watching. Andrew McCullough's adaptation of Shakespeare's <i>King Lear</i> is not something that should be watched. It has technical issues, due to it being done on live television. There is equipment visible often, with there even being a big wardrobe malfunction that couldn't get fixed. The audio gets quiet enough at times that you won't be able to hear what is being said, while the characters are overacted as one would do on the stage. This doesn't translate well to television though, and it makes the production seem silly. There are better versions of <i>King Lear</i> out there, especially ones that don't cut out the subplots that are so important to the play. Search for one of those if you need to see King Lear performed on your television. See more Read all reviews

King Lear

My Rating

Read More Read Less POST RATING WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW