König Lear

Back in high school, I had to watch this as we were studying King Lear in class.

Having watched both the Brooks and Olivier versions, I went in somewhat cautiously- I wasn't too fond of either, finding the Olivier version to be too colourful, and the Brooks version sombre.

This proved a sobering reminder of how truly spectacular cinematography can be if done correctly. This film gripped me like no other, and I watched riveted throughout.

The added Soviet focus on the peril of the peasant's, and the splendor of the palace helped to further heighten Lear's downfall. Chock-a-block full of brilliant performances, this has swiftly become one of my most treasured VHS tapes.

The only fault I could find was the somewhat tinny quality of the sound- but for a movie of the time, the quality was excellent.

A remarkable, truly moving film I recommend to everyone.

Black and white cinematography of Gritsius, the music of Shostakovich and the enigmatic face of Jarvet, make all other versions of King Lear smaller in stature. Lord Olivier himself acknowledged the stark brilliance of this film. Oleg Dal's fool lends a fascinating twist to the character. The "Christian Marxism" of Kozintsev can knock-out any serious student of cinema and Shakespeare.

Kozintsev is one of least sung masters of Russian cinema. His cinema is very close to that of Tarkovsky and Sergei Paradjanov. Kozintsev's Lear is not a Lear that mourns his past and his daughters--his Lear is close to the soil, the plants, and all elements of nature. That's what makes Kozintsev's Shakespearean works outstanding.

I fell in love with Kozintsev's King Lear some 30 years ago and I continue to be enraptured by the black-and-white film shot in cinemascope each time I see it. Each time you view the film, one realizes that a creative genius can embellish another masterpiece from another medium by providing food for thought---much beyond what Shakespeare offered his audiences centuries ago. Purists like Lord Laurence Olivier and Peter Brook offered cinematic versions of the play that remained true to what the Bard originally intended, only refining performances within the accepted matrices.

But Kozintsev's cinema based on the Russian translation of Nobel laureate Boris Pasternak added a "silent ghost" that was always present in Shakespeare's play—nature. Mother nature is present as a visual and aural force in the two Shakespeare films of Kozintsev, more so in King Lear. Shakespeare had intended to draw parallels in nature and human beings—only Kozintsev saw the opportunity in highlighting this. The team of Kozintsev and Pasternak took another liberty—the last shot of the film includes the Fool playing his pipe, while the Bard had got rid of the Fool in Act IV of the play. Kozintsev had more than one reason for it—the Fool is akin to the chorus of Greek stage and much of Dmitri Shostakovich's haunting musical score for the film involved woodwind instruments. Further, the poor, beyond the portals of the army and the courts, occupy "screen-space" never intended in the play. Kozintsev and Pasternak remained true to the basic structure of Shakespeare only adding details that offer astounding food for thought.

I recommend this version to serious viewers. Don't miss this little known classic.

Just finished watching the the 1971 version of Griogiri Kozintsev's King Lear and felt compelled to write my first ever IMDb review to recommend it to anyone who has the opportunity to see it. It was like stumbling across a rare treasure where not expecting it, and I just can't keep my mouth shut. I hadn't heard of the movie before and was doubtful about watching a dubbed version. This proved to be less of a distraction than I expected, and afforded me the opportunity of concentrating on the characterizations and visuals. It was an amazing interpretation of Shakespeare that brought to life the tragedy of Lear through sweeping scenery,breathtaking cinematography and Shakespearean acting as as good as any I've ever seen. I found the VERY Russian style invigorating after having watched countless BBC versions of Shakespeare. Not only did I get a greater appreciation for the original play, but by the last haunting scene I felt privileged to have watched a towering cinematic creation.

Just like in "Ran" (1985, Kurosawa) Kozintsev uses a barren landscape to illustratie the psychological wasteland of Lear. He don't need colors to do so, but the result is at least as convincing. It must be said however that Kozintsev had a "dreamteam" to his dispoasal. Which director can say that he has a Nobel prize winner (Boris Pasternak) as script writer? Also the music is taken care of by a famous classical componist (Dmitri Shostakovich). In Russian filmmaking the collaboration between directors and famous componists seems te be more common then in the West. Take for example the collaboration between Sergeij Eisenstein and Sergeij Prokofiev.

There are two ways of adapting Shakespeare, literally and transposing the story to modern times. An example of the last approach to "King Lear" is "Broken lance" (1954, Edward Dmytryk) in which the story is situated in a businessfamily. I prefer staying close to the original, and that is the approach chosen by Kozintsev.

In the English language there is a difference between a real fool (buffoon) and someone who is only acting as a fool, but in fact knows better what is going on than everybody else (jester). In "Karol Lir" the jester plays a prominent role. Keep a close look at this character while watching the film.

Just as Beethoven's late piano sonatas and string quartets represent the Everest for musicians so Shakespeare's monumental roles of Hamlet, Othello, Coriolanus, Macbeth and King Lear present the ultimate challenge to those actors brave enough, and fit enough, to take them on.

The play 'King Lear' makes no concessions to the spectator and its cruelty, misery and dark despair are unrelenting. Not for the squeamish certainly.

The 'Hamlet' directed by Grigori Kozintsev in 1964 is universally considered the greatest Shakespearean film adaptation whereas opinions of his 'Lear' are more sharply divided.

Lear is played by Yuri Yarvet, an Estonian whose voice is dubbed and whose portrayal is that of an irascible and querulous old man with nothing of the 'King' about him at all but that is evidently the way the director wanted it. One cannot fail however to be impressed by his performance as a father driven to distraction by the realisation that none of his three daughters loves him. We know of course that his favourite daughter Cordelia has never ceased to love him but this he discovers all too late. Valentina Shendrikova is simply stunning as Cordelia as are Galina Volchek as Regan and Elsa Radzina as Goneril who had previously impressed as Gertude in 'Hamlet'.

The whole cast is uniformly excellent and Kozintsev has again benefited from the stunning images of cinematographer Jonas Gritsius and a powerful score by Shostakovich which is especially impressive in the storm sequence.

English speaking Bardolators will obviously regret the abridged text and the loss of the glorious verse but Nobel Laureate Boris Pasternak has done a wonderful job here in realising the director's vision of a fragile society on the verge of collapse. Michael Pennington likened watching 'Lear' to being cast adrift and looking for help. It is all so grim that when Albany tells Goneril :"You are not worth the dust which the rude wind blows in your face" one wants to stand up and cheer!

Shakespeare was a renowned adaptor and he has here taken an Elizabethan melodrama entitled 'King Leir' and given us a searing Jacobean tragedy. In the original Cordelia is spared and Leir regains his throne but here Cordelia's murder and her father's death are the final hammer blows and it is little wonder that Samuel Johnson found the ending almost unbearable.

The only two left standing are Albany and Edgar so there is at least a glimmer of hope. Ben Jonson declared that " Shakespeare is for all the ages" and Lear's observation that "when we are born we cry that we are come into this great stage of fools" just about sums up the human condition.