König Lear

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.

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.

This version of King Lear is an incredible achievement due to the masterful adaptation from the Shakespeare original by one of the best Russian poets, writers, and translators of the last century, Boris Pasternak; elegant and powerful images by the cinematographer Jonas Gritsius (he also worked with Grigori Kozintsev on the earlier Shakespeare's adaptation, "Hamlet", 1964), the music of Dimity Shostakovich, and the great performances from all actors.

Estonian actor Jüri Järvet is masterful as the mad king in a performance which is reminiscent of Kinski as another brilliant madman - Aguirre. They were even the same age when they played Aguirre and Lear. The whole cast is amazing: Kozintsev chose the best actors possible for his project and everyone delivers. I'd like to mention Oleg Dal as the touching Fool; Karl Sebris as the Duke of Gloucester, whose scenes with his son Edgar after having been blinded are very moving; Regimantas Adomaitis as Edmund, a treacherous son and brother but a brilliant man; and Donatas Banionis (who played the main character in Tarkovsky's Solaris) as an intelligent and noble Albany. But like I said, everyone and everything is just perfect in this little known but IMO, the Best adaptation of the beloved and one of the most wrenching tragedies in the English and in the world literature.

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.