King Lear

This is a caustic, disturbing production by Jonathan Miller that belies the usual condemnation of BBC blandness.

Colors are deliberately desaturated, costumes are all black, interior sets have a plank-and-drape design and a Velasquez-like austerity, exteriors have little or no detail, and scenes are played out in long, tight shots that emphasize the intimacy of television vs. the distance of stage. The taping was in a much smaller studio than usual, as the big room at the BBC was being used for "Richard III" at the time. The overall impression is discomfort, deliberately.

Robert Shaw was cast as Lear, but he suddenly dropped dead at the age of 51 just before taping. It would have been something to see a certifiably mad actor play a mad king. However....

Michael Hordern has a film reputation as a doddering, comic blitherer, but in the classics he had far more range and authority, and we get to see much of it here. He is always the king, and genuinely moving in his recognition scene with Cordelia.

In addition to Hordern, many in the cast had worked with director Jonathan Miller on previous telecasts. John Bird from "Shrew" and "Timon" is here largely free of his usual comic mannerisms. Anton Lesser, good in "Troilus," is a little small as Edgar, but then so is Michael Kitchen as Edmund. Norman Rodway, excellent in "Timon," is no less so here as Gloucester. Penelope Wilton, an equivocal Desdemona, is much better here as Regan. Gillian Barge's Goneril and John Shrapnel's Kent should also be complimented. I must say Frank Middlemass's Fool eludes me. I find him too old, too solid and not always intelligible - a spirit of earth, not of air.

Jonathan Miller stated that a director's role was to react against a familiar play, not merely be a servant to it. "Lear" is by far the most subversive in his Shakespeare collection. This result is not through inexperience. Miller had directed the play on stage with Hordern and Middlemass in 1969 and for the BBC in 1975 (supposedly better, but we'll never see it). So we can assume that this 1982 production is pretty much what he wanted.

Much of the show winds up more a comment on "Lear" rather than a straightforward performance. Miller's neurology background makes the mad scenes medically grounded and often nerve-wracking. Edgar's Tom o' Bedlam scene approaches the unsettling chaos of "Marat/Sade," and crazy Lear's meeting with blind Gloucester turns into vaudeville according to Samuel Beckett.

Such treatment doesn't betray the play, but if you're looking for comfortable, pipe-and-slippers Shakespeare, this isn't the one.

If you are at all prone to rumination, this is the one that will lead you into questions about Job, the absence/silence of God, why bad things happen to good people, etc. Surely Lear shouldn't have asked that stupid question, but why is there so much collateral damage? This production is not just a drama, it's an invitation to thought, and that's always dangerous.

The greatest personification of the title role on video remains Orson Welles, in a prized relic from the Stone Age of live television. The Olivier version, with a starrier cast, a shooting schedule three times longer and a budget five times bigger than Hordern/Miller, will be the obvious choice for many. But there is much to stimulate here, for those who dare.

Michael Hordern's masterful understanding of the part, his sandpaper voice, his shaggy but noble head made him the perfect Lear--"every *inch* a king". I first saw this production as a college freshman in 1985, and I've seen none since that has equaled it. It should be noted that Frank Middlemass who plays a more sympathetic and tender-hearted Fool is no less indispensable to the success of this production. Unforgettable.

By the way, the BBC series of the complete Shakespeare plays (produced in the late 1970s to mid-80s), which is prohibitively expensive at ca. US$3700, is frequently available in American public libraries. Everyone who is able should make a point of availing themselves of the opportunity of seeing this wonderful series at least once before they die.

'King Lear' to this day still compels and moves me and Shakespeare's text is poetic and haunting with many emotions. It is not one of my favourites of Shakespeare's plays, having more of a fondness of studying some of the others (such as 'Macbeth' and 'A Midsummer Night's Dream') in school and it is not always easy getting behind Lear straight away (took time for me when studying it), those being introduced to the play may be put off by him in the first act.

Of a very interesting if inconsistent series, named BBC Television Shakespeare, to me its 1982 production of 'King Lear' is one of the better ones. It is also a more than worthy production of the play, and as good as the other versions seen of 'King Lear'. Those being the 1983 Laurence Olivier film and the 2008 Ian McKellen version, both excellent in my opinion despite the needlessly melodramatic music in the former and the lack of authenticity in the sets in the latter. It is hard to choose which is the better one between the three, to me they are on the same level in their own way.

There is very little to fault this 'King Lear', though for my tastes Julian Curry and John Bird were a little dull in their roles. Then again there are far meatier characters in the play anyway.

Elsewhere there is so much to like here. There is much more of a sense of time and place than in the McKellen version. It is dark and austere, which felt appropriate actually, and also sparse, yet not in an unattractive way. The camera work gave off an intimacy without being claustrophobic or self-indulgent.

Jonathan Miller's staging (of his contributions to the BBC Television Shakespeare series, 'King Lear', which was his last, is one of the best ones) never felt too busy or static, it is always tasteful and the intensity and poignancy is captured well, though the near-uniformly great cast are also to thank for that. Gloucester's fall is especially powerful, as is Lear's recognition scene.

Michael Hordern is an authoritative and moving Lear, and his Lear was one where genuine sympathy was felt for him. Being more familiar with the play too, found myself thankfully less put off by him in Act 1 while understanding why some, especially newcomers, would. Brenda Blethyn's dignified Cordelia contrasts beautifully with Gillian Barge's venomous Goneril. Great to see a different side to Penelope Wilton and she blisters in her interaction with Barge. John Shrapnel is a loyal and tender Kent and Norman Rodway is a powerful Gloucester.

It is not easy making the Fool interesting, funny or easy to feel sympathy for, in my mind Frank Middlemass gives it a good go and didn't annoy or bore. Michael Kitchen's Edmund really gets under the skin and Anton Lesser gives his all to Edgar, at times he overeggs it but it was a generally entertaining and deeply felt performance.

Summarising, great production and one of the better productions of the series. 9/10

Let's get the niggles out of the way first - I didn't like the performances of either Julian Curry as Cornwall (too bored) or John Bird as Albany (ok but too John Bird). I felt some of the poetry of the text was muffed and therefore lost power, and there was little sense of scale - where were Lear's rowdy knights?

However, the good by far outweighs the bad. As the three daughters of Lear, Gillian Barge (Goneril), Penelope Wilton (Regan), and Brenda Blethyn (Cordelia) are all excellent. The eldest sisters are pure poison, plotting against their father and their land; while Blethyn gives the wronged youngest daughter quiet dignity. John Shrapnel made an excellent Kent, at times quarrelsome, at others lordly as became his hidden persona.

Good stuff too from John Grillo as the sneaky servant Oswald, from Anton Lesser as Edgar (and Tom a Bedlam), and from Norman Rodway as the Earl of Gloucester - the scene where he has his eyes plucked out, seen only from behind, is played very well, as are subsequent scenes with the disguised Edgar and Lear. Michael Kitchen is a fairly interesting Edmund, but looks a bit cartoonish in places, all that conspiratorial glancing at the camera.

I wasn't that keen on Frank Middlemass' take on the Fool but I have never had much patience with anyone in that part - perhaps he did what he could with some fairly poor bits of speech and action.

I've left Lear himself till last. I didn't think at first that Michael Hordern was quite right - but following the storm he comes into his own, and by the final act and scenes with Cordelia and following, he gives the character a human side that's lacking from many productions - even Olivier came short of the scene where Lear recognises he is in the presence of his youngest and much wronged daughter. It is an interesting performance that repays re-watching and a fascinating contrast to other versions available to view.

When I saw this film it was on a freind's tape (He had got it off of T.V. years ago.) i really enjoyed it. It was very stirring, almost as interesting as Ian Holm's King Lear. A very good King Lear with a very strong cast. Brenda Blethyn was wonderful as was the amazing Micheal Horden. Wonderful. See it if you can.