Recensioni degli utenti

William Shakespeare's King Lear is a medieval morality play that weaves a web of complexity and intrigue based on a misjudgment of character and a struggle for succession. Containing Shakespeare's favorite themes: succession, legitimacy, and bastardy, King Lear has some of the author's most elevated poetry. It is one of Shakespeare's most difficult plays and has been filmed only a handful of times. One of the best cinematic interpretations is that of Russian directors Grigori Kozintsev and Iosif Shapiro's 1971 film, King Lear (Korol Lir), based on a translation by novelist Boris Pasternak and propelled by a dramatic score by composer Dimitri Shostakovich and memorable images by cinematographer Jonas Gritsius.

While Kozintsev does little to clarify the convoluted succession battles and internecine warfare, the overall effect is one of epic sweep and power, with the blindness of the leading protagonists being an apt metaphor in the Russian interpretation for oppressive feudal rule and its results on the downtrodden masses ("A generalized picture of a civilization heading towards doom", is how Kozintsev described his King Lear).

At a royal banquet, an aging king of ancient Britain plans to vacate his throne and divide his kingdom equally among his three daughters, Goneril, Regan, and Cordelia. Before he does this, he asks each daughter to tell him how much they love him. Both Goneril and Regan are effusive in their flattery but Cordelia is much less forthcoming, telling him that she loves him but has no words to describe her love. To that King Lear responds, "Nothing will come of nothing", and disowns Cordelia, leaving her without estate but still courted by the king of France. Sadly, Goneril and Regan both proceed to scheme against their father and each other until the wheel turns.

In a sub-plot, an elderly nobleman named Gloucester is tricked by his illegitimate son Edmund into thinking that his legitimate son Edgar is out to kill him. Fleeing the manhunt that his father has set for him, Edgar disguises himself as a crazy beggar and heads out onto the heath in a driving thunderstorm. Lear yields completely to his rage against his daughters who have turned him out and, like Edgar, rushes out into the storm. When they meet, it will be on the Dover Cliffs where each awaits their fate.

Kozintsev's Lear is filmed in black and white and set in a stark landscape of windswept moors and marshes, bare castles and wandering beggars. Kozintsev, a master Russian director and contemporary of Eisenstein, who had been making experimental films during the 1920s, assembled a cast of great actors for the project. King Lear is the thin, tall, gaunt-looking Estonian actor Yuri Yarvet who fully conveys Lear's power and his growing madness and despair. Also Leonhard Merzin and Regimantis Adomaitis as Edgar and Edmund, rival sons of the Duke of Gloucester perform admirably as does Karl Sebris as the Duke of Gloucester.

Accolades must also be given to Oleg Dal as the Fool whose only job is to amuse the King but does so by telling him the truth, using songs and riddles like Feste in Twelfth Night. In a smaller role, Valentina Shendrikova excels as Cordelia. In one of the most touching scenes, "good son" Edgar, pretending to be the madman "Tom o' Bedlam" finds his now blinded father The Duke of Gloucester wandering on a heath in pain and leads him to the Dover cliffs where he walks him to the edge and allows his father to think he is committing suicide, but saves him in a scene of the utmost tenderness. In another memorable scene, after having been banished by both Goneril and Regan, Lear wanders with the Fool and Kent, a nobleman in disguise, on the moors in a vividly-imagined driving thunderstorm until he takes shelter in a hovel, only to find the disguised Edgar.

As recounted by Kozintsev, "When Lear goes mad at the beginning of the storm scene, this is the beginning of an absolutely new relationship with nature. I try to illustrate with this landscape a country which is not bare, not cruel. I try to show Lear himself as a part of nature, in a field of flowers. His hair spreads like moss, the grey hair of nature. Once man is seen as a part of nature, the movement towards regeneration can begin. Cordelia too has her own landscape–sea and a very wide landscape–with waves and seagulls. All the important characters have their own atmosphere and there are relationships not just on the level of character but between different aspects of nature." Kozintsev's King Lear has the look and feel of an epic in the tradition of Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublev, and though it has been given a Marxist slant, it is true to Shakespeare's vision. As the aging monarch confronts the wrongness of his own decision, he also realizes how little he has done to help others. "I've taken too little care of this", he laments as he confronts the suffering of his people. Faithfully accompanied by his shaven-headed Fool, Lear moves from a monarch blinded by his own arrogance in misjudging his children to a pitiful presence who finally discovers his own compassion and ultimately evokes ours.

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.

My Rating : 9/10

While I am not extremely well versed in Shakespeare and much less 'King Lear' I happily appreciated this interpretation.

There is a beautiful Soviet Union quality to it, the actors appearances, the harsh weather and conditions, the wild animals and the prose of Shakespeare make it a riveting and emotionally charged oeuvre of cinema.

A fine film indeed.

Shakespeare's plays are difficult to realize on stage or on film. Reading through his plays, one gets the impression that they are greater than they can ever be performed. But there are those few productions that hit the mark and do his works justice. So it is with Korol Lir (King Lear), Grigori Kozintsev's final film.

In 1964, Kozintsev's Hamlet was released and earned high praise both in Russia and the West. As a consequence, Kozintsev was invited to and attended many western film festivals including Cannes. Kozintsev cherished these trips to the west as he was able to see many films that were not shown in the Soviet Union. He was particularly eager to see the films of Kurosawa, Ford, Capra and Fellini. But it was the films of Orson Welles, Citizen Kane in particular, that made the deepest impression on him. In fact it was Citizen Kane that inspired Kozintsev to film King Lear in black-and-white rather than in color.

There are so many wonderful touches in this film starting with Yuri Yarvets' harrowing portrayal of the mad Lear. His Lear always leaves me feeling crushed at the end of the film. Superb as well is the eerie, haunting performance of Galina Volchek as Regan and the outstanding cinematography of Jonas Gritsius. Of course there is also the translation used which is itself a masterpiece, by Boris Pasternak no less (the fool's songs were performed with translations by Samuil Marshak however). Dmitri Shostakovich's score is exactly what you would expect: genius. Here is no simple sonic wallpaper to play along as images move about the screen. Neither does this dark score overwhelm the on-screen action but rather acts as a wordless narrator, commenting on the drama as it unfolds. At the heart of all this is Kozintsev's bleak and powerful vision of King Lear. There are no gimmicks here, no attempts to "update", no trace of the portentousness and pomposity that mars many films based on Shakespeare. Here, the tragedy is revealed with a brutal and simple honesty. It is not only Lear and those around him who suffer but his whole nation suffers and decays alongside him. Seeing this film from first to final scene is a draining emotional experience.

You probably won't find the DVD of this great film at your local video store but it is available from the Russian Cinema Council's (RUSCICO) website for about $35. Their transfer of this film is decent but it does leave a bit to be desired. One can only hope and pray that Criterion will release it one day (don't hold your breath). Still, any fan of great cinema should make the effort to acquaint themselves with this film, one that I personally consider to be one of the greatest films ever made.

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.

Even, relaxed performances. Tasteful, non-intrusive direction. No gimmicks. And finally a clear, even obvious! result.

This might seem like damning with faint praise, except that Kozintsev has done what Brook didn't, what Olivier's BBC production didn't, and what every stage production I have ever seen resolutely and spectacularly failed to do. That is to create order and clarity and meaning within arguably the greatest and arguably the most difficult play ever written. It seems easy to do in Kosintsev's version, which is one of his great triumphs. see it

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.

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.

The "masterpiece of soviet cinema" turned out to be artificial and absurd all through its length. Boris Pasternak's translation of Shakespeare's text not only rendered the original meaningless but flattened and simplified it to the level of "simple soviet people's" understanding. In order to reach this goal, the text was also shaped in bureaucratese. All characters speak like chartered accountants, insurance agents, lawyers, or trade union activists. You constantly feel a sort of Spanish shame for actors, like you're watching a village culture club's amateur dramatics. Oleg Dal is especially bad. Apparently, actors simply didn't understand what they should, well, act, for the text itself was bad with its unpronounceable syntax, soviet clichés, and all falsity stemming from this. For the most part, the film is a sorry spectacle, filled with illogical dashings to and fro across the screen, for these massive crowd excursions are impossible to explain neither by common sense nor by strategy and tactics of the plot itself. Horses, too. In fact, one feels sorry for the poor beasts here more than for anyone else. At first, a herd of them runs across some takyr, apparently somewhere in soviet Middle Asia (pretending to be marshes and heather), and then, immediately, they are made to climb up the White Cliffs of Dover. Inexplainable.

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.

'King Lear' is one of Shakespeare's best plays, though it is also one of his most difficult to perform and from a psychological standpoint. So many powerful scenes and quotes, an atmosphere that is haunting and moving and full of memorable characters (Lear is not the easiest of characters to get behind from the start but he becomes very easy to sympathise with). This film version is unlike any 'King Lear' seen, with that it is in Russian being the obvious unique thing about it and also because there are not many other adaptations this artistic.

This 'King Lear' is not Grigory Kozintsev's first foray into Shakespeare. He also did a brilliant film version of 'Hamlet' in 1964. Just like that 'Hamlet' gets my vote as the finest screen adaptation of that particular play, this is a contender for the finest screen adaptation of 'King Lear'. There is a huge amount to admire here as an adaptation, even when not in English, but the film is even better on its own terms and is brilliant as a film, a work of art visually and an emotional experience. If asked which is better between Kozintsev's two Shakespeare adaptations, that is an extremely difficult choice and in my mind they're equal in quality.

Visually, this 'King Lear' is the best looking version of the play to exist possibly, as well as the most artistic. Easily among the best looking Shakespeare film adaptations, with sets that are both sumptuous and starkly brooding, very atmospheric lighting, costumes that are evocative and not cheap and cinematography (from the same cinematographer for 'Hamlet') that is achingly beautiful and bold. Dmitri Shostakovich returns as composer and his score here is another winner. Have always appreciated Shostakovich's music, his haunting, intensely dramatic and emotionally rich music here made me appreciate him all the more.

Moreover, Kozintsev's direction is nothing short of exemplary and shows a master at work, showing once again that although justifiably lauded he deserves to be wider known worldwide and his films made more accessible. The script is poetry in words, thoughtful and emotionally complex as ought.

Like with 'Hamlet', 'King Lear's' story is always absorbing and highly atmospheric, the drama is very bleak, intensely and poignantly so, but seeing as the play is as bleak as they come that was more than appropriate. Everything is done in good taste, no questionable, irrelevant or gratuitous touches, and it is one of the few adaptations to nail the psychology of the characters and what makes them such complex characters. Every character has all their characteristics intact with full impact. Lear and Cordelia have such touching chemistry, Gloucester's scenes take no prisoners including the unflinching scene of his that everybody talks about with any production of 'King Lear' and Regan is pretty much exactly as Shakespeare intended, her evil not obvious straightaway and not rushed when revealed.

All the performances are fantastic. Juri Jarvet is a towering Lear, one that really wrenches the gut in the emotional moments and his madness is harrowing. Valentina Shendrikova is affecting as Cordelia and Galina Volchek is one blood-curdling Regan. Karlis Sebris is movingly powerful as Gloucester, especially in his later scenes. Cannot remember a better Fool than Oleg Dahl, who is much more than comic relief (that can be overplayed elsewhere) but is also poignant and the voice of reason.

Concluding, exceptional film-making and that it isn't better known is beyond my comprehension. 10/10.

This is one of rare Shakespeare's filmings, where "filming" doesn't sound as a common noun. Of course Kozintsev is one of the greatest Russian director's, but Jarvet is just genious in his phylosophical interpretation.

I agree with most of the prior reviewers (save the one who doesn't seem to understand cinema), and was especially struck by the art direction and cinematography. The B/W palette fit perfectly in both the castle and in the desolate moors, as Lear wandered mad with his fool. The acting was superb. However, I was completely flummoxed listening to it. I studied Russian for 3.5 years in school and on a high school summer trip to the USSR. Sadly I have forgotten most of it. However, the viewing I saw in 2009 certainly brought a lot of back in a strange way. I had read parts of Pasternak's Russian translation, and he did a wonderful job capturing the iambic pentameter, puns, and subtleties of Elizabethan English. However, the film, as others pointed out, used Estonian or Latvian actors whose Russian was so bad that much had to be looped after the filming by Russian speakers. Consequently, a long and flowery phrase in the Pasternak translation-- dutifully subtitled back into English-- is truncated. E.g., "Mend your speech a little, Lest it may mar your fortunes" is translated well in subtitles, but what is spoken is "govoreet prosto" ("speak simply"). I tried to read the subtitles instead of listen to the Russian, but came out of the theater pretty confused!