Re Lear

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.

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.

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.

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