Kevin Kline Gets Around: The Big Chill and Shakespeare (Themester Activity)

The Big Chill was a mix of friendship, Motown music, and life lessons that really touched me. When Glenn Close got up on stage to talk about the film, she was like an angel. She was just glowing with adoration for the movie, which was produced 30 years ago and directed by Lawrence Kasdan (the writer behind the film version of The Empire Strikes Back), and she gushed on about the talented cast and crew, the chemistry and camaraderie between the characters, and the off-screen friendships that developed and still continue to this day. I was a little apprehensive before it began because I wasn’t sure if a film centered around a group of middle-aged friends would have anything to do with my own life or anything to which I could relate. Seeing as how that has never really kept me from seeing other films that were not necessarily targeted at my demographic, I went into the film with as few presuppositions as I could manage. 

Whether you’ve experienced the same things that this group of friends has or you haven’t, it was still a fantastic piece of work and can be received by just about anyone. The director really took you into the lives of these people and made it such a character-driven film, and I think the chemistry between the cast, and the way their relationships felt so genuine while dealing with their friend’s recent suicide, was what made it so moving. Although several hundred years may lie between Shakespeare’s time and The Big Chill’s, there’s something to be said about the way these works, from both creators, base their stories around the intricacies of their character networks. Shakespeare’s plays are not just read today because people have nothing else to fill their time; with all of the recent innovations in entertainment, you might think that plays written four hundred years ago would have become relics of a time gone by. But they are still read because of the intimate human connections that exist between the characters, amidst the magical language and the twisted plot lines. The Big Chill has achieved high cinematic status not just because of the good looks of Glenn Close or Kevin Cline (who was also Bottom in the 1994 version of Midsummer Night’s Dream), but because audiences saw something in the relationships between these characters that they loved, that was relevant in their own lives. We hold onto these films and plays made years ago because the situations these characters go through are the ones we have gone through, or will. My biggest takeaway from this film and from Glenn Close’s lecture is that whether it’s a film or a play or any piece of art, if we as human beings can connect to it in some way, whether it be emotionally or on a different level, we are infinitely more inclined, as time goes on, to carry those works with us in our hearts and minds.  

Themester Activity: Did Shakespeare choreograph Ballet Hispanico??

Probably not. But it wouldn't be that far off!

The themester activity I attended was Ballet Hispanico. The ballet was separated into four different dances: Umbral, Sombrerisimo, Sortijas, and Mad'moiselle. What does Ballet Hispanico have to do with Shakespeare, you might ask? Well, I asked myself that when I started watching the ballet too. However, I came to realize many similarities among the two. There's the first obvious similarity; the stage and the actors. Although these were dancers, they were still playing a part and telling a story. In that sense, there was a Shakespeare behind the scenes writing this play too. However, more than one person worked to choreograph these dances and create these stories. Then again, it is often believed that Shakespeare didn't write all of his plays by himself. Other than the tangible similarities of attending a ballet at IU in 2013 and a commoner going to see a shakespeare play in the late 1500's-early 1600's, the themes of the dances and Shakespeare's plays were also very similar.

The dance Sortijas, was a dance to portray "the unavoidable pull of fate in our lives" (Ballet Hispanico Program). We see the idea of fate in more places than one in Shakespeare's plays. We see fate in Hamlet, King Lear, All's Well That Ends Well, Cymbeline, and many other texts. When watching the ballet, knowing it was going to be about fate, I misinterpreted the dance at first. This dance starred only one male and one female dancer, so originally I thought the two were in love, and there was no way they were ever going to be apart. As the dance went on, however, I began to think that the male dancer was not playing a man, but fate itself. The female dancer kept trying to ignore the male dancer, and run away from him, but in the end was unsuccessful. The male dancer ended up controlling her every move.

Another dance that paralleled Shakespeare's work was Mad'moiselle. This dance highlighted gender roles through varying imaged of gender identity. The dance started off with two groups; the male dancers and the female dancers. However, the dance ended with all the dancers wearing the same thing. They were all wearing wigs, the men were shirtless and the women were wearing nude body suit's from the waist up, appearing shirtless, and everyone was wearing black pants. The dance suggested that many gender identities are false and/or irrelevant, because in the end we could all appear to be the same man. In shakespeare we see many instances of gender switches, as seen in Twelfth Night or Cymbeline, for example. Ballet Hispanico made me learn how we can see Shakespeare in every day life, even if the matter seems to be totally distant.

Blog Prompt: Midsummer Night's Dream

We have discussed the similarity of the two Helenas from MND and All's Well (specifically, their stubborn pursuit of men who do not reciprocate their desires; their bestial love imagery), and the similarity of the opening conditions of Lear and MND (in which two different fathers cut off their daughters and wield their paternal authority despotically). For this final blog post of the semester, please draw another link between Midsummer Night's Dream and any other play we have read this semester.

A successful post will use carefully-culled textual evidence from both works and draw a parallel that isn't already apparent. Word count should be between 200 and 300 words. Post before Monday, December 2.

And have a great holiday! Visualize with gusto!

In Which the Cat Jumps

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof is not a pleasant play to watch. Its chorus of screeches adds up to a cacophony that would make Beethoven in his later, hearing-impaired career cringe. To see its characters scratch and claw at one another makes the seat that one is sitting in very uncomfortable. It’s as though one’s bottom could sense the existential malaise that exudes from Tennessee William’s play and were compelling one to get up and escape the theater before the malaise escapes the stage from which it is emanating and reaches the audience.

Insofar as the theme of connectedness is concerned, Williams’ play is not so much about connecting as it is about already existing and tenuous connections falling apart, something that isn’t unfamiliar to Shakespeare’s readership. In King Lear, the tragic hero sees his relationship to his daughters fall apart as he discovers their true, malicious natures, until he rekindles his relationship with his previously forsaken daughter, who it turns out was the only one that truly loved the benighted old king. That Shakespeare cuts this newly rekindled love and connectedness extremely short through Cordelia’s execution can be overlooked for the sake of comparison with Williams’ play. The latter playwright could never allow such closure to creep into his drama. Bridges are never mended in Cat, they are only collapsing, and their debris gathers speed as it tumbles down the cliff that is its plot, until its shattering conclusion in which all connections, no matter how long they have existed (as in the case of the marriage of Big Daddy and Big Momma) are destroyed.

Shakespeare delighted in anagnorisis, particularly when it had to do with a revelation of mendacity. Othello concludes with the titular Moor realizing the deception of his confidante and friend Iago. The audience watches as Othello discovers what they have known all along and an enormous payoff is had. Finally, the deception is exposed, and the mendacious are made to stand in the light of truth. The characters of Cat are certainly made to stand, ultimately, in the light of truth, but it is a dim light, dimmed by the mendaciousness that exists within each and every one of its characters. There is no is no single Iago in Cat; Williams has written a whole cast of them. That mendaciousness extends from the family’s deception of Big Daddy into believing that his cancer has receded, to Brick, the main character, refusing to recognize his own latent homosexual desires and vehemently denying them to all who insinuate them. In the end, the mendacity is all exposed, from Goober and Kate kissing up to Big Daddy simply to inherit his estate, to the fact that Brick’s and Maggie’s marriage is simply a lavender veil for Brick’s homosexuality. Unlike, Shakespeare, though, the characters do not revel in the discovery of the mendacity; rather, they wallow in it. There is no indication—none—to suggest that anything will be improved by the series of violent revelations that constitutes the play’s plot.

One wonders what Forster would have had to say to the characters of Cat. I personally cannot think of a group of people more needing his advice from Howard’s End, that is: “Only connect.”

"Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" Channeling Shakespearian Themes

This weekend I had the pleasure of seeing Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. While sitting in the audience, marveling at the dynamic relationships between characters, I couldn’t help but notice some themes bubbling up from my repertoire of Shakespeare. One play I noticed a likeness to was King Lear.

The most glaring similarity I observed was between Big Daddy and King Lear. Both characters are suffering from old age and illness; both also have to address the issues of inheritance. Big daddy has 28,000 acres he must decide what to do with and King Lear has an entire kingdom to portion. These two heads of the household also favor the younger child. Although Brick is an alcoholic who refuses to sleep with his unfaithful wife and bear children, Big Daddy still prefers him over his older son Gooper, who has a loving wife and five children with another on the way. Similarly, King Lear preferred his youngest daughter Cordelia to his two older daughters.

The other main similarity I observed was between Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and Cymbeline. The parallel I noticed in this instance was between Innogen and Posthumus and Brick and Maggie. One person in the relationships is from a rich family while the other is woefully poor (Innogen and Brick are rich while Posthumus and Maggie come from poor families). The other similar experience between these two sets of couples is infidelity. Maggie slept with Brick’s best friend Skipper, ruining their relationship and causing Brick to resort to drinking to deal with the “mendacity”. In Cymbeline, although Innogen does not actually sleep with Giachimo, Posthumus believes she has. This breaks his heart and nearly drives him mad, causing him to orchestrate her murder.

Overall, I found Cat on a Hot Tin Roof to be quite enjoyable. The character development and exposition of relationships was remarkable. I also found the resemblance between Tennessee William’s and William Shakespeare’s writing style and use of themes interesting. 

Theatrical or Minimalist, Two Interpretations of King Lear

My first impression of any film I watch revolves around the visual aspects. Both Brooks and Kozintev chose (accurately, in my opinion) very dark, depressing scenery with a very Lear-like feel. However, past that initial impression, I began to notice several intrinsic differences. Brooks’ film is what I would describe as a bare bones interpretation. He has only the essential characters, a bare set, very little choreographed movements, and a choppy manner of staging his scenes. Brooks minimized several dramatic scenes, creating a feeling of barbarity. He briefly shows the death of Cordelia, and has no more than the necessary interaction between Edmund and Edgar shown before Edmund is violently killed. Brooks also chooses to change the manner in which Goneril and Regan die, making it much more shocking to the viewer.

Kozintev’s film, while containing a equally bare set, is full of peasants and extra characters, making it more true to real life, hinting at a theme of the damage done by the selfish ruling class. There is also a higher level of emotion displayed in the interaction between Kozintev’s characters. The fight scene between Edgar and Edmund is much longer and intense than the violent, quick end in Brooks’ interpretation. I think Konzintev chose to leave out Goneril’s suicide to bring the focus toward Cordelia’s death and how tragic it was. Also he adds a burial scene to Gloucester’s death that I found interesting. All of these qualities in Kozintev’s film guide the viewers toward a central feeling of loss. I believe he chose to go in this direction to focus on the overall disparity of a kingdom with an unjust monarch, and the consequences to its people.

Becca Williams

Themester Blog: A Shocking Difference in Implications

Having seen both Grigori Kozintsev's film adaptation of King Lear from 1971 and the Royal Shakespeare Company's 2008 movie, I have to admit to a preference for the latter. I was blown away during Kozintsev's film, however, because it was entirely different from how I had pictured the play when I read it. As we discussed in class, the film was almost post-apocalyptic, and to me each scene seemed to present a new wasteland. I recall specifically, for example, that in the beginning of the film, Lear was sitting next to a fire in his castle. Later, in one of his daughters' castles, I noticed a similar fireplace in the background that contained no fire. Kozintsev's choice of imagery reflects his portrayal of socialist ideology in the film.

When I read the play, I noticed that in the beginning the setting of each scene didn't reflect the squalor of the areas outside the castle. The Royal Shakespeare Company film was in this regard similar to my vision of the play. Kozintsev, however, chose to begin the film with several minutes of footage of groups of beggars in the desert-like waste. Later in the film, he made the decision to have Lear, Kent, and the fool encounter not “Poor Tom” in his hut, but rather Edgar and a group of fellow beggars. Having seen no evidence to the contrary, I assume that Edgar is faking his mental illness. As such, I think portraying “Poor Tom” with a group of people representing actual disabilities, real poverty, and true insanity demonstrates the suffering of the people under Lear's rule. Lear's soliloquy reflects his realization: “Poor naked wretches, wheresoe'er you are, // That bide the pelting of this pitiless storm, // How shall your houseless heads and unfed sides, // Your looped and windowed raggedness, defend you // From seasons such as these? Oh, I have ta'en // Too little care of this” (III.4.28-33)! Even if nobody but Edgar knew that his malady was feigned, I think Kozintsev's choice to show other beggars makes the poverty and suffering of the people more tangible. Again, the Royal Shakespeare Company film matched my vision of the play. In my opinion, the choice to prevent Lear from seeing any true poverty is interesting, because it says that even when he thinks he's coming to understand the condition of his people, he really isn't, since Edgar isn't even poor. Kozintsev's interpretation in this regard, on the other hand, reflects socialist ideas in relation to the play more accurately.

Another big difference that I saw between the two films was the rate at which Lear descended into complete insanity. In Kozintsev's version, Lear was speaking pretty crazily even in the beginning. In his “Let it be so! The truth then be thy dower!” (I.1.106) response to Cordelia's valuation of her love for him was a lot more over the top than the Royal Shakespeare Company production. In the Soviet version of the film, Lear not only got very angry, as the script suggests, but he also tore his map in half and traversed the room furiously. On the contrary, the Royal Shakespeare Company's Lear seemed to me more purely angry and physically unwell at this early point in the play. Besides the fact that I felt Lear was excellently cast in Kozintsev's version as an insane king, I also thought that Ian MacKellan was a great choice. The difference in the portrayal of Lear, however, has meaning to the interpretation of the play. I think Kozintsev's production, in line with Soviet thinking, demonstrates the flaws with a monarchy—Lear was crazy in the beginning, and he handed the rule of England to Regan and Goneril, who were also unsuitable to rule; while Lear was unsuitable to rule, the people rather than Lear would have made a better decision about the next ruler. According to the beliefs of divine right, Lear should have been able to make the correct choice in accordance with the will of God. Ian MacKellan's Lear, however, was a lot more sympathetic to Lear as a character, I think. He started to appear truly insane much later in the play, which is also a lot more forgiving towards the criticism of the monarchy.

The first half of the Royal Shakespeare Company's film, King Lear:

In agreement with the differences in the societies of today's England and Soviet Russia, the discrepancies between the two films and their intentions are abundant. Kozintsev's film was a window for me into the Russian mindset during the era, and I enjoyed the opportunity to see it. The Royal Shakespeare Company's making of the film was, I felt, more true to the text, but in the case of King Lear, adhesion to the text is not necessarily a good thing—the scene with Gloucester jumping off the “cliff” was borderline ridiculous on the screen. Each production definitely had its merits, but I preferred the one that matched my personal understanding of the play.

Everybody's Going to Die: Consequences of Corrupt Behavior

The four minute clip of Brook's film was more jarring to me than the entirety of Kozintsev's film. Although Brook's characters and their explicit violence would leave an impact on the audience, Kozintsev had a different goal. Kozintsev's film emphasized class and oppression much more than the actual text of the play did. The shots of the lower class in the beginning of them film and the constant inclusion of these decrepit citizens evoked a desolate and barren state of the masses. In reading actual Shakespeare, I did not think of the middle and lower classes, they seem to be excluded from Lear's immediate thoughts. Kozintsev, however, placed them at the forefront. The portrayal of the lower class evoked a sort of pre-revolutionary France with the majority of the citizens living in extreme poverty.
The clip from Brook's film brought to mind the consequences of disobedience, pride, and casualties of war (familial, in Lear's case). Kozintsev's version does criticize the monarchy, but from a social justice standpoint with its recurring theme of the neglected poor. Shakespeare also seems to be criticizing the monarchy, but this version includes no mention of the rest of the population. Both Shakespeare and Kozintsev seem to present an illustration of how unsustainable corrupt monarchies can be.

King Lear in Snapshots.

Although I am not much of a movie critic, I thought Brooks' version of King Lear was portrayed quite poorly. I was confused at first as to what was even going on, largely due to the unrealistic qualities of the actors. Although that may have been due to the time it was filmed, I still spent awhile just looking at each one deciding if they were even real people. I think that while some of the major points were clear, (ie. Edmund and Edgar's battle, and Goneril and Cordelia's death) the over dramatized execution of it made it all the less realistic and all the more confusing. I was also confused and shocked at how the clip ended. We see a slow progression of violence until the battle between Edgar and Edmund, then all the sudden it seems like snapshots of all the characters dying. If i had no previous experience with reading the play twice and seeing it portrayed in film a different time, I'm not sure I would even understand what was happening, and most certainly not why it was all happening.

To me, Brooks' version is more like a group of unexperienced actors memorizing the lines of Shakespeare's King Lear and simply reciting them. The lack of other actors/extras in Brooks' added to this. While he might have been trying to take a more intimate stand by not adding extras, I think that Kozintev's use of so many extra's made it even more intimate because the specific characters became the center of attention in the whole town.  Because we don't even see Lear's reaction to Cordelia's hanging in the clip of Brooks' version, it made Lear's reaction in Kozintev's so much more prominent in my mind. It was almost as if you could hear Lear's soul "howl, howl, howl[ling]" (5.3.308) throughout his first sight of her body all the way until after he dies too.  I thought Kozintev did a much better job on transforming the play into a film, and making it seem all the more realistic while still highlighting key events.

Effect of Numbers

   The largest difference I noticed between the two movies is that Brooks' version of King Lear is a much more privatized confrontation scene, while Kozintsev's is in the middle of an army. This difference gives the audience a better idea of the consequences at stake with battle between Edgar and Edmund, its not just a battle between the two brothers and a battle between good and evil, but also a battle for the Earlship of Gloucester as well as other military and political implications. This motif of focusing on the implications of the nobilities actions towards their subjects is something that is very apparent throughout Kosintsev's adaptation, and it improves Shakespeare's play because the emphasis is more on familial relations in the play, which makes it is easy to lose sight of the fact that these people are meant to rule England.  So while the privatized manner of the confrontation shown by Brooks may be more true to Shakespeare's form, Kosintzev's adaptation brings more depth to the scene.
   Another difference is how short the duel is. Brooks gives the audience a glimpse of sunlight on Edgar, and then Edmund is defeated. Its as if the glimpse of sunlight is meant to suggest that the heavens are back on Edgar's side, and and there is nothing Edmund can do about it. This is further enhanced as the next part of the scene is Edmund saying "The wheel has come full circle" (3:19). So Brooks' adaptation seems to suggest that the difference in the brothers plight was merely a natural cycle, or fate, and has less emphasis on Edmund actively affecting his circumstance. Meanwhile, Kosintsev's duel between the brothers is longer, and although Edmund loses, he shows himself to be a valiant, or at least competent, warrior, which we have seen throughout the film and playa s Edmund is a very crafty and strategic person. The downside to portraying Edmund as having more control over his actions as opposed to just being a pawn of fate, is that Edmund is much more responsible for his evil actions and seems like a more evil character, which makes his sudden change of heart and attempted rescue of Cordelia before his death seem extremely out of place. But then in Brooks' version, Edmund doesn't even say anything about Cordelia, when it could possibly make sense since Edmund seems like a less evil person.

Don't Put Cordelia in a Corner

With the hanging of Cordelia, Kozintsev doesn’t really show it happen, just the aftermath, and focuses more on Lear’s reaction and “howling” more than the shock value of the hanging itself. In contrast, Brook practically gives us a close up of Cordelia’s neck breaking, and when Goneril kills herself, we also witness her action in a shocking close up. The increased physicality of Brook’s film on the whole could say something about his interpretation of the play; he relies more on the physical actions of the characters, whereas Kozintsev plays more into the pathos of the other characters’ reactions.

In the spirit of the Soviet Union, Kozintsev definitely doesn’t neglect the poverty issue. Lear mentions something akin to this in the play when he blames himself for the state of the poor, but in Kozintsev’s film it is not just an aside; some of the strongest scenes of the film were the ones where the troupes of beggars were walking along the desolate landscape scavenging and wailing. The director’s choice to do this gives us a closer look at not just the horrific state of the economy, but also the tragedy of the play on the whole. Brook does this as well, with the black and white film set against the remote landscape of Denmark, but he doesn’t include sheer volume of poor people that surround the different scenes like Kozintsev does. When Edgar and Edmund duel, in Kozintsev’s production it is a much more dramatic affair not just because of its execution (with Edmund removing Edgar’s mask being much more dramatic than Edgar removing his own in Brook’s version) but because of the number of on-lookers that have all traveled throughout the play to this moment of climax between the two brothers.

A Different Breed of Despair

Though both Kosinstev and Brook filmed their versions of "King Lear" in the same style, they have strikingly different effects on the viewers. In my opinion, a major distinction can be drawn between the types of hopelessness that are brought about by the films. In Brook's film, the sense of loneliness is overwhelming. The characters of action stand alone on a desolate plain, far away from any touch of humanity. This film was centered wholly on the main characters, and as many of them died in their own separate ways, the feeling of forlorn solitude increased. In Brook's adaptation, the suicide of Goneril by crushing her own skull against a rock followed immediately by seeing Cordelia's hanged body lead the viewer to feel that, as each main character dies, the world moves closer to losing all remaining humanity.

Kosinstev's particular breed of despair, though different from Brook's, is no less poignant. Instead of focusing on the loss of humanity through death, Kosinstev brings our attention to the lack of humanity that the royals show to those around them. The horrific conditions that we see in Poor Tom's hovel and the despair emanating from the emaciated peasants as they make their journey produce in viewers the effect of seeing injustice in the world around them, rather than in a post-apocalyptic setting. Lear's statement  "O! I have taken to little care of this" has a far deeper meaning in Kosinstev's film than in others (3.4.37). Also, the cutting out of the pseudo-suicide scene and Goneril's suicide allows the viewer to not be as caught up in the problems of the nobles, and focus instead on the wretchedness of the peasants. The Soviet influence of the film is clear in that it's focus is on the despair of the poor, instead of the despair of the royal families.

Kozintsev's King Lear, A People's Play

From the very beginning of the film with the halting steps of the peasant's foot on a dusty path, Kozintsev's King Lear announces itself as a people's play more so than Peter Brook's interpretation of the play.  The focus of the play was about the Lear familial relationships still but Kozintsev emphasized the effects on the common people due to the actions by the Lear monarchy.  While the play focuses on the absolute destruction that the familial relationships within the monarchy of Lear has done to the people over time, at the end of the film the people seem to be capable of repairing the burning ruin of their leaders. Their leaders on the other hand are all mad or corrupt and they get their just desserts.  Edmund's line after Edgar bested him rang true to me here, "The wheel is come full circle."

After watching both representations of the play on film, I noticed that two key scenes are entirely missing from the Kozintsev version, Goneril's suicide and the realization of hers and Regan's betrayal, that appear in the Brooks's version.  I interpreted this as Kozintsev's way of narrowing and focusing on the larger problems of the state that the corrupt monarchy has caused, the almost (and very possible that its completely!) irreparable damages to the lives of the people under Lear's rule.    Since the monarchy was corrupt, they all experience an early death even Cordelia, the one person who could have redeemed this entire play.  Kozinstev lingers on screen over Cordelia's death and Lear holding her, showing the total loss of life that was caused by his actions and the actions of his other corrupt daughters.  I saw this as a sort of mirroring of the effects that the corrupt monarchy has had on the people.

Monarchical Abuse of Power in Kozintev's King Lear

The first thing I noticed about the Kozintev film was how the focus of the play was broadened from a story about familial relations to a story about how those familial relations affect the country at large that they preside over.  While the play is centered around Lear and his family only (with the exception of the subplot about Edmund, Edgar, Gloucester), focusing on their actions and dynamics, Kozintev’s film draws our attention to the repercussions their actions have on their kingdom, best exemplified at the end of the film, when we see a country in disarray after the actions of this family have turned it to war.  In a fairly politicized way, Kozintev seems to suggest that the monarchy’s irrational mistakes can have dire results on those outside of their conflict –in this case, the people of their kingdom.

This idea is even more enforced when you compare several scenes from the film with Paul Brooks’ film.  Specifically, two of the scenes in the Brooks film (the revelation of the sisters’ betrayal and Goneril’s suicide) are entirely absent in Kozintev’s film, or at least not shown on screen.  These elements, which are mostly focused on the family, may have been neglected or downplayed so they wouldn’t distract from the larger theme Kozintev was working towards: a country brought to an almost demise by the irresponsible and selfish actions of the ruling they live under.  Another scene in Brooks’ film that differs from Kozintev’s is the death of Cordelia.  While Brooks barely lingers on this scene, Kozintev gives extra focus on it.  This attention on her death seems to hammer home Kozintev’s theme; the loss of an innocent, Cordelia, seems to signify the larger loss of innocence throughout the country at the hands of Lear and his family.

Extras and Audiences for Kozintsev

In Brook’s edition, a notable difference is the absence of extras.  Kozintsev’s version featured onlookers in the fight between Edgar and Edmund, spectating the murder of Cordelia, and even in the background of such scenes as the exchanges between the sisters and Edmund.  Though not pictured in the excerpt from Brook’s version, other notable scenes, like Tom’s hovel, Cordelia and Lear’s reunion, and Cordelia’s banishment, included unnamed spectators.  These parts were not written in by Shakespeare, but were a choice by Kozintsev.  Even the opening of the movie was several silent moments of peasants laboring to travel across the kingdom.  Also, the discovery of Lear by Cordelia’s search party is punctuated by the paupers in the background, who Lear has been traveling with, running into another group of beggars fleeing similar distress, from the direction in which Lear’s group had hoped to escape.

The audience-oriented focus of this messy family story clearly turns Kozintsev’s work into a social and political one.  All of the actions and decisions of this fractured royal family affect the peasants and citizens of Lear’s kingdom.  While they are squabbling and betraying each other, average people are clearly suffering as a consequence of their choices.  This is a clear parallel to Kozintsev’s political message: the government affects the people, and a monarchy (especially a monarchy as flawed as this one) has a negative impact because of a lack of concern for their citizens.  In contrast, Brook’s screenplay seems to be more oriented on the traditional storyline, and less on what social undertones can be sharpened through the background players.  By having sizeable (and, if reading from the actual text, uncalled for) audiences in these same scenes, Kozintsev takes away from the story’s focus and makes viewers consider the unnamed consequences of the play’s events.

Class Disparities and the Doom of Monarchy

The Kotzinstev film adaptation of King Lear was much different than I was expecting. Rather than familial relations or madness, what stood out to me the most was the incredible portrayals of the upper and lower classes in the film.  While we don’t really see that much depiction of the classes in the actual play, the differences between the royalty and the lower class is put at the forefront of the film, and uncomfortably so when we see Edgar, Gloucester, and Lear all scrounging around the countryside with a band of the poor.  It was uncomfortable to witness, and I watched the rest of the film within the context of the disparity between social classes.

One particular area that this was incredibly highlighted to me, was the scene of Cordelia’s death.  The image we see in Kozintsev’s film is haunting, and  the way that the scene lingered on told me that this was something that Kozintsev felt incredibly strongly about.  Put against the context of the actual play and the Brook film (in which we see Cordelia hang for approximately 1 second), this scene was an eerie commentary on the fate of monarichical rule, in that it is doomed to fail.  By focusing on the death of arguably the best character in the play, Kozintsev seems to be drawing our attention to the corruptness of monarchy,  in that not even the good people can make it out alive.  We forget about the treachery seen between family members, and instead focus on the larger issue of what happens when there is such a disparity between classes.  Put against the context of other Lear adaptations, and the play itself, the Kozintsev film takes on a much darker and more politically charged aura. 

Blog Prompt 6: King Lear on Film

Take a look at this clip from Peter Brook's film of King Lear (1970), with Paul Scofield in the title role.

Kozintsev and Brook made their films at about the same time, set them in the same northern landscapes (Denmark for Brook, on the Baltic coast for Kozintsev) and filmed them in black and white. At a glance, they are a lot alike. But they are far from identical.

In light of what you see here, what do you think Kozintsev is up to in his depiction of any of these same plot points (the combat between Edmund and Edgar, the revelation of the sisters' betrayal, Goneril's suicide, Cordelia's death)? Try to use Brook's choices to bring out in higher relief the choices that Kozintsev makes. What is strongest in Kozintsev's film? What does he care about? What does he neglect? What does he cut? Where does he focus our attention? Where does he let it drop?

Use the play's text as evidence in your short response to these questions. And keep it short: 200-300 words. Please post by the end of the day on Friday, the 15th of November.

A Problematic Film for a Problematic Topic

Prior to attending the showing of the film The Big Chill,  I was unsure how a movie about a group of reunited college friends could possibly relate in any way to Shakespeare.  However, at the conclusion of the film, I found myself thinking about the plays All’s Well That Ends Well and Timon of Athens.  Certainly not due to content or themes, but because of the way that I felt at the conclusion of the film.  While the film ended on a ‘high’ note, I did not feel particularly pleased or happy with the conclusion.  I wasn’t mad, or sad, or irritated; I did not know how to feel at the end of the film. 

I can relate this back to the problem plays that we have read, in that the viewer does not know how to feel at the conclusion of the play (or film, in our case).  While it may have tied up nicely at the end, such as in All’s Well, the ending is not really okay.  At the end of the film, the large group of friends was vowing to keep in better touch with each other, and everything was shiny and happy.  However, I do not think that this particular ending was adequate.  One of their closest friends had just committed suicide, and no one knew why.  Throughout the movie, none of the characters really delved into this grief, or tried to understand where their lives had gone.  Sure, there were moments, but not enough to warrant the happy-go-lucky ending we saw at the end.  It felt like All’s Well, where we are forced to think about these really large, difficult topics that don’t really have an answer, but then the ending is so forcefully peaceful that it doesn’t feel right to us.