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