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.