Social Buttons

Tuesday, April 3, 2018

In Context: King Lear







The Royal Shakespeare Company returns to BAM Apr 7—29 with this unforgettable rendition of King Lear, starring Sir Antony Sher as the addled patriarch whose reign gives way to ruin.

Context is everything, so get even closer to the production with this curated selection of related articles and videos. After you've attended the show, let us know what you thought by posting in the comments below and on social media using #RSCKingLear.

Program Notes

King Lear (PDF)

Read

Article
Playing Lear (BAM blog)
Read excerpts from Year of the Mad King: The Lear Diaries, Sher's new book about the all-encompassing process of inhabiting the character of Lear.

Article
Behind the Scenes with the Queen of Crowns (BAM blog)
The RSC's senior milliner explains everything that goes into the creation of their crowns, from laser cutting and soldering to wig considerations and magnetized bramble twigs.

Interview
Antony Sher Conquers His Final Shakespearean Role With King Lear (TheaterMania.com)
"The part of Lear is the Everest of acting. There is something completely epic about it...You do come to it feeling inadequate. It's very intimidating."

Archival Collection
The Royal Shakespeare Company at BAM (Leon Levy BAM Digital Archive)
Browse this collection in our new digital archive for photographs, production history, and ephemera from the RSC's many BAM appearances over the years.

Article
Behind ‘King Lear’: The History Revealed (The New York Review of Books)
A look at James Shapiro's "wonderfully illuminating" The Year of Lear, published in 2015.

Watch & Listen

Video
Royal Shakespeare Company: King Lear Synopsis (YouTube)
Assistant Director Anna Girvan recaps the story of King Lear and his daughters.

Audio
King Lear: Music and Speeches (iTunes)
Listen to music and speeches from the production.

Now your turn...

How did you enjoy the show? Likes? Dislikes? Surprises? Tell us what's on your mind in the comments below and on social media using #RSCKingLear.

8 comments:

  1. Lear is a tormenting blend of the majesty of kingship and the tenderness associated with disintergration. Lear moves an audience on multiple levels. No where is that clearer to me than in this production. NOTE: I was interested in Act I that we were shown the riotous behavior of Lear's minions. This is often handled much more economically. It added depth and context. Also, the mystery of what becomes of The Fool is touched upon as he is seemingly attacked by Lear's men as he is about to (famously) vanish. There is historic credibility for this event. There is plenty to see and to reflect upon in this production.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Greatly admired Sher's naturalness and, at appropriate times, power, and I thought Gloucester, Kent, Edgar, and Albany very good as well. Goneril and Regan too shrill and unsubtle, obviously evil from the getgo. Admired the overall pace, hard to achieve given the ins and outs of the subplot. Agree with previous comment that the riotousness of Lear's followers was unusually well fleshed-out. Overall, very glad I went, but disliked a number of the directorial interventions: the horrible lucite box and the unnecessary relevance-flaunting un-naked wretches that kept appearing. Hated the scene in which the fool goes off with a rope. Lear's line, "And my poor fool is hanged," is one of the great throwaway lines in Western drama; Shakespeare, unlike the director, knew what to omit. (In another Lear I saw at BAM, Cornwall's men hanged the fool on stage; the intermission came next, and the body swayed there, as the audience went out for drinks. Ugh.) My biggest objection to Doran's Lear, a huge objection, was to the director's use of sound effects and music. It is VILE to put music under actors' speeches. It's like music in old movies, when the climax is approaching or when the stars kiss. "Look, look" it seems to say, "this is a significant moment, this is an important speech!" Nudge, nudge: the character is invoking the gods. If the actor can't convey that importance on his or her own, fire the actor. Anthony Sher doesn't need music under his speeches. We don't need a gong sound when Edgar says tells Edmund he's Edgar. We don't need tinkly music when Cordelia and Lear meet again; we have Shakespeare's extraordinary words.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I was entertained by the many comical elements of this production. The actors have a very good grasp of comic timing even though the play is very dark. This production suggests that the fool has hung himself because of great dispair over the prior events, which makes some sense. I liked the extreme energy of all the players (especially the 100 knights) the death of Lear was handled poigniently and I had to wipe away a tear. Bravo to this production!

    ReplyDelete
  4. The thing that always strikes me about RSC productions, as it did this one, is that they do this kind of thing so well and make it look somehow effortless. I loved this production of Lear which brought out elements of the play that I'd overlooked before. My one gripe is with sound quality: I couldn't hear some of the softer passages up in the balcony, and I couldn't understand the actors playing Regan and Goneril much of the time. Mostly what I heard from them was a strident torrent of unintelligible syllables.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I found this production to be one of the most emotionally powerful of the ten or versions of Lear that I've seen. Regarding some of the comments, where you stand depends on where you sit. To get this out of the way, we were in the first row at the Friday, April 13 performance and felt like groundlings at the Globe. From that vantage point, I thought Goneril and Regan were two of the stronger actors in the production. The vivid demonstration of the debauchery of Lear's retinue brought home for me for the first time that Goneril and Regan had some reason to be apprehensive about their father's visits and indeed about his health. This made the tension betweem the sisters and between them and their father more believable than in most productions. Not that I am attempting at all to justify their treatment of him. As for some other comments, the plexiglas in its first appearance didn't bother me too much, but the second time it was simply a distraction, and I found myself wondering if those farther away could understand Gloucster, for example. I didn't even notice the musical punctuation to the revelation of Edgar. This may be a bit condescending, but I feel there are always a lot of audience members who don't realize who Edgar - or Kent for that matter -- are when they appear disguised, and anything the director can do to make this clear is a plus.

    Sher is not my favorite Lear -- that will always be James Earl Jones I think -- but he was completely engaged and it was an exciting and clear performance and production that should please most theater goers.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This wasn't the best production of Lear I've seen. I was a bit disappointed. Not sure if it was the sound production or the actors or both, but in the balcony it was difficult to hear the words the actors were speaking, either they were mumbling, or the sound quality sucked. Disappointed. Also Lear was a bit whining for my taste.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The last word one would use to describe Sher’s rendition of the aged king would be regal. The most successful aspect of Sher’s interpretation of the role was in the fourth act, pajama clad with a laurel wreath for a crown, when he launches into his misogynist rant about the monstrous nature of the female gender.

    It is not even really a rant. It’s more of a kvetch. These are not the harsh lessons learned of a previously-revered monarch who has been forced by the cruelties of fate and circumstance to peer into the nihilist abyss of the basest existence.

    No, Sher’s diminutive, whining Lear is more petulant than enlightened, more irritated than shaken to the core, more bemused than transformed. He is also funny. The preposterous plight in which he finds himself is ridiculous -- and he knows it.

    Here struggling to be born, was the hint of the production that the RSC could have mounted in Sher’s spirit if the company were not so weighed down by an excess of respect to the Bard and by its self-reverential loyalty to its own traditions. Instead we saw a thoroughly old-fashioned, plodding production, complete with a clunking swordfight as a climax.

    Sher seemed inclined to give us a Lear as Samuel Beckett would have written it.

    Just imagine The (Black) Comedy of King Lear: Goneril and Regan would be entirely justified in running their own households in an orderly way to look after their cranky father without the complications of his entourage; the storm on the heath would be an irritating rainstorm interrupting some Mad Hatter’s tea party rather than a full-blown tempest; Gloucester would not be literally blinded -- he’d only have his spectacles removed (the cliff scene could remain as-is, being a perfect piece of Beckett avant la lettre); the play’s searing examination of the true nature of family, loyalty, aging, sanity, justice, gender, divinity and fate could be rendered with the mix of pedantry, hilarity and disproportionality that we remember from an episode of Seinfeld.

    Fat chance that we would ever get such a production from the Royal Shakespeare Company. Maybe The Wooster Group instead: perhaps they could invite Mr Sher back to New York at a later date to have him reprise his role in the absurdist surroundings that are more fitting to his dramatic stylings.

    ReplyDelete
  8. One standout moment: when Lear tells his fool, "I shall go mad."

    I had never considered that to be a deliberate choice. Sher emphasizes 'shall' in that sentence: "I SHALL go mad." He fights it and fights it and then realizes he's fighting the tide. Rather than continue to fight, he lets go, lets madness take him. Super interesting way to interpret that. Well done.

    ReplyDelete