Audience Responsiveness to King Lear Essay

Essay on King Lear

"The varying ways audiences or readers respond to King Lear reveals a great deal about the complexity of this work." Discuss this in relation to at least two different productions that you have seen or read about.

Shakespeare's King Lear has survived over four hundreds years of performances and alterations, yet it is still considered as one of the greatest literary works of all time. Considered by many critics as the most complex of Shakespeare's works, this tragedy holds a unique range of components that can ultimately be adapted to suit any theatrical environment and cultural climate. Shakespeare has achieved a masterful blend of complex characters and themes, intense emotions and an equally intricate plot and sub-plotline. The profound depth of these features allows the audience to respond in unique and intense ways, and can be attributed to the varying interpretations of King Lear in performance that have appeared throughout time.

It is debateable whether or not Shakespeare purposely created characters that whilst holding a large degree of complexity, were still rather vague in detail. Although critics such as A.C. Bradley saw this feature of King Lear as being one of its many structural weaknesses, it has proven to be quite a cunning tool. This vagueness is seen most prominently within the character of Cordelia. Whilst being a main character within the plotline, she is only featured in four scenes and speaks a mere 100 lines. Yet this allows for directors and actors to improvise and alter the character according to the audience that the production is being presented for.

Nahum Tate recreated Shakespeare's King Lear in 1681. In altering the plotline dramatically, Tate revived the story which had been previously rejected due to the intense suffering that is portrayed within Shakespeare's original. Tate's presentation of Cordelia was a gentle character that exceeded all others in her passion and honest love. Cordelia's part within the play was lengthened and she became not only the moral hero but also the object of Edgar's affection. Tate successfully transformed the play from a tragedy to a romance, with Cordelia as the focus. Tate removed the vagueness and mystery surrounding Cordelia and created a fuller picture, no less angelic, but carrying an added reality due to the personal dialogue between her and her confidante. This transformation satisfied the audience?s desire to see Cordelia?s Kindness and love repaid.

In Grigori Kozintzev's Russian film version of King Lear, released in 1970, Cordelia portrays purity and innocence. She is young, tender and beautiful, holding no selfishness or sin. Yet this portrayal of Cordelia, dressed in angelic white throughout the film, intensifies the tragic and unjust ending. The audience rarely sees her, as Kozintzev retains much of Shakespeare's original script, yet this intensifies the mystery. She is the symbol of truth throughout the play, the symbol of hope as she comes to her father's aid but in Kozintzev's version, as in Shakespeare's, this truth, this hope, is stripped away from the audience, an innocent victim is swept away and the real tragedy takes place, hitting the audience hard. It is this unjust suffering, this extreme tragedy that caused the original audience to reject Shakespeare's King Lear, and was one of the major motivations behind Tate's revised version.

This cunning vagueness is not only present within the character of Cordelia. The fate of the fool has also been the issue of such debate over time. Is the fool's disappearance from the plotline a deliberate vagueness to add mystery or is it just carelessness on Shakespeare's behalf? The fool is not a psychologically consistent character throughout the play but a consistent character is not what Shakespeare needed, on the contrary the fool is merely a dramatic tool. His purpose within the play is well summarised by George Orwell:

"He acts as a sort of chorus, making the

central situation clearer by commenting on it more

intelligently than the other characters' his endless

digs at Lear's high-minded folly are like a trickle

of sanity throughout the play."

Nahum Tate found the role of the fool within the plotline unnecessary, believing it added more complications than necessary, and therefore removed the fool from his productions, and introduced a new character, Cordelia's confidant to instil wisdom within the play.

Kozintzev however saw an importance for the fool, and was one of the first directors to successfully reintroduce the fool after Tate's 200 year reign over the plotline. However this Russian version displayed the fool at the end of their production, deciding that it would be easier to display him still present rather than to explain his disappearance.

Another character that has varied dramatically over time is that of King Lear. This is not due to the vagueness of Shakespeare in this case but rather due to this character's pure complexity. Lear displays such extremes of emotions, and so it is difficult to portray a complete picture of this character. The portrayal of King Lear varies dramatically depending on the focal themes the directors choose to depict.

In Kozintzev's version Lear is a small, bird-like man with quick eyes and his hair in a mess. He presents Lear initially as an old man who has realised too late that times have changed and appears, in his almost childish fits of anger, unfitted for kingship. Yet, by the end of the film, Lear is suddenly confronted with the consequences of his acts, and he acquires a touchingly fragile nobility and rises above his own inadequacies as he gains a fuller understanding of the situation. Lear is a strong character, and Kozintzev portrays this strength, this stubbornness, but he also allows the audience to see the human tenderness of a broken man, a humbled father, and a man who finds nothing else to live for once his precious daughter is killed.

In Tate's version, Lear is presented as a character of fewer extremes. He is originally an angry, selfish character, a temperamental old man, but Tate ensures that he is not the focal point of the story, and so Lear's madness in the storm scene is not given as much intensity. Lear in this version does not hold the strength that Kozintzev's version does. Nor does Tate spend time creating a hero out of Lear as the focus is on Cordelia and Edgar's love.

The complexity of themes within King Lear is another reason for the varying productions of this play that have appeared over time. Shakespeare, through the complexity of the plotline has managed to integrate an intricate range of themes, each of which can be individually focused upon, according to the context in which it is being presented. For example the Elizabethan theme of fate and the stars ultimately controlling mankind's actions, may well have been a major focus for Shakespeare's original production, as it is in other Shakespearean plays like Romeo and Juliet. However this theme was not as prominent in Tate's version of the 1600's as society's beliefs on this issue had shifted to more of a Christian perspective.

However Shakespeare ensures that there are a wide range of themes that are applicable throughout time. Themes such as Justice, nature and the natural, madness, insight, love and self discovery are applicable to all of mankind, despite culture, despite religion and despite the era in which it is performed. Shakespeare, through using such themes, ensured that anyone and everyone would find something within King Lear to hold onto. Michael Ignatieff, a modern critic describes this complex feature of King Lear perfectly:

"The great thing about King Lear is that you can find what you want to find in it. That's the first thing to say and it's important. It's not about one thing, it's about whatever you want to see in it. When your 16 you see it as a play about the blinding of Gloucester; when you're 30 you see it as a play about the horror of family life; when your 60 you see it as a play about ageing. I see it as a play about the tragic parts of human life it's a play about human blindness - it's also a play about cruelty, about what happens when you make a mistake and your punished - it's a play about how human beings can drive each other insane and that's impossibly difficult to watch."