tom_amity I have read altogether too many reviews of this film which bash it all to hell because the reviewer doesn't agree with Brook's reading of KING LEAR. To all such folk I would like to say: We Shakespeare fans should positively glory in the fact that every reader (and a fortiori every director) has his or her own interpretation of all the plays. Given Brook's interpretation, the film is wonderful.This version of Shakespeare's greatest tragedy is not only consistent with itself, which most aren't, it is acted to a hilt. The characters are brilliantly portrayed. The interactions between them appear as the absolute and utter epitome of conflict and love, of the heroic and villainous way people act when confronted with a situation that is calculated to freak a human being out.My favorite characterization is that of the Fool, who utterly steals the show and who becomes almost a Greek chorus. The way he interacts with Lear suggests a metaphysical mood of "We know exactly what's going on here, don't we?" The understanding between these two is too deep to be expressed in normal language; in the conversation around "The reason why the seven stars are only seven" (which would have struck any of the other characters, except maybe Kent, as a demented sequence of non sequiturs) suggests that Lear knows, at least at that moment, how the story will turn out, and that his attitude is one of "what is't to leave betimes? Let be." The Fool is here a prophet of absurdity, a Dark Age cross between a Marx Brother and Lenny Bruce.And I challenge anyone to show me any actors who could do Kent and Gloucester better than those who portrayed them in this film. To say nothing of the wonderful job Scofield does with the title role.Brook's Lear is almost sociopathically unfeeling until disaster begins to overtake him. To be sure, this view of Lear is not mine. But again, Shakespeare's characters are topics inexhaustible, and there is no such thing as a Lear to end all Lears. Whether one agrees with Brook or not, he carries his idiosyncratic reading off brilliantly---just as brilliantly as Laurence Olivier and Ian Holm in their utterly un-Brookish TV versions. I say: Let it ride! Let's have as many defensible and indefensible Lears as possible, and let's have them as utterly contradictory of each other as the 1945 and 1991 film versions of Henry the Fifth are.By the way, I am a recent convert to this position. Before I saw the light, I was (for example) utterly ticked off at Kenneth Branagh's film of HAMLET, because it portrayed the Prince as having had sex with Ophelia way back when, and because its Fortinbras was an uncultured creep who dissed Hamlet by tearing down his father's monument. Wasn't it obvious that the text utterly contradicts both notions? Yep! But Branagh would have every right to say to me, "The hell with you, go make your own film." And so would Brook to his critics.See it, friend. I look forward to our friendly argument.

Shakespeare Bond It takes a lot for me to not like a Shakespeare production. The Bard is so good that most shortcomings of Shakespearean films fade from view. Not so with this one. It is the second most boring Shakespeare movie I've seen, and I've seen quite a few. (The most boring is the usually competent BBC's version of Richard III). Scofield sounds drugged as he says his lines. I never felt anything for him or any of the characters.Before I tear this film to shreds, though, I must commend the storm scene. For once, all the attempts at being "artsy" actually work. At first you see a view of Lear from below (Fool's-eye-view?), he towers above the camera, power personified. The next moment, we see a bird's eye view. Lear is just a spec on this huge mountain. Suddenly, we see that, for all his grandeur, Lear is just a human being. He can't influence the world. A truly powerful scene.If only the rest of the film wasn't so boring... I'd be willing to watch that one scene 20 times, but I don't want to have to go through the whole film to do it. I'll take the Olivier version (for all its overdone melodrama) over this.

DC1977 After seeing Paul Scofield's amazing Oscar-winning performance in 'A Man For All Seasons', I was determined that one day I would see the film version of his interpretation of arguably the most challenging stage role of all, that of Shakespeare's King Lear.I was amazed at what I saw in the first half hour. This would have to be the most poorly, even carelessly, directed and edited film I have ever seen.Cuts would be made at bizarre times when the viewer would feel there was more to come from that scene. The camera often seemed unsure of where the actors were and the photography, clearly downbeat in a failed attempt to get the right mood, was frankly pathetic.This can not be down to incompetent direction as Peter Brook is a highly-respected stage director who, although he hasn't set the movie world alight, definitely has the talent to produce polished work.It is obvious that the film is deliberately amateurish but for what reason?This reminded me a great deal of an Andy Warhol film called 'My Hustler' where at one point the camera pans across a beach to focus on a young hustler but can't find him!! The camera kept searching until the subject was in view.However, Warhol was well-known even praised for his amateurish style.Although the technical quality of Lear improved later, the damage had already been done. When viewers are subjected to film-making as technically poor as this, it is very difficult to maintain concentration. Although there was nothing wrong with the acting (Scofield is excellent) the film itself is boring purely because of the way it is directed.As a result, it is difficult to sit through this film and concentrate hard enough to successfully follow it's story. I have never read the play and I know little more about the story after seeing this film version.However, I'm pleased that I've seen it simply because Paul Scofield is without doubt one of the greatest actors of all time. Unfortunately for film fans, he has appeared in very few movies and so any permanent record of his remarkable talent is well worth seeing regardless of the quality of the final product.

Darroch Greer I can think of few other films that carry such epic and classical themes, yet have been so fully and masterfully realized on the screen. I have been returning of late to my 25 favorite films, and "King Lear" has not faded one bit, albeit a poor transfer to video. Peter Brook's vision is staggeringly bleak, yet every actor, scene, and line reading is deeply suited to the text and Brook's vision. The camera work and editing, a tour de force. I think it is his finest film.Paul Scofield may have been the greatest actor in the English-speaking world, yet he made relatively few films, prefering the stage. Yes, he was honored for A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS, but that was an easy roll for him. His Lear demands to be seen: from his opening shot in the stoney silence of his tree-trunk throne to his moaning in the storm with his Fool to his howl of grief at his lifeless, cherished daughter, this is a performance to be returned to time and again.Plus, there is a supporting cast to beat all: Irene Worth as Goneril (with a surprising death scene), the great Jack MacGowran as the Fool, Patrick Magee as Cornwall, Cyril Cusak as Albany, and Brook stalwart Robert Lloyd in the difficult roll of Edgar. The film was shot in Jutland, Denmark, during the winter, and the setting is as bleak and barren as Lear's eldest daughters' feelings for their confused father.Why is this film so rarely seen? It deserves a new, letter-boxed print, and it seems a project right up Criterion's alley. In the meantime, make the effort to find a copy. It's on DVD in England.