Take a photo of a barcode or cover
This is a play almost too big in its considerations. The commonality between Edmund’s story and that of King Lear and his daughters is the competition of family, the loyalty of family, the politics of family. That all along with classic Shakespearean meditations on power and you have King Lear.
It’s a play that feels like a lot of other plays at different points (Henry V, Hamlet, Much Ado About Nothing) but it designates itself thanks to the construction of King Lear and his utter confusion. Richard gets there in Richard II in a demoralizing way and other Shakespearean kings and leaders do reach a point of hopelessness, but none are so hopeless and so instantly hopeless as Lear, confused by it all from the start.
I usually read Shakespearean tragedies as kind of fatalistic. Aside from Romeo and Juliet, there’s a sense that these characters can’t stop the end that’s coming for them and while Lear could’ve trusted Cordelia in the beginning and kept things peaceful for a while, he’s still a king. There’s still everyone but Cordelia gunning from him. Their first plan worked but had he given Cordelia the throne they would’ve had a second.
I took note of Shakespeare’s use of "nothing" in the first two acts. It pops up everywhere and I’m still considering the layers of its meaning. Nothing is paranoia, it’s the actual thrust of power, it’s titles, it’s...a lot of things. Worth another read. Or a performance viewing.
It’s also worth it to see a performance to see how the space between these characters is handled which is always of vital importance in Shakespeare. Where is Gloucester standing (a character I haven’t talked about but is equally important to Lear) when he’s on that cliff? Who is closest to Kent when he’s tied up? What are the dynamics and specifics of these characters interactions? Lear was a famously difficult play to pull off and that’s partially because it’s grandiosity but almost certainly too because there are so many decisions for a director to make.
The deaths come a bit too hastily in the final acts but the writing is as sharp as ever and as far as Shakespearean violence goes this feels as well done as any.
It’s a play that feels like a lot of other plays at different points (Henry V, Hamlet, Much Ado About Nothing) but it designates itself thanks to the construction of King Lear and his utter confusion. Richard gets there in Richard II in a demoralizing way and other Shakespearean kings and leaders do reach a point of hopelessness, but none are so hopeless and so instantly hopeless as Lear, confused by it all from the start.
I usually read Shakespearean tragedies as kind of fatalistic. Aside from Romeo and Juliet, there’s a sense that these characters can’t stop the end that’s coming for them and while Lear could’ve trusted Cordelia in the beginning and kept things peaceful for a while, he’s still a king. There’s still everyone but Cordelia gunning from him. Their first plan worked but had he given Cordelia the throne they would’ve had a second.
I took note of Shakespeare’s use of "nothing" in the first two acts. It pops up everywhere and I’m still considering the layers of its meaning. Nothing is paranoia, it’s the actual thrust of power, it’s titles, it’s...a lot of things. Worth another read. Or a performance viewing.
It’s also worth it to see a performance to see how the space between these characters is handled which is always of vital importance in Shakespeare. Where is Gloucester standing (a character I haven’t talked about but is equally important to Lear) when he’s on that cliff? Who is closest to Kent when he’s tied up? What are the dynamics and specifics of these characters interactions? Lear was a famously difficult play to pull off and that’s partially because it’s grandiosity but almost certainly too because there are so many decisions for a director to make.
The deaths come a bit too hastily in the final acts but the writing is as sharp as ever and as far as Shakespearean violence goes this feels as well done as any.