king lear - peter brook (1 Viewer)

survivor

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2002
Messages
110
hey is this production referred to as Aristolian or Nihilism??
what is the difference between the two?
 

chip

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2003
Messages
477
Location
sydney
Gender
Female
HSC
2003
i refer to it as aristolian and i talk about the fatal flaw and all that

i refer to a christian play as being nihilistic in the end (i think)
 

kokeshi

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2003
Messages
124
Location
Sydney
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
I'm using Peter Brook's production as well. You can support the Aristotelian reading of King Lear but I'm choosing the absurdist interpretation. There are tones of nihilism in the absurdist reading I think. Absurdist - philosophy that humans lead meaningless/purposeless lives. It's a very bleak take on King Lear. King Lear in abdicating his kingdom causes chaos supports the absurdist view - man's loss of control, confusion in a chaotic universe. The end scene in Peter Brook's production is good for this particular reading. Lear says, "Why should a a dog, a horse, a rat have life/And thou no breath at all?" The innocents die along with the villains.

With the Aristotelian reading, King Lear brings tragedy in the kingdom from his fatal judgement in the 'love test'. At the end, divine justice and retribution is accompanied by the restoration of order. Heroism of King Lear. Suffering becomes knowledge of the crimes he's commited.

Typical Aristotelian reading: A hero who is basically noble but is eventually undone by a character flaw (harmatia) often in the form of excessive pride (hubris) as well as by some implacable forces such as destiny or fate, usually reresented by the Gods.
source: The English Studies Book, Rob Pope
 
Last edited:

arn_e

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2003
Messages
72
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Originally posted by survivor
hey is this production referred to as Aristolian or Nihilism??
what is the difference between the two?
Definitly Nihilism with some refrence to it being theather of the absurd....
 

Gregor Samsa

That Guy
Joined
Aug 18, 2003
Messages
1,351
Location
Permanent Daylight
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
I'd concur with the consensus that Brook's King Lear is a nihilistic production, being influenced by Jan Kott's essay "King Lear or Endgame", which states;

It makes a tragic mockery of all eschatologies, of the heaven promised on Earth, and the heaven promised after death... orders of established values disintegrate. All that remains at the end of the gigantic pantomine is the earth, empty and bleeding.

The above statement is reflected in the end of Brook's adaption, particularly in Edgar's final speech being 'relocated' so that it is said whilst Lear is still alive (Quite sad in itself, being abandoned before death), and the shot of Lear falling, the camera lingering upon the sky for a few moments before the film concludes. Of course, this perspective is reflected throughout the entire 'text', from the opening shot of a 'spellbound' populace onwards..
 

mystyza

New Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2003
Messages
12
Location
newcastle
everyone seems to be referring to this amazinf Jan Kott essay... i have been looking, but with no luck!... if anyone knows where it is, i would appreciate the details! thanks!
 

Nupil

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2003
Messages
163
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Any production can pretty much be referenced to as Aristotelian Tragedy - as long as it rettains the textual integrity of King Lear ... with the complete and whole actions. Also while making a side note that all productions with textual integrity would keep the subplot - even though that's not evident in an Aristotelian Tragedy.

I'm using Brooks production as Theatre of the Absurd on the sole basis we didn't actually do a nihilistic reading. And the production itself renders itself open to a lot of different interpretations ... Nihilistic, Absurdist, Feminist and Aristotelian - all can be applied to Brooks' work.

And another thing that pops to mind - totally correct me if I'm wrong ... but I thought that Brooks' work, which is based on Kott's essay, was actually directly influenced from Beckett as the essay was argued in terms of Beckett's "New Theatre" ... who most obviously was an absurdist/existentialist?
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top