king lear; Productions- interpretations? (1 Viewer)

[girlsetsfire]

hey guys...

err i got my trials in 2 weeks and i'm just wondering if my information for king lear is enough.. well..

i have 3 interpretations of king lear
1. BBC eyre production
2. Nauhm tates production
3. Harlos 04 production

in them i have explained HOW they have interpreted it the way they did, i.e. techniques used such as iconic table etc...

i'm going to write up my interpretation of the play, ripping off all 3 of those interpretations and AC bradleys interpretation.... do you rekon thats enough?

and also, for the interpratations do we write about what you think the producer interpreted the play to be?. for example for nahum tates interpretation i wrote that KL is a play in which divine justice takes the role in which good always prevails over evail....and talked about how he did that... (techniques i.e. cutting scenes etc...)

thanks guys...

 

[silvermoon]

3 should be fine, as u have 2 go into detail on them & u'll only have 40 minutes 2 write it. u should mention, depending on the question, what the director meant it to be, but theres nothing wrong with saying 'although ____ intended the dominant reading to be ____ we can also observe elements of a ____ reading in this production' and thus add in ur own interpretation - if u can do this and back it up, it'll only make ur answer stronger

 

[girlsetsfire]

well how could you tell what reading the production relates to? i.e. the harloss bondi one dosent really have a reading relating to it. meaning you have to interpreted it your self right?

 

[santaslayer]

Most productions are open to interpretation. The idea of most essays is to justify your particular interpretation of the text through different techniques. Three productions are plenty because all three have to be then compared and contrasted to your main text. That is, King Lear, the book itself.

 

[silvermoon]

i agree with santaslayer. umm, i didnt see the bondi one, but i read about it - was it the one where they swapped the male and female characters around? or was that another one? anyway, if it was that one, then it is most likely a postmodernist feminist reading - designed to show how the language was constructed to show that men are inherently dominant over women.