Here it is...any ideas, suggestions, ?
King Lear, since its writing almost 350 years ago, has been interpreted and performed in thousands of different ways, each year giving rise to new interpretations, productions and values in context with these.
Feminists believe in the power and equal rights of women to men, challenging the traditional power of men as patriarchal rulers and beliefs and practices that result in the oppression and subordination of women. Where the play has been received as both anti and pro feminist, the latter has been more widespread in productions and other pieces of literature. Linda Bamber, Author of “comic women, tragic men, a study of gender and genre in Shakespeare”, puts forward such an interpretation of the play in her 1982 paper – written for her PhD, during the final years of the feminist movement, where radical feminism was only taken up by university students.
She recognised the misogyny of both Lear and Shakespeare, in that the women are only ever seen in response or reaction to the men around them. That they are stripped of their rights, and introduced as being designed by sexuality, to be wives, mothers, mistresses, property, prostitute and sport. There is evidence for this throughout the play, but we shall focus on the first act. In Gloucester’s account of Edmond’s conception, he refers to women he has slept with as virtual conquests, line 23 - ‘yet his mother was fair, there was good sport at his making’ and tells of their illegitimacy in line 14‘ where upon she... a son for her cradle ere she had a husband for her bed do you smell a fault?’ and labels them whore in labelling Edmond as a ‘whoreson’ in line 24.
Gonerill and Regan, even in satisfying the femineity and obedience required by Lear in their statements of love for him, in line 53,‘which of you shall we say doth love us most that we our largest bounty may extend’, are still smart tactile women, realising their father’s arrogant ego and poor judgment. Their flattery would interpret as a necessity to gain any position in the patriarch society.
Another possible interpretation of King Lear is of a Marxist nature. Marxism was a theory established by Karl Marx, who predicted the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism by the lower classes and the eventual attainment of a classless communist society. One such person with this interpretation was Grigori Kozintsev. Produced in 1969, it was a time of political revolution for Russia and Kozintsev was moved to include such elements in his production.
He saw the play’s end as the beginning of the end of the feudal and monarchist social structure. He saw the divine right of the king’s heirs superseded by division of equal rule and the death of the royal family as such. He also puts emphasis on the oppression of the masses, in act 3 scene 7, a servant protests the mistreatment of Gloucester, “Hold you hand, my lord. I have served you since I was a child, better service have I never done you than now to bid you hold” and in her oppression of the servant, Regan yells “How now, you dog!” her degenerating words showing her disgust and horror at the servant breaking class and speaking against Cornwall’s actions. His production opens with Lear presented as a god-like monarch, ruling over kneeling peasants whose heads are bowed down in submission. Leer dies amongst the peasants and lower nobles, paving the way for the further dismantle of the feudal structure as the lower nobles set out in an attempt to rule England, conveying the message of Marxism that feudal and monarchist social structures eventually fall, giving rise to the rule of the masses.
Richard Ayre’s production of King Lear is one of many for the screen and stage and Ayre’s directing portrayed King Lear as a family drama, evident in the props, interpretation of lines and story. In act 1 scene 1, we are presented with Lear’s extended family sitting at a large table, with Lear at one head and Cordelia at the other, symbolising his authority as head of the family and favouritism of Cordelia. This unconsciously provokes a modern audience to relate this image to their own lives and observe the family aspects of the play. The strong emotions invoked in Lear at his disgust in Kent’s challenge and Cordelia’s refusal are better conveyed to viewers in the camera techniques used, with close-ups on Lear’s face. Where emotions run high, the same affect features for other characters, especially Gonerill and Regan. Sibling rivalry is shown in the subplot of Edgar and Edmond, in his jealousy of not being the heir to his father’s wealth, act 1 scene 2 – “‘A brother noble.... on whose foolish honesty my practices ride easy. Let me, if not by birth, have lands by wit.” And also between Regan and Gonerill, as each fights over Edmund in act 4 scene 5 “Edmund and I have talk’d, and more convenient is he for my hand than for your lady’s”. A parent’s undying love for their children is also shown by Gloucester, in act 4 scene 6, “If Edgar lives, bless him”.
The values presented in this production are what the viewer interprets them as. Cynics would hold the belief that the production puts forth a warning to viewers about the fragility of family relationships and the negative, materialistic motives that are an undeniable human feature that leads to trouble within families. Optimists on the other hand, would see the production as both a celebration of a parent’s undying love for their children, as Lear expressed in his final hours, and also a warning on the value of keeping sound & healthy relationships within the family.
In the writing a text or direction of a production, elements of the personality and social background of the writers and directors will always be found in their work and as you compare a text & its interpretations and productions over a time period, there are often notable differences in line with the state of the society and culture it was produced in.
King Lear, since its writing almost 350 years ago, has been interpreted and performed in thousands of different ways, each year giving rise to new interpretations, productions and values in context with these.
Feminists believe in the power and equal rights of women to men, challenging the traditional power of men as patriarchal rulers and beliefs and practices that result in the oppression and subordination of women. Where the play has been received as both anti and pro feminist, the latter has been more widespread in productions and other pieces of literature. Linda Bamber, Author of “comic women, tragic men, a study of gender and genre in Shakespeare”, puts forward such an interpretation of the play in her 1982 paper – written for her PhD, during the final years of the feminist movement, where radical feminism was only taken up by university students.
She recognised the misogyny of both Lear and Shakespeare, in that the women are only ever seen in response or reaction to the men around them. That they are stripped of their rights, and introduced as being designed by sexuality, to be wives, mothers, mistresses, property, prostitute and sport. There is evidence for this throughout the play, but we shall focus on the first act. In Gloucester’s account of Edmond’s conception, he refers to women he has slept with as virtual conquests, line 23 - ‘yet his mother was fair, there was good sport at his making’ and tells of their illegitimacy in line 14‘ where upon she... a son for her cradle ere she had a husband for her bed do you smell a fault?’ and labels them whore in labelling Edmond as a ‘whoreson’ in line 24.
Gonerill and Regan, even in satisfying the femineity and obedience required by Lear in their statements of love for him, in line 53,‘which of you shall we say doth love us most that we our largest bounty may extend’, are still smart tactile women, realising their father’s arrogant ego and poor judgment. Their flattery would interpret as a necessity to gain any position in the patriarch society.
Another possible interpretation of King Lear is of a Marxist nature. Marxism was a theory established by Karl Marx, who predicted the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism by the lower classes and the eventual attainment of a classless communist society. One such person with this interpretation was Grigori Kozintsev. Produced in 1969, it was a time of political revolution for Russia and Kozintsev was moved to include such elements in his production.
He saw the play’s end as the beginning of the end of the feudal and monarchist social structure. He saw the divine right of the king’s heirs superseded by division of equal rule and the death of the royal family as such. He also puts emphasis on the oppression of the masses, in act 3 scene 7, a servant protests the mistreatment of Gloucester, “Hold you hand, my lord. I have served you since I was a child, better service have I never done you than now to bid you hold” and in her oppression of the servant, Regan yells “How now, you dog!” her degenerating words showing her disgust and horror at the servant breaking class and speaking against Cornwall’s actions. His production opens with Lear presented as a god-like monarch, ruling over kneeling peasants whose heads are bowed down in submission. Leer dies amongst the peasants and lower nobles, paving the way for the further dismantle of the feudal structure as the lower nobles set out in an attempt to rule England, conveying the message of Marxism that feudal and monarchist social structures eventually fall, giving rise to the rule of the masses.
Richard Ayre’s production of King Lear is one of many for the screen and stage and Ayre’s directing portrayed King Lear as a family drama, evident in the props, interpretation of lines and story. In act 1 scene 1, we are presented with Lear’s extended family sitting at a large table, with Lear at one head and Cordelia at the other, symbolising his authority as head of the family and favouritism of Cordelia. This unconsciously provokes a modern audience to relate this image to their own lives and observe the family aspects of the play. The strong emotions invoked in Lear at his disgust in Kent’s challenge and Cordelia’s refusal are better conveyed to viewers in the camera techniques used, with close-ups on Lear’s face. Where emotions run high, the same affect features for other characters, especially Gonerill and Regan. Sibling rivalry is shown in the subplot of Edgar and Edmond, in his jealousy of not being the heir to his father’s wealth, act 1 scene 2 – “‘A brother noble.... on whose foolish honesty my practices ride easy. Let me, if not by birth, have lands by wit.” And also between Regan and Gonerill, as each fights over Edmund in act 4 scene 5 “Edmund and I have talk’d, and more convenient is he for my hand than for your lady’s”. A parent’s undying love for their children is also shown by Gloucester, in act 4 scene 6, “If Edgar lives, bless him”.
The values presented in this production are what the viewer interprets them as. Cynics would hold the belief that the production puts forth a warning to viewers about the fragility of family relationships and the negative, materialistic motives that are an undeniable human feature that leads to trouble within families. Optimists on the other hand, would see the production as both a celebration of a parent’s undying love for their children, as Lear expressed in his final hours, and also a warning on the value of keeping sound & healthy relationships within the family.
In the writing a text or direction of a production, elements of the personality and social background of the writers and directors will always be found in their work and as you compare a text & its interpretations and productions over a time period, there are often notable differences in line with the state of the society and culture it was produced in.
