Performance (TV Series) King Lear (1998) User Reviews

fairly faithful Lear

[didi-5 · 7/10 · 25 June 2005]

This production is a TV version of the triumphant Cottesloe stage adaptation of King Lear, starring Ian Holm. In that small space it was claustrophobic and on TV the effect is still felt, enhancing the problems Lear has with his wicked daughters, and pinpointing the emptiness facing Gloucester once he is thrown out, ill and injured, from his own house.

As Lear, Holm is very good indeed. A small man with a large presence, he does give the character the faded majesty it needs, and is therefore convincing. Amanda Redman and Barbara Flynn play the bad daughters (the ugly sisters, if you like), while Victoria Hamilton, a fine young actress who recently played Catherine in Suddenly Last Summer on stage, is Cordelia.

Five excellent actors round out the cast - Paul Rhys is a fine Edgar, robbed of his birthright by his conniving half-brother; Finbar Lynch joyfully plays the evil Edmund; Michael Bryant is memorable as the Fool, wiser than most people around him; David Burke is a loyal and trusty Kent; and, best of all, Timothy West is Gloucester. He'd play Lear a few years later but he's making the most of the second meatiest role here.

Who'd have thought that those two evil daughters could seem so sympathetic?

[210west · 8/10 · 17 January 2022]

Of all the Lears I've seen, this one - played by the inherently likable Ian Holm - is, surprisingly, pretty much the least sympathetic. One of the commenters here described him as "cranky," and that's putting it mildly. He seems, at best, an angry little fellow with a quick temper (Holm was 5-foot-5) and, less charitably, a ranting old coot who seems slightly batty from the get-go. Stomping around smacking his whip, demanding his daughters' hospitality not only for himself but for his retinue of 100 knights (rather an imposition), he's not a monarch one would gladly serve; and the loyalty of Gloucester and Kent seems almost inexplicable - at least to this 21st-century American (though not, of course, to an Elizabethan). You actually look forward to him getting his comeuppance: "To willful men," as Regan says, "the injuries that they themselves procure / Must be their schoolmasters."

Ironically, perhaps as a result of Holm's performance, the two sharper-than-a-serpent's tooth daughters - Barbara Flynn's surprisingly sensitive, easily wounded Goneril and Amanda Redman's sexpot Regan - evoke more sympathy than usual. In fact, though you'll think I'm exaggerating, the ostensibly evil Goneril emerges as in many ways the play's most sympathetic character! (Timothy West, as the too-easily-duped Gloucester, is easily the most realistic.)

P. S. Has anyone pointed out that David Burke, who notably played Dr. Watson and here plays Kent, went from serving Holmes to serving Holm? (Couldn't resist.)

King Lear

[eparis2 · 6/10 · 10 September 2022]

King Lear is about old age, but not everyone in it is old or should appear to be so. David Burke's Kent seems of an age with Ian Holm's King Lear. Finbar Lynch's Edmund and Victoria Hamilton's Cordelia, though they do not look like contemporaries of Kent and Lear, do not look young either.

Clearly, visual impact was less important than other considerations. Some of the sets, for example, are orange, and some actors wear matching costumes, a choice more distracting than edifying. Some of the readings too have a sameness about them, and Holm's Lear is too often simply angry, too seldom the victim of terribly mixed emotions.

Nevertheless, the production has strengths. The storm scene, for example, is quite believable. Ian Holm, as he did in the National Theatre production on which this film is based, removes his clothes (or almost all of them - the water and the camera's distance make it difficult to be sure). Throughout, the passions that activate these characters seem newly minted, not worn by their centuries of use.

The production is professional, and if no actor (except for Holm) stands out as extraordinary, no one falls below that uniformly high standard either.

Depoliticizing Shakespeare--Again

['Lich · 18 June 1999]

In the 138-minute version I saw and heard, this is a fine production of the tragedies of the Lear family and the Gloucester family but less good on theology and politics.

Two of the major productions of _Hamlet_ in the 20th century, the 1948 version by Laurence Olivier and the 1990 version by Franco Zeffirelli, follow Ernest Jones and make _Hamlet_ a mostly nonpolitical, Oedipal family drama. The 1997 _Lear_ follows the simpler expedient for depoliticizing a play of simply cutting or muting lines.

So in this (shortened?) production we don't have to take too seriously the possibility that the gods are dead or apathetic or politically irrelevant, or even the retained suggestion that "As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods; / They kill us for their sport" (4.1.36-37). Nor are we explicitly invited to think subversive thoughts about wisdom and folly, Nature as Divine Order vs. Nature as Machiavellian (or Hobbesian) competition--or about authority or justice in a secularized world.

Still, the emotional appeal of the play remains, and Ian Holm's Lear runs a brilliant course from despotic king and father to a gentle human being. Indeed, all the acting is quite good; and the set design, costuming, and camera-work are a good deal more interesting than we're used to on television.

So this is a very good _Lear_, but just a bit more of Shakespeare's play, at little extra running time, could have produced a very great _King Lear_. I hope that more subversive version was what people in the UK got to see and will make it to America when we're ready for theologically and politically unbowdlerized Shakespeare.

Note the parallels between Lear's and Glouster's families

[PhilipLRuss · 9/10 · 7 July 2003]

This "Lear" was one of those Shakespeare productions that got me to see a familiar play very differently. What choices do Lear and Glouster make? What choices do their children make? How do they affect (respond to) each other?

I'm on the "this is really good acting" side of the fence here. I was impressed and convinced by all except Edgar. He starts as so dull and stupid that when he grows into an icon and mysteriously wise man, it's hard to swallow. The evil sisters are not simply monsters, they are made to vacillate between concern for their father and "sensibleness", concern for position and desire.

I really liked this production.

An edge-of-your seat, totally riveting, emotional knockout.

[Heller · 10/10 · 18 October 1998]

I've read the play & seen other versions; this is by far the most riveting version I've ever seen, maybe the most riveting film I've ever seen. The stark sets strip your defenses away, and the performances claw you to the heart. I could not drag my eyes away from the action, especially the stunning Lear. Even if you are usually turned off by Shakespeare, don't fail to see Ian Holm in this surprisingly modern action drama!

A pretty good Lear.

[xenophil · 7/10 · 17 October 1998]

A cranky and imperious Lear, a fine Fool, a good Kent, and the bad sisters were excellent. Edmund is suitably vile and bold, but Edgar is too wimpy in the early part. The worst part was the storm scene - I couldn't understand the speeches over the thunder noise, and felt totally unmoved. Cordelia was too high-strung, quivery and dewy for my taste. I picture her as having a more quiet, soothing strength.

Interesting Lear, if only I could hear him...

[DizzyDitz · 10/10 · 12 February 2002]

Ian Holm did an outstanding job portraying King Lear in this TV film version. He plays the part with a virile energy that comes at first as shocking, by turns cursing and childlike. He does engender the viewer's sympathy as being misused, but the supporting cast is not equal. Edgar comes across as pathetic and stupid, not misused. The sisters are decently evil, and Gloucester is fairly deceived, but the action is hard to understand and not assisted by directing. The set and costumes are used sparingly, which may hold accordance with the sparse means of Shakespeare's day but fails to entertain a filmgoer's eye. One might question why a movie was made at all, if the advantages of the art would not be put to use. Know the plot well before you watch it, for the sound suffers in the storm scene so much that you might as well fast forward or be content with watching. Maybe I've been spoiled by Kenneth Branagh, but I come to expect more watchable stuff out of such an excellent play.

Don't bother.

[west_cavallo · 2/10 · 28 July 2008]

Having had to watch this production several times for Year 12 English (like a few others commenting here), I have been over its every detail, and can still find very little redeeming qualities. Eyre clearly delves into the ideas revolving around family and betrayal, but disregards what many would call the most important themes of the play (including the role of the divine and the monarchy). This serves to turn what should be a striking and thought-provoking play into a daytime drama.

This isn't helped by the acting. Much of the cast overacts and no one seems to understand the concept of being quietly angry - the excessive shouting will unfailingly give you a headache (which completely ruins the part in the last scene where Rhys as Edgar starts screaming in emotional agony, an otherwise moving moment). Ironically, in the storm scene (which is meant to be moving and a turning point for the characters) not one word can be understood over the weather.

The boring sets are no doubt there for some form of visual symbolism, but all they really do is detract from the film. They give the sense of watching something that is trying too hard not to be a play but at the same time trying just as hard not to be a movie, which leaves the set design looking sloppy and haphazard.

The two brothers do well enough, but the sisters are entirely mis-directed in a confusing display of violently changing emotion, so that a real sense of character can't be established. Timothy West and David Burke are excellent, Ian Holm has his moments amongst the shouting, and Michael Bryant is a good Fool if you can get over the initial shock of him being about the same age as Lear (although perhaps this is a shallow criticism). But on the whole, you would be much better seeking out a different version to watch (try the Russian one).

Brilliant performances in a stripped down setting

[phoenix1479 · 30 November 2002]

Be forewarned - if you expect a time-period piece and literal translation of the story into it's origionally intended setting, you will be greatly dissapointed. But if you value a phenomenal gathering of theatrical performances, and an excellent, uncomplicated production, please take the time to watch this film! Ian Holm as Lear should not be passed by (if you are ever lucky enough to have the opportunity to see him in this role on stage, don't miss it!)

The production is filmed on sparse sets with simple costumes (taking after the stage production from which it was developed), allowing the language and emotion to come forward - the story needs no props or special effects, as it is nearly as perfect a tragedy as Shakespeare ever wrote.

I do recommend familiarizing yourself with the story if you haven't already, and let go of whatever preconcieved ideas you may have about what Shakespeare's stories 'ought' to look like.

Enjoy!

Wannabe Star Trek crew rapes Lear

[neeltje_ab · 2/10 · 3 November 2006]

Richard Eyre's TV adaptation stars Sir Ian Holm as King Lear and Victoria Hamilton as Cordelia in a minimalist decor, emphasizing Shakespearian theatre.

Stagy acting aims to reach the back rows of a grand theatre. But taking into account the diminished distance between the tube and its viewer, any form of subtlety is forgotten in the dressing room. The actors did bring along their color coded Trekkie-outfits to the studio. These semi-futuristic designs try to give a refreshing vibe to King Lear, but the costumes' cold-heartedness instead distracts the viewer from Shakespeare's rich lines.

The setting is part of the same nightmare. The viewer is challenged to fight a headache as uncreative strip lighting drenches the stage in red.

The crew must have enjoyed an IKEA bargain sale. An utterly minimalist setting relies on dining room furniture decorated with red rags, three red walls and some random carpets. Static camera work could not help to compensate, but merely created a permanent record of this TV disaster.

Anyone not obsessed with either Star Trek or IKEA lifestyle will feel an incredibly strong urge to switch channels immediately.

an aparently unappreciated work of art

[nfssose · 31 October 2003]

Contrary to a commenter before me, I was blown away and amazed at the deep richness of the emotions that were put forth in this version of King Lear. I'd like to say that Ian Holm is by far the most profound actor to play the role of King Lear. The role of King Lear is one part in Shakespeare that is difficult to cast for two reasons: 1.) it requires a VERY OLD MAN with 2.) an immense amount of energy. Failing to see that those two requirements are near impossible to find in today's acting society, one could say that it was "different." Let me give you a little hint. King Lear suffers from dimentia, and as a result goes mad. It's quite simple you see. When one suffers from dimentia and goes mad, one does not become a vegetable, one is more active than ever. Overacting is described a bit too loosley sometimes, and this is one of those cases as my fellow commenter has described. So I guess putting emotion, thought, and motivation, is considered motivation now adays. Hmm. Then, personally, I'd like to see another melodrama, hopefully with Ian Holms in it. I thank you for listening.

Well, why not.

[hey-elle · 5/10 · 17 May 2006]

I also saw this for year 12 English and it's definitely a bit all over the shop. Excessive yelling and crying, a very old Fool and a very loud storm scene are the main drawbacks. However, worth watching for the setting, which seems to be a big red painted roofless world of walls, and the simple choreography of the actors' movements, Amanda Redman's fun performance as Regan, good work from David Burke as Kent, Edmund who is perfectly watchable, and an interesting interpretation of Gonerill if you're looking at it from a feminist perspective. More symbolic than realistic. Can you tell I've just finished studying it? I thought it was a bit of fun, which is probably the wrong reaction to one of the world's greatest tragedies, but what the heck. Why on earth not.

Zzzzz!!

[jodya22289 · 3/10 · 28 September 2006]

King Lear is the story of fathers who are betrayed by their children in order to gain power and acceptance, but are defended by one child who was originally disinherited by the father. In Richard Eyre's production of King Lear, Eyre emphasizes the acting in the movie, while not emphasizing the setting, special effects, and wardrobe. Here, Eyre tries to accomplish something similar to that of Shakespeare's production, where the acting is the most important element. The character Lear is portrayed by Ian Holm, who plays the role with passion and fire that is so enthusiastic that it is really believable as though Holm is really Lear. Barbara Flynn (Goneril) and Amanda Redman (Regan) both truly engulf themselves into the roles of their evil and manipulative characters. Overall, this movie stays true to the Shakespeare production in relation to the acting. However, if you prefer action packed movies with loads of special effects and high energy scenes, or any other type of good movie (drama, sci-fi, comedy), this is not the movie for you. Most of the movie is dry and rather boring, but it still stays true to Shakespeare as Eyre intended. In conclusion, the acting of Holm (Lear) and Paul Rhys (Edgar) are the only high points in the entire movie. Holm did a wonderful job in his portrayal of Lear and Rhys was able to capture the innocence and then power of Edgar. I would not recommend this for anyone who has a modern taste in movies. Eyre's production of Lear is basically just a play in the form of a movie, unlike other portrayals of Shakespeare plays such as Romeo and Juliet where the movie actually is a movie instead of a play on film. If you prefer one room sets and subtle changes in the sets, and a movie emphasizing the acting, this movie is for you. For the rest of us, stay clear of King Lear.

Over Acting Extravaganza!

[toddclancy · 27 April 2001]

I watched this in grade 12 english after we read the play and i'd have to say it was pretty crappy. At the beginning edmund was using a pencil to write the fake letter from edgar about he plan to kill his father they didnt have pencils back then. most of the clothes were modern i swear all the sisters sweaters in one scene were from the gap!, the hair styles were very modern. The acting was the worst, so much over acting. the woman who played cordelia was awful i havent seen acting that bad in a long time. most of the actors over acted and it was too fake and sucked. im sorry but this was an awful awful awful version of king lear.

blah.

[kitsune-devil · 5/10 · 10 January 2002]

The movie was very bland. It was a strong example of minimalism, but it lacked Character. The actors were underdeveloped, with the exception of KingLear, who was well played. The fool, and enigmatic character that can be determined in many ways, seems to be an old crazy man, not a wise man hiding behind a mask of stupidity.