 by browneColumns
Video
Currently Recapping
Popular People
|
"King Lear" adaptations set to star two "Atonement" actressesHave you been longing desperately for a new film version of Shakespeare’s incredibly amazing, yet incredibly depressing King Lear?
If you have, then not one, but two treats are coming your way. This autumn will see the release of a TV movie adaptation of the play, featuring the cast and director of a recent Royal Shakespeare Company production, including Sir Ian McKellen as Lear, and Atonement actress Romola Garai as his daughter, Cordelia.
In 2010, we should see the release of a feature film adaptation that was recently announced at Cannes, with Sir Anthony Hopkins attached to play the King, and Keira Knightley set to play Cordelia. Recent news reports claim that Naomi Watts and Gwyneth Paltrow have also signed on to play Lear’s older daughters Goneril and Regan, making the film of particular interest to anyone who likes to see a cluster of female gorgeousness and talent.
With that said, I have mixed feelings about both these upcoming movies. For one thing, I can’t help feeling frustrated on Romola Garai’s behalf, as Keira Knightley seems to keep on coming in and stealing her thunder. According to Wikipedia, Garai was nearly cast as Lizzy Bennet in the 2005 adaptation of Pride & Prejudice, before director Joe Wright decided to go with Knightley instead. Then, of course, there was Atonement, where Romola (as Briony) got overshadowed in the posters and promotion by Keira in her green dress. This would be less annoying if I didn’t happen to think that Romola was a much better actress than Keira. There’s also the fact that I’m not convinced that King Lear offers particularly great roles for female actors. For male ones, yes. Obviously. But let’s take a look at the King’s three daughters. Goneril and Regan are basically harpies whose job it is to flatter and then betray their aging father so that he can curse their wombs. Cordelia is an obnoxiously stubborn and self-righteous girl who for some reason doesn't say at the beginning, “Dad, I do love you very much but I just think it’s better to show my love by deeds than by flattering exaggerated words," thereby saving everybody the trouble and tragedy that unfold. It’s not just that I find these women difficult to warm to, it’s that I’m not sure I even find them that interesting to watch. The two projects do have in their favor the fact that there hasn’t really been a definitive film version of King Lear (in the way that some might consider Olivier’s Hamlet, say, definitive). Perhaps one of the most interesting adaptations to date has been a revisionist look, the 1997 film A Thousand Acres. Based on the Jane Smiley novel, it stars Jessica Lange and Michelle Pfeiffer as Ginny and Rose, and Jennifer Jason Leigh as the unambiguously obnoxious Caroline. In this version, a revealed secret explains — and at least partially justifies — why Rose and Ginny treat their father in the way they do.
What do you think? Are you excited about a new adaptation of King Lear? And are you more likely to see Romola or Keira’s version? Submitted by on July 10, 2008 - 3:00pm. |
Recent blog posts
New forum topicsActive TopicsNew Comments
|
Welcome to AfterEllen.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Lesbian and Bisexual women in Entertainment and the Media
I saw the Romola version and
Whoa.
Wait just a darn tootin' minute, Browne.
First of all the play is called "King Lear" ... it's about the fall of a King and the reclamation of a man. It's not about Cordelia. However - her goodness and ultimate wisdom become a catalyst for his salvation ... that's her role in the play. And it's actually a very beautiful one.
As per Goneril and Regan - cannot women be just as ambitious and loathesome as men? are we not just as human, and thereby capable of the same flaws?
To the point - Shakespeare on film is not the way to see it. Film is a subtextual genre ... there ultimately IS no subtext in Shakespeare - primarily because Freud was born a couple hundred years after these plays were written, and because Shakespeare's characters SAY everything that they mean. They tell the audience how they feel ... there's no need for those brooding silences filled with camera shots of tortured faces. When film does Shakespeare, it inevitably puts these long pauses in, and ruins the musicality and fluidity of the language.
Shakespeare on film DOES work, however, in capturing the epicness and multiple locations of his larger plays ... ie, Branaugh's Henry V ... McKellen's Richard III
In short. Go see it on stage. And if you want plays with great women ... go see one of the comedies.
PS - Remember - women weren't allowed on stage when he was writing ... so the fewest amount of boys wearing dresses the better. The way to fix this problem now? Reverse cross-gender casting. Yours truly will be playing Stephano in the Tempest later this summer. BAM.
We are shaped and fashioned by what we love...
Romola!
"This would be less annoying if I didn’t happen to think that Romola was a much better actress than Keira."
I cannot tell you how much I agree. Keira is just so...dull. Romola is far too good to be as unknown as she is.
I'm clinging to the hope that the autumn tv version will be good because 1. Ian McKellen is brillian 2. Romola Garai is brilliant and 3. their show had a very well-recieved run, so they can't screw up the film version too badly? Can they? I hope not, because I really wanted to see the show when it ran, and this will be the next best thing.
Pirategrrrl, how fun for you to play Stephano! Cross-gender casting is fab, but the last time I actually got to partake in it was when I was double cross-dressing as Flute in a Midsummer Night's Dream at age 12 :(
Cross-gender casting ...
Is the crux of my career ... I don't wear skirts very often .... ;)
PS - Regarding Ian McKellen's King Lear ... The folks I know who saw it when it came to Los Angeles said that it was completely self-indulgent ... and... an almost 2:15 running time for the first act (which is WAY too long!).
We are shaped and fashioned by what we love...
That's so cool!
It's so great that you get to do that a a profession. What've been your favorite parts?
I remember when I got to play Macbeth when I was 8 (heh, I had quite a career in community theater Shakespear before I hit puberty) and I just couldn't get over how much I loved my costume. I would, to the dismay of the costumer, wear parts of it when I went out to lunch. I tried to keep the pants, but she wouldn't let me.
It's too bad that you've head the show wasn't so good :( I'm sure I'll see it anyways, though, because I'm a little bit in love with Romola ;)
Thanks :)
I played Mr. Smith in a production of Eugene Ionesco's "The Bald Soprano" ... Antonio in "The Merchant of Venice" ... and the title role in "Othello" ...
Those are my current favorites, though Stephano is bound to jump up there, I think.
I saw Peter Hall's Hamlet in Seattle back in 2001 ... and I have to say that my assessment of this production was the same as my friends who saw Ian's King Lear. Sometimes in productions of this magnitude, and with this much hype, there's a serious temptation to make the show about the artist, rather than the audience - because it's sure thing from a box office perspective.
Shows should inevitably always be about the audience.
We are shaped and fashioned by what we love...
Lear...
I'll probably watch both... I liked Garai in I Capture The Castle and Atonement, and I'm something of a Knightley fan (anybody here seen Pure?). More importantly, however, I really like King Lear. I saw Ran ages ago (still my favourite Kurosawa film), and whilst it does switch the daughter roles to sons, leaving the only female roles to be a good virgin deposed noble's daughter and an evil concubine deposed noble's daughter, the story left a lasting impression*, enough for me to be interested in any other adaptation that wanders into my eyeline (the BBC televised a good one a few years (ten) ago starring Ian Holm, with Amanda Redman as Regan, Barbara Flynn as Goneril and Victoria Hamilton as Cordelia - thank you IMDb), although to date that doesn't amount to much (pretty much just Ran, and a couple of free-with-newspaper versions, a Paul Scofield and a Patrick Magee, which I haven't even got round to watching yet - I know, I'm a useless fan).
(Sorry for the big block and too many commas.)
*I got really irritated, for instance, when on taking my English GCSE for third and to date final time (I still haven't actually finished one - I'm not stupid, just bad at school) we changed from Lear to Macbeth because somebody complained that he'd done Lear the year before - I'd had to sit through Macbeth both of the other times that I'd done it (or tried to do it).
interesting...
We studied Lear in year 12, which in part involved watching 4 different film productions (stage just isn't an option in rural Australia). So I've seen it done well (my favourite being the one with Amanda Redman), and awfully, and the father/daughter balance of blame shifted every which way. I didn't like 'A Thousand Acres', since I thought they took the easy way out with the "secret". So I'm looking forward to seeing how these productions spin the tale.
"To the point - Shakespeare on film is not the way to see it. Film is a subtextual genre ... there ultimately IS no subtext in Shakespeare - primarily because Freud was born a couple hundred years after these plays were written, and because Shakespeare's characters SAY everything that they mean. They tell the audience how they feel" --Really Pirategrrrl? Subtext was born with Freud? The theory, yes; in practice, I have to quibble. Reading the silences of a text are often the most fruitful way of approaching it. Most queer readings of early modern texts depend on the fact.
Actually ...
Yes. Really.
Freud's theories changed psychology, they changed art, and changed the PRACTICE of both ... exactly. If you look at literature, at studio art - the practices change after Freud. Rather dramatically.
Freud's theories CHANGED practice.
But ultimately what we're arguing, is the fact that we see the possibilities of subtext now. That we have been trained over the years to see it ... it's a 20th century frame that we use as a filter ... but my point, is that it's OUR filter ... not Shakespeare's ... so while we go back and read ancient Greek text, *WE* read into it and say, oooo ... they were so gay! Well yes, of course they were ... but THEY weren't writing it into the body of the text with that frame and filter in mind.
Does that make sense to you? I apologize ... I didn't word my initial argument very well.
We are shaped and fashioned by what we love...
ok
Apologies for the pedantism. Logic says it was where you were heading, but I'm growing accustomed to defending lit theory from charges of reading-too-much-into-things (which, I'll frankly admit, it sometimes does). I may have been reading too much Alan Sinfield lately, who does work with the possibility that writers (regardless of Freud) included 'unspoken' ideas in their texts, not as an un-/subconscious act, but a deliberate expression of dissidence. So it's less about 'outing' Shakespeare (et al) from what he wrote, than investigating the possibility that he's offering a critique of heteronormative assumptions (or whatever ideology) within the 'faultines' of the text (Sinfield has a good essay on Olivia's silence when Viola's gender and her husband's identity is revealed).
Does that make sense?
Yes ...
That makes total sense. And thank you, in turn, for the clarification.
And I agree with yours (and Sinfield's) analysis! It's what I (and my colleagues) discuss, except using theatre jargon. Less formal critique, and more conjecture. :)
We are shaped and fashioned by what we love...
Subtext pre-20th century
If you're claiming that people only began to see gay subtext in the 20th century, I have to totally disagree. There are plenty of pre-20th century examples of people seeing it and reacting to it.
In 1640, a publisher called John Benson published a version of Shakespeare's sonnets - most of which are addressed to a man, in a way that is homoerotic but not overtly homosexual - but Benson rearranged and altered them so that most of the ones addressed to a man would seem to be addressed to a woman. If he hadn't felt uncomfortable with what he perceived to be the homoeroticism or gay subtext of the original sonnets, there would have been no reason for him to have done this.
In 1579, Edmund Spenser published The Shepheardes Calender, a poem that mentions the love between two male shepherds, Hobbinol and Colin. Although the relationship between them is not overtly homosexual, a contemporary of Spenser's, known as "E.K.", noted that "In thys place seemeth to be some savour of disorderly love". William Webbe, writing in 1586, noted and discussed the same thing.
In 1849, Tennyson completed the long poem "In Memoriam A.H.H.", which dealt with his love and feelings of loss on the death of his best friend Arthur Henry Hallam. Although the poem is not overtly homosexual, The Times criticized it for and was uncomfortable with "its tone of amatory tenderness" - they, like other Victorian critics, perceived homoeroticism and gay subtext in it.
I'm sure there are other examples.
But ...
Browne, your examples aren't about "subtext" ... the authors were purposeful in their text - in each example of homoerotic love you site.
The literal definition of "subtext" - prefix "sub" meaning under ... any meaning or set of meanings which is implied rather than explicitly stated in a literary work, especially in a play. Modern plays such as those of Harold Pinter, in which the meaning of the action is sometimes suggested more by silences and pauses than by dialogue alone, are often discussed in terms of their hidden subtexts.
Now, I have read the sonnets, and Tennyson's "In Memorium" ... there is NOTHING implied about the homoerotic love. It's there, bold as brass.
The editing thereof, by men of the time who saw these works as "amoral" ... that's something totally different. The motivation to change isn't to then *imply* that there was homoerotic love, but to change it ALL together. As for criticism ... well ... that's criticism.
There is a difference between subtext and interpretation. Can literature be interpreted in different ways? Yes of course it can. But "subtext" itself is a very different filter with a very different purpose. Subtext is added by playwrights on purpose! My point is that Shakespeare wrote exactly what he meant in his lines. He didn't imply, he didn't hide-text-to-be-found. Other people editing or changing text from the original is something totally different.
We are shaped and fashioned by what we love...
In the case of
In the case of Shakespeare's sonnets, I'm not sure how you feel you know what his purpose was - as far as I know, there's no existing commentary from him. Hence people speculate - some, like you, that he was deliberately writing about homosexual love, and some that he wasn't. But there is no unambiguous statement of homosexual desire in the sonnets - in fact at one point, the narrator says that if the Fair Friend was a woman, he might fancy him, but his penis is "one thing to my purpose nothing".
Similarly, we can't know for sure what Tennyson intended with "In Memoriam". But contrary to your statement that "the homoerotic love is there as bold as brass", he reacted uncomfortably when some people read homosexual meaning into it, and said that he never called Hallam "dearest" when he was alive.
My point is that Shakespeare wrote exactly what he meant in his lines. He didn't imply, he didn't hide-text-to-be-found.
Sorry, but unless you have some special hotline to Shakespeare that I've never heard of, I don't see how you can possibly know this. :P
But ultimately what we're arguing, is the fact that we see the possibilities of subtext now. That we have been trained over the years to see it ... it's a 20th century frame that we use as a filter ... but my point, is that it's OUR filter ... not Shakespeare's ...
My point with all the examples I listed was to show that contemporaries of Shakespeare's definitely were alive to the possibility that there could be a meaning in the text beyond the one directly stated. If Shakespeare's contemporaries were aware of and discussing this possibility, then why should we assume that Shakespeare wasn't aware of it?
Terribly sorry ...
To be so apparently presumptuous. That is not my intent. Nor am I saying I knew is purpose ...
However.
I stand by my earlier statement that he says everything he means in the text! It's there! Hamlet's "To be or not to be" soliloquy ... we don't need to ponder what he is talking about because Shakespeare tells us. Mercutio's Queen Mab Speech? When Romeo replies with, "Mercutio, peace! Thou talks't of nothing!" It's true! He tells us EVERYTHING. In his sonnets - he tells us that he's talking about a man! He tells us about how he feels for said man. It's RIGHT THERE. To what end and what purpose? I have no idea. You're right, and no I don't have a link with Shakespeare ... I cannot even say homoerotic ends, because that's another term coined from a modern perspective. Although I will say that the Elizabethans had a much different view on love than we do today. And to say that some editor in 1640 saw it as "amoral" ...well ... now we're in the Jacobean, pushing toward Cromwellian sensibility ... which changes DRASTICALLY on artistic, political, and religious mediums from that of the Renaissance (tangent, sorry).
But ... he does not HIDE text. In anything you read ... he does not HIDE, or IMPLY, or INSINUATE. He says his meaning ... repeatedly, just so the plebians in the back row get it.
Let's take your argument of Tennyson reacting uncomfortably to the insinuation of a homoerotic interpretation by aforementioned critic. There are MANY reasons why Tennyson would react unfavorably to his work being deemed inappropriate. That doesn't mean it comes from a "subtextual" reading. If anything, it comes from the fact that love declared for a man BY a man is expressly condemned in the Bible. And what was the most popular book of the day? THE BIBLE. From a Christian-based perspective it WAS amoral. But it's not because of the subtext ... it's because of the TEXT itself.
My point with all the examples I listed was to show that contemporaries of Shakespeare's definitely were alive to the possibility that there could be a meaning in the text beyond the one directly stated. If Shakespeare's contemporaries were aware of and discussing this possibility, then why should we assume that Shakespeare wasn't aware of it?
In one of my earlier posts, I posted a definition of the literal meaning of the word "subtext" ... with that definition in mind, subtext is used by authors on purpose. As I also said earlier, interpretation is always prevelant and present in literature. But were your examples really seeing "meaning beyond the text directly stated," or were they seeing through a lense related to the Book of Leviticus, and the ever-present life-thread of the time, the Holy Church? And again with each criticism and change enacted upon the texts you listed, happened BECAUSE of the text, not inspite of it.
We are shaped and fashioned by what we love...
Eyes gouged out!
At least Cordelia isn't the one getting her eyes gouged out in this one. And if her father weren't so proud and her older sisters such byotches ...
But if Kiera Knightly is playing Cordelia in a film version of this, I may have to gouge my eyes out. I'm just not feeling the Kiera Knightly love.
And I have to say, if the movie weren't a guilty pleasure, I have been a fan of Romolai since DIRTY DANCING: HAVANA NIGHTS, or whatever it was called.
gay ancient greek text?
You mean Plato's symposium Pirategrrrl? Or Aristophanes? 'Cause I don't think any of the tragedies include any kind kind of "gay" element. In fact, with the exception of Phaedra and Alcestis (that I can think of right now, anyways), in most of them love isn't even a primary theme.
I'm with you on the Freud thing though. I agree that psychoanalysis, among other modernist theories - I would also include structuralism and diascourse analysis myself, both of which came about later on, altered the perspective on everything, projecting modern analyses on both texts and history.
No ...
I was using it as an example to prove my point, that whatever the pre-Freudian genre, one can look back with these filters that *we* (post-Freud) have been taught to see with, and find any kind of subtext - because that is what our education informs us. But the writers themselves were not conscience of subtext WHILE writing their respective pieces. So I wasn't trying to be specific in terms of works ... and it wasn't from a dramatic literature POV that I used the example, either. I was thinking more of the semi-historical chroniclers, like Homer, and his account of the Trojan War.
We are shaped and fashioned by what we love...
WHO CARES
a bout Keira Kneightley or Romola Garai... IT'S ALL ABOUT IAN MCKELLIN.
So i know this is a site about women and lesbians but.....MAJOR MAN CRUSH! also my friend saw him in King Lear in london and she said he was amazing! man i can't wait!
~~~~
"laugh, laugh on at all the dreams that i the dreamer dare to weave,
laugh on, that i sitll belive in the people, for I still belive in life"
I can't stand Anthony
I can't stand Anthony Hopkins, so I won't be queing for that one, even with then women.
Romola is fantastic though. My English professor loved the McKellen version.
(And Olivier's Hamlet? Bah, way, way to much I-want-to-shag-my-mother.)
re...
This is a rather obtuse and silly statement here if you ask me. Who are you to be frustrated on an actress you barely even know? It's not like your frustration is going to improve anything. I respect the fact that you are a fan of Romola Garai and even I am to some degree enjoyed some of her performances. But to say Keira Knightley is stealing her thunder is rather a pious and hater esque statement if you ask me.
I mean you guys complain that she is stealing other people’s thunder and what and you complain about how she is getting all these roles, but maybe JUST maybe did it ever occur to the haters of this world that…Keira Knightley is the better actress? I mean maybe not to you but to the people that matter she might actually have MORE talent and that’s why she stands out? Blaming other actresses because they get roles is a cop out and frankly it makes you sound like a bitch.
It’s not Keira Knightley’s fault that she’s getting all these roles. She obviously has something more than beauty If she is getting such a good response to her acting. And keep in mind that Romola Garai was pretty much unheard of until Atonement came out with Knightley and Joe Wright. So if anything it’s quite the opposite. It’s BECAUSE of these movies that her name is getting out there.
I think Joe Wright did a wonderful job casting Keira in P and P and frankly so did the audience. I’m also willing to bet it would’ve gotten as big or did as well if some unknown actress at the time played a roll like Lizzy Bennet.
As for Atonement, of course Keira’s character was going to get overshadowed Romola Garai’s character. She is after all playing the Love interest of the hero of story so, that’s bound to happen. That’s just common sense if you actually took the time to think about it.
And on Romola, like I said I think she’s a pretty decent actress in what I have seen from her, frankly I though she did an OK job as Birony. Not a great job. Far from it. I though the elderly lady did the best job out of the three. But Keira did deserve her praises for Atonement. That was one of her best acting achievements. And the movie that PUT Romola’s name in there as well. Like I said saying “I blame this actress for taking all those parts” is just a stupid petty cop out.
I’m sure you are trying to come off sounding like a person who wants to be viewed as different but over all this argument here just makes you sound like a hater. Nothing more.
Dr. Zhivago
Lovin' It!
The discussions on this thread are fascinating!
Thank you, Browne, for introducing a thread that leads to this type of intellectual discussion/debate. It is obvious that there are a number of AE members/scholars with considerable knowledge to share and I , for one, enjoy reading this type of analysis.
Oh Keira...
I'll
lovewatch anything with Keira in it.I think she's a great actress who deserves an Oscar, Golden Globe and everything else... so I'm loking forward to this movies, specially if Naomi and Gwyneth are confirmed!
______________________________
savespashley.com