When you attend high school in Grong its very normal to attend at a play in the first year. Going to the theatre isn’t very popular among students and for most of them this is a once in a lifetime experience. My class went to see “King Lear”, written by William Shakespeare.
The play was staged at “Trøndelag Teater” in Trondheim and had a total length of approximately three hours. It was divided into two parts, the first one being considerably longer than the other. My experience with Shakespeare is limited to say the least. I’ve been meaning to read some of his work but somehow things got in the way and my ambition was crushed (not that I was particularly saddened by that fact). I’ve of course watched “Romeo&Juliet”, starring Leonardo Dicaprio, and have also watched the better part of “The Merchant from Venice”, starring Al Pacino and Jeremy Irons, and I liked them both in a very peculiar way. The plot and problems seemed o.k. enough but nothing that can be described as groundbreaking today. In the 16th century I’m sure that people were shaking their heads in admiration and what not and that it’s Shakespeare who has been copied - not the other way around, but for me I it did not come as something new. What I did love was the dialogue and his beautiful prose. It’s unlike anything else I’ve ever encountered. His words are like good candy - you always take pause and linger with their smell and taste.
The same goes for “King Lear”. The plot and problems didn’t interest me much, but the dialogue was impeccable. I’ve only attended two adult plays beforehand, and I therefore lack the experience with the old fashioned type of storytelling. This resulted in me having to concentrate very hard on divining the meaning behind the colourful language and at the same time cope with plot-twists that seemed more often than not very irrational for me as a modern teenager.
“King Lear” is set in 16th century (I presume) and revolves around the consequences of King Lear’s decision to divide his country into three parts - one for each daughter. The only thing he want’s in return is the title of “king” and the right to free household for him and his hundred men. This sounds quite okay, if not a little illogical, but problems swiftly arise. King Lear demands that the the daughter who loves him the most shall get more land the others, and thus he starts a lying contest between the siblings. The two oldest ones are greedy and not true of heart and they tell him that they love him and nothing else, but he youngest daughter, and the one closest to King Lear’s heart, cannot partake in such sins and tells him only the truth; that she loves him as much as duty commands. King Lear, who is old but not yet wise, gets furious and dismisses all kinship to the daughter and splits the country in two.
But therin lies the rub. The two daughters dislikes the way King Lear and his men behaves and decides to betray him in the foulest ways. The theme of this play is treason and betrayal - and it was wonderfully conveyed and portrayed. The actors were good and I understood what was happening all the time, but what I lacked was commitment and connection with the main characther, King Lear. I left the theatre with mixed emotions and looking back I must admit that “King Lear” did not live up to my expectations. I’m recommending it, ’cause I feel that I’m too young to fully understand it. One thing is for sure; this was not the last time I went to the theatre
Posts
Sounds like fun.
28. February 2007 @ 21:20 ( Permalink )
““King Lear” is set in 16th century (I presume)”
You presume wrong. It’s set much, much earlier, probably in the Anglo-Saxon days; i.e. before the arrival of the Normans in 1066. I’d wager a bet on the ninth or tenth century, if it has a precise setting at all. Because earlier than this, I think England wasn’t really united yet.
And the sixteenth century it sure as hell isn’t (not that hell is very sure, but you get my point, right?
), as the sixteenth was to a large extent dominated by the Tudors, i.e. the Henry’s (e.g. H. VIII) and, later, the famous Elizabeth.
“The actors were good and I understood what was happening all the time, but what I lacked was commitment and connection with the main characther, King Lear. I left the theatre with mixed emotions”
I’m no expert, but I think that’s kinda the point; Lear is supposed to a an ambiguous character; the true “hero” of this play is his youngest daughter, I seem to remember.
Thanks for the review, though. Now I might consider accepting my sister’s invitation to go see this play.
5. March 2007 @ 11:17 ( Permalink )
I mostly agree with you. Maybe the play got a bit disrupted by the fact that we almost missed it due to the teacher’s lack of concentration, and therefore weren’t in the right mood when the play began, but the actors were quite good, I think. Your blog is quite nice, and I love the layout. It’s interesting that you chose to write it in English, but that does not, in any way, stop you from having good arguments and phrases. I chose to read “Shakespearian Slaughter” and expected you to be much less positive to the theatrical experience, but then I realized that the “Slaughter” might be the massacre of the cast at the end. In a very Shakespearian way, I might add.
I’m glad you recommend the play, that makes my efforts more worth wile. Having said that, I don’t expect everyone to like the play as long as they have an impression of what Shakespeare stands for.
5. March 2007 @ 15:10 ( Permalink )