"King Lear" is regarded as one of Shakespeare's greatest tragedies, and I can understand why. The story is filled with treachery, deceit, jealousy, and great loss. Almost everyone in Lear's life whom he thought loved him actually betrayed him and hurt him. It is ironic, then, that the only two people who stay loyal to Lear is Cordelia and Kent, the two people Lear disowned and banished from his sight. Murphy (Murphy's Law) had fun in "King Lear," because everything that could go wrong did. However despite the very sad ending, I really enjoyed the play.
All the other times I have read Shakespeare, I have had no trouble understanding it. However, When I started reading "King Lear" I found it one of Shakespeare's more confusing plays. The story itself is a most confusing one, and the widespread use of monologues and Elizabethan vernacular didn't help. Some people may wonder why Shakespeare wrote "King Lear" the way he did, and I did too, until I visited the Blackfriars Theater to see "Much Ado About Nothing."
The Blackfriars Theater is a replica of an Elizabethan theater, and as such is quite different than a modern theater. One major difference is that the audience is practically on the stage itself, giving a much more intimate feel to the production. The audience feels like a part of the play, instead just spectators. Also, I found the actors talking to the audience and including them as a "part of the cast." It was then that I realized how different Elizabethan theater was from today's theater. Although his plays are timeless now, when Shakespeare wrote his plays he wrote them for an audience that would presumably be much more involved. Therefore, it dawned on me, Shakespeare included long monologues (etc...) because he wanted to include the audience. Just as modern performers like hearing the crowd's reactions, so Shakespeare must have enjoyed including the audience in his plays. So much so, he wrote his plays in such a way so as to give the audience "a part" all there own. He was writing his plays as entertainment, after all, and not intending them to be timeless classics. (The fact that they became classics anyways shows his skill and mastery of play writing, however)
After the realization of who Shakespeare wrote his plays for, I found myself enjoying "King Lear" much more. It has now become one of my favorite of his plays. I am impressed with Shakespeare's ability to write such a complicated, twisting story which grabs the reader's heart and wrenches it in all sorts of ways. Well done, Mr. Bard.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hmm.. it seems that King Lear was pretty depressing, especially when it comes to the fact that everybody left him other then the two people that he disowned. It truly shows how ironic life can be in the end, that one's supposed "enemies" can actually become the only people to back them up in the end. I am glad that the Blackfriars Theater brought you some help with reading this place because most people would not have that advantage when it comes to the o so dreadful Shakespeare :). And I do agree with you that Shakespeare does try to include the audience in some extent because he is, like you said, afterall just trying to make the experience more enjoyable for the audience so they may take a lesson from it and learn from the plots of all his plays.
ReplyDeleteI don't think I wold enjoy this play very much. Personnaly, I am a much bigger fan of comedies than tragedies and it seems that shakespeare really went out of his way to make the characters miserable. Using your own words, I definitely do not enjoy my heart being wrenched in all sorts of ways. I do not like that Shakespeare seems to kill off half of his characters and break the hearts of the other half. Then again, I guess that is what makes a tragedy.
ReplyDeleteThis actually makes me very tempted to read King Lear (I almost did, instead of reading Taming of the Shrew), even though I haven't actually read any of Shakespeare's tragedies (besides Romeo and Juliet.
ReplyDeleteYou did actually give me some serious insight into these monologues, though, I never considered that as reasoning for his including long monologues.
I think your insight to this play is very good. I completely agree with you that Murphy's Law was a huge theme throughout this play, and I loved the irony that the two people he had disowned and banished were the ones who stuck beside him. Even though it was such a tradgedy, I think it was one of the most interesting tradgedies I have read to date.
ReplyDelete