King lear door William Shakespeare

Ik heb het boek King Lear van William Shakespeare gelezen en ik heb het toneelstuk (Ongelikt King Lear) hiervan bezocht. Ik heb vervolgens de verplichte opdracht die hierbij hoort gemaakt. Dit is opdracht 9 van de toelichting op het leesdossier: Vergelijk het boek met de verfilming (in dit geval het toneelstuk) ervan. Hiervoor heb ik gebruik gemaakt van de perspagina van King Lear, ik zal hiernaar ook vaak verwijzen.

The script King Lear and the play varied quite a lot. The explination for this is that the creators of the play struggled a lot with the text of the book. The struggle for performance as the creators called it. Finding a balance between humor and tragedy was quite difficult they said. When I watched the play I got the impression that sometimes there was too much humor, so the next ‘serious scene’ was a bit unbelievable. In the book I felt that I was reading a dramatic story all the time. And I felt the difficulties of the principal persons. For example when Edgar saw his father having a hard time. This was what I missed in the play. Maybe because the humour in the book was a bit old. So in this age most of the jokes are familiar to everyone. The creators of the play had to change these aspects and make some new jokes so people would be entertained. This was what they thought was the right thing to do. For me this was something that wasn’t necessary, I liked the book but the play was on the contrary a bit unreal. The use of language of Shakespeare was perfect with a lot of metaphors. I could imagine that it was difficult to change this language to Dutch so that the use of language in the play would reach the same level as the book. The director of the play had chosen for the use simple language without the use of a lot of metaphors and difficult constructions in the end. I think this was the right decision. This way the play wasn’t more complicated than it already was. In the book everything is explained very well. In the play there just wasn’t enough time to explain every scene. This was one of the major problems for the creators. Actually the director made a play that was only one and a half hour long. This resulted in a very complicated play. You have no time to project yourself into the play. On one side there is the story about the three daughters, one the other side that of Edgar and Edmund. And everything goes from Gloster to Lear. No sooner has he divided his land, than he is back at his daughter’s house. You have to tell a lot in short moments. I think it would have been better if the play was for example two and a half hour with a short coffeebreak or something. One of the actors told the press that he didn’t really care about if people understand what’s going on. He said this because he sometimes goes to plays he doesn’t totally understand too. I think this is a weak explanation for such an important aspect of a play. Than there are these new persons in the play. This was quite a big change of the director. First of all the fool of the king. She wasn’t really a totally new person. She was actually someone that surprised me. In the book King Lear I thought that the fool was a man, but in the play the fool turned out to be a woman. A woman with a nursery suit and no humour. And in the book she tries to make a lot of jokes. In the play she doesn’t even try to make a joke. Then there is this all new character Lot, or in English faith. A person totally covered in black with the sprites of an insect on her head. It was very difficult to hear what she was saying. This because of her strange computer formed voice. The technicians of the play should have paid more attention to this. The producer said that Lot stands for the faith of the faith of the world, nature, wind and mother earth. She tells the bad ending of the story and tries to make things more dramatic. This person was brought to life to try and make the play ‘lighter’ (easier to understand). She is the inner voice of the persons in the play. She’s not on the stage for a minute, but in front of it. This because she’s not really part of the story: She gives her opinion on actions and thinks loudly. In the book the subject war is coming back time and time again. For example when Cordelia goes to England with a French army to restore her father’s majestic role. In the play this subject isn’t used. The producer said that he went to a play of King Lear two years ago. In this play he saw about half an hour filled with war scenes. He said that war is a quite boring subject and in his eyes King Lear is more a father for his daughters than a real King. I think this was a doubtful decision. Half an hour of war makes a play dull I know. But to totally ignore this aspect is the other extreme. Some war scenes can make a play impressive. It’s just the way a producers presents it to the public. Also warscenes are mostly easy to understand. This way people will be more involved in the play. Just saying that there was a war there and there makes the play even more complicated. In ten seconds it is told that a whole area has been conquered. Then another major change that the director has made: He made a new beginning to the story. In the first part of the book the daughters of Lear must tell him how much they love him. In this chapter you can see how false his daughters actually are. Lear’s daughters tell him that they only love him, although they are married! The producer had chosen for a new beginning because the relation between Lear and his daughters was much more important to him. Especially the relation with his honest daughter. I agree with the fact that these relations are very important. But the first chapter of the book gave a better view to these relations, you can really see how false his daughters are. They want to fool him while he’s so sick. So if I had to choose a beginning to the story I would have chosen Shakespeares beginning whitout a doubt. The producer made the play a bit too personal and changed almost everything of the book trying to explain it in short time. So I would advice you to stick to the book.