Review of King Lear

King Lear (2018 TV Movie)
3/10
Diminishment
31 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I'd been avoiding it because I never thought Shakespeare was Hopkins' wicket and my mind wasn't changed after seeing it. It was done in a modern setting with realistic acting technique and while that can serve some of the plays well, I thought it completely robbed King Lear of its mythical qualities which are essential to allowing audiences to connect with it. They also cut the text to the bone (it's 40 minutes shorter than the vastly superior Ian McKellen version) which really hurts some of the actors. There are vestiges of an interesting performance in Andrew Scott's Edmund but the role is gutted so badly that he never had a chance and as for Karl Johnson's Fool, I honestly can't say if he was any good or not because of his lack of screen time. Emily Watson and Emma Thompson have their moments as Regan and Goneril but (dare I say it?) Lear cursing a sixty year-old woman with sterility didn't work for me at all.

There are some fine performances in it (Jim Broadbent as Gloucester and Jim Carson as Kent are both good, which you'd expect) but I'd call this one of the least effective Lears that's available for streaming. Hopkins can be an extraordinary actor in the right role but he offers no variety in his interpretation and lacks the histrionic thunder that Lear requires. Two of the play's most famous scenes, the storm on the heath and the Lear's lamentation over Cordelia's corpse, fall flat because Hopkins simply is not dramatically up to the task.

I consider King Lear to be the greatest work of art ever created but this presentation left me with an unsatisfying aftertaste of having seen a masterwork diminished. I respect director Richard Eyre but he tried to be too clever with this production and Lear is a colossus that defies such tinkering.
12 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed