King Lear advice (1 Viewer)

[johnson]

Originally posted by Lee



also she didn't say why they wern;t relevent really. i haven't read he notes yet.does it say?

she said that she thought that the fool's lines were too out-dated and un-funny anymore in our 'contemporary society', but i agree with anti, it was a bit strange that she cut the fool seeingg that he/she is supposed to be lear's truth thingy and supposed to make lots of ironic comments and stuff...but in a sense it is smart what finlay did cos the fool's role has sorta been forgotten over the years...

but the director was still really weird anyway... like it seemed like she made all these changes just for the sake of making changes, not cos they were actually significant or meaningful or anything...and i think that she knew that lots of hsc people would be coming to see KL too, so she prolly thought, hey, i have to make this as weird as possible...

i dunno...i am just a dumbarse..

 

[anti]

Yeah, I agree with you - and they made things funny because they (I'm loathe to say JUST the director..) thought "hey, kids like funny old people".

She also said (I just skimmed the notes on the site) that the reason they used white and projections and music from various cultures/eras was because the play transcends time or place. However then saying they cut the fool because his lines aren't relevant contradicts that - it shows they're looking at a particular audience after all. But as I said, just being picky.

However you shouldn't discard it as a production - you don't HAVE to take on board everything the director of a production says. Besides, IIRC the HSC question (or the specimen paper) last year was 'how MIGHT a production...' which means that you could use the techniques, without necessarily stating the original purpose.

 

[johnson]

Originally posted by anti


However you shouldn't discard it as a production - you don't HAVE to take on board everything the director of a production says.

yeh exactly...im totally making up my own bs for the cut theatre prod...like the white stuff, im relating that to how it 'subtly' resembles a mental asylum and how that reflects the madness theme...crap like that... and that the multimedia stuff is put there because of historical context, cos our society is more visually-inclined and so understand visual mediums more...lotsa bullshitting i say.

 

[ben]

Originally posted by anti


Just being picky, the director of that production (Megan Finlay) annoyed me (and most of my grade)! There was something way too pretentious about her "I cut the Fool because I felt his lines weren't relevant" - considering the Fool represents the theme of truth through the play, that's a bit steep.

A bit o/t, sorry

Don't complain about Megan! She was much better than the interview with the director of BONDI! LOL - Bondi director was hilarious actually - and spoke about irrelevant stuff for the whole talk.

But yeah, it's good that you don't agree with Megan's overthetop interpretation - gives you something to "discuss" in your essays.

 

[stephcat]

re: king lear scenes

hi, i've also decided to do the aristotelian and feminist interpretations, although i haven't actually seen the feminist one and can only get info on costume, themes, etc. and not actual production. would you be able to help me?

 

[esther]

megan cut out the fool but she thought that Kent was like the fool and she gave someof the fool's lines to him...

 

[esther]

Re: re: king lear scenes

Originally posted by stephcat
hi, i've also decided to do the aristotelian and feminist interpretations, although i haven't actually seen the feminist one and can only get info on costume, themes, etc. and not actual production. would you be able to help me?

i did the feminist reading of the play i habnt seen any feminist production...
the reading that i did was by philipa kelly and she was saying that the 2 sisters arent evil... they voiced there opinions and because females were considered as quiet ppl, it seemed to come across as the eevil ones
also she saw it as a patriarchal play-male dominated play and this other person thought of it as a misogynist play....

 

[eviltama]

now im feeling bad.....we never did any crap on feminist readings or any thing like that we've concentrated on the different themes, nothing much else....we watched 2 different productions the bbc one and ian holms one and thats about it....

am i totally unprepared or is our teacher just entirely on the wrong track?? our trial question was on that so i presume we arent totally wrong...but then again our teachers an idiot....

 

[anti]

Originally posted by esther
megan cut out the fool but she thought that Kent was like the fool and she gave someof the fool's lines to him...

She didn't justify it though, which is kind of frustrating. 'The director thought so' doesn't really hold up as much of an argument in a KL essay

Originally posted by stephcat
hi, i've also decided to do the aristotelian and feminist interpretations, although i haven't actually seen the feminist one and can only get info on costume, themes, etc. and not actual production. would you be able to help me?

What are you asking for? Thematically a feminist reading emphasises the patriarchy's misogynistic treatment of women (for example Cordelia being treated like an object to be sold) and/or the rise of women into power (G/R). Or whatever - I'm sure there's more to it than those two


Unless you're looking for productions with feminist readings?

 

[stephcat]

re: feminist interpretation of lear

thanks a lot. (not sarcasm). i basically obtained small paragraphs of info on feminist views of king lear, but only got reference to one play- harlos production 2002 by tanya denny. if anyone used this production, where did they get the info from, or if they saw it, would they possibly be able to post notes on it on the site?
i'll have a look at phillipa kelly's work- i've actually got some notes on it that say nothing about feminism, i thought it was just a different philosophical outlook. my fault. couldn't be bothered reading long, long analyses.
well, thanks guys!

 

[ben]

Re: re: feminist interpretation of lear

Originally posted by stephcat
thanks a lot. (not sarcasm). i basically obtained small paragraphs of info on feminist views of king lear, but only got reference to one play- harlos production 2002 by tanya denny. if anyone used this production, where did they get the info from, or if they saw it, would they possibly be able to post notes on it on the site?
i'll have a look at phillipa kelly's work- i've actually got some notes on it that say nothing about feminism, i thought it was just a different philosophical outlook. my fault. couldn't be bothered reading long, long analyses.
well, thanks guys!

I used Harlos for my exam and struggled writing a paragraph on it! She came to our school to talk about her interpretation but it wasn't any help - she blabbed on about all this irrelevant funny stuff [hence production people don't actually sit down and think about what 'interpretation they want].

 

[anti]

Re: re: feminist interpretation of lear

Originally posted by stephcat
thanks a lot. (not sarcasm). i basically obtained small paragraphs of info on feminist views of king lear, but only got reference to one play- harlos production 2002 by tanya denny. if anyone used this production, where did they get the info from, or if they saw it, would they possibly be able to post notes on it on the site?
i'll have a look at phillipa kelly's work- i've actually got some notes on it that say nothing about feminism, i thought it was just a different philosophical outlook. my fault. couldn't be bothered reading long, long analyses.
well, thanks guys!

If you haven't already, look at the movie A Thousand Acres (I forget the director, sorry). It's a modern interpretation of Lear where 'Lear' is an abusive patriarch - and there's other feminist aspects like female independence, rah rah rah.

 

[stephcat]

the trial

yeah, i know what you mean- when i read interviews with brook and eyre it was all very good and relevant to them, but it didn't provide a direct link with what we were doing at the time.
did my trial paper 2 today, we had to write a script for an interview featuring 2 directors...grr

 

[ben]

Re: the trial

Originally posted by stephcat
yeah, i know what you mean- when i read interviews with brook and eyre it was all very good and relevant to them, but it didn't provide a direct link with what we were doing at the time.
did my trial paper 2 today, we had to write a script for an interview featuring 2 directors...grr

I would have liked that question since we've heard two Lear directors talk. The ironic thing is neither of them cared less about their interpretations... the reason they did everything was mostly because of saving $$$ or just doing what the actor wanted.

 

[anti]

For those sorts of questions it should be okay to use imaginary directors - ie, ones without monetary constraints or fussy actors

Director 1: Yeah, I wanted Lear dressed in rags.
Director 2: Oh? Was it some Existentialist thing?
Director 1: Nah, I was broke by the time I got to that scene.

Yeah, I can see that happening