Question about productions, readings, and so on... (1 Viewer)

[Zeppelin]

I am doing King Lear, as seems to be the case of many on here.

However, I'm not sure exactly what to do. I was going to talk about Richard Eyre's version and relate it to family drama, and Peter Books verson, relating it to a nihilistic interpretation. But my last one I'm not too sure about. I've heard that it doesn't always have to have been performed, it can just be a particular reading (AC Bradley, for instance). Is this true? If so, how exactly are you supposed to use references to tie back to textual integrity?

On the other hand, I was going to use Nahum Tate's interpretation, but I don't know how to talk about production techniques. I know it is a neoclassical interpretation, so it was changed to reflect the social context of the time, but because large parts were changed, should I quote from Shakespeare's Lear of Tate's Lear?

Lastly, if anyone has some good sites about Nahum Tate's version, I'd greatly appreciate it.

 

[silvermoon]

yes, the module is about representation and meaning, not film and meaning, so its perfectly acceptable to talk about readings that arent productions or various interpretations like Tate's. with tate, most ppl talk about the changed ending and the pretty significant affect it has on the values of the text. if u quote ppl like bradley, u still need 2 be able 2 relate what the critic says 2 a production. eg, u might take the reading of christian critic and then talk about how this compares 2 blessed's film. so, 2 clarify, the critics u use dont actually have 2 be talking about the specific production u use 2 illustrate their point.

 

[classics_chic]

see my thing in "i hate king lear" on this one.

Best of luck!