-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
king lear - peter brook (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter survivor
- Start date
I'm using Peter Brook's production as well. You can support the Aristotelian reading of King Lear but I'm choosing the absurdist interpretation. There are tones of nihilism in the absurdist reading I think. Absurdist - philosophy that humans lead meaningless/purposeless lives. It's a very bleak take on King Lear. King Lear in abdicating his kingdom causes chaos supports the absurdist view - man's loss of control, confusion in a chaotic universe. The end scene in Peter Brook's production is good for this particular reading. Lear says, "Why should a a dog, a horse, a rat have life/And thou no breath at all?" The innocents die along with the villains.
With the Aristotelian reading, King Lear brings tragedy in the kingdom from his fatal judgement in the 'love test'. At the end, divine justice and retribution is accompanied by the restoration of order. Heroism of King Lear. Suffering becomes knowledge of the crimes he's commited.
Typical Aristotelian reading: A hero who is basically noble but is eventually undone by a character flaw (harmatia) often in the form of excessive pride (hubris) as well as by some implacable forces such as destiny or fate, usually reresented by the Gods.
source: The English Studies Book, Rob Pope
With the Aristotelian reading, King Lear brings tragedy in the kingdom from his fatal judgement in the 'love test'. At the end, divine justice and retribution is accompanied by the restoration of order. Heroism of King Lear. Suffering becomes knowledge of the crimes he's commited.
Typical Aristotelian reading: A hero who is basically noble but is eventually undone by a character flaw (harmatia) often in the form of excessive pride (hubris) as well as by some implacable forces such as destiny or fate, usually reresented by the Gods.
source: The English Studies Book, Rob Pope
Last edited:
Gregor Samsa
That Guy
I'd concur with the consensus that Brook's King Lear is a nihilistic production, being influenced by Jan Kott's essay "King Lear or Endgame", which states;
It makes a tragic mockery of all eschatologies, of the heaven promised on Earth, and the heaven promised after death... orders of established values disintegrate. All that remains at the end of the gigantic pantomine is the earth, empty and bleeding.
The above statement is reflected in the end of Brook's adaption, particularly in Edgar's final speech being 'relocated' so that it is said whilst Lear is still alive (Quite sad in itself, being abandoned before death), and the shot of Lear falling, the camera lingering upon the sky for a few moments before the film concludes. Of course, this perspective is reflected throughout the entire 'text', from the opening shot of a 'spellbound' populace onwards..
It makes a tragic mockery of all eschatologies, of the heaven promised on Earth, and the heaven promised after death... orders of established values disintegrate. All that remains at the end of the gigantic pantomine is the earth, empty and bleeding.
The above statement is reflected in the end of Brook's adaption, particularly in Edgar's final speech being 'relocated' so that it is said whilst Lear is still alive (Quite sad in itself, being abandoned before death), and the shot of Lear falling, the camera lingering upon the sky for a few moments before the film concludes. Of course, this perspective is reflected throughout the entire 'text', from the opening shot of a 'spellbound' populace onwards..
Any production can pretty much be referenced to as Aristotelian Tragedy - as long as it rettains the textual integrity of King Lear ... with the complete and whole actions. Also while making a side note that all productions with textual integrity would keep the subplot - even though that's not evident in an Aristotelian Tragedy.
I'm using Brooks production as Theatre of the Absurd on the sole basis we didn't actually do a nihilistic reading. And the production itself renders itself open to a lot of different interpretations ... Nihilistic, Absurdist, Feminist and Aristotelian - all can be applied to Brooks' work.
And another thing that pops to mind - totally correct me if I'm wrong ... but I thought that Brooks' work, which is based on Kott's essay, was actually directly influenced from Beckett as the essay was argued in terms of Beckett's "New Theatre" ... who most obviously was an absurdist/existentialist?
I'm using Brooks production as Theatre of the Absurd on the sole basis we didn't actually do a nihilistic reading. And the production itself renders itself open to a lot of different interpretations ... Nihilistic, Absurdist, Feminist and Aristotelian - all can be applied to Brooks' work.
And another thing that pops to mind - totally correct me if I'm wrong ... but I thought that Brooks' work, which is based on Kott's essay, was actually directly influenced from Beckett as the essay was argued in terms of Beckett's "New Theatre" ... who most obviously was an absurdist/existentialist?
Last edited: