Customer Reviews

Jean Luc-Godard's King Lear [VHS]

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Godard's King Lear is an extended meditation on the possibilty or impossibility of capital-A "Art" in the postmodern age. It engages inconsistently at best with Lear--if you're looking for an interesting, coherent interpretation of Shakespeare's play, you'll probably want to look somewhere else--but as a working-through of what it means to create Art or what counts as Art, it is incomparable.

Ironically, but unsurprisingly, this is one of Godard's most "Modernist" works, engaging in self-conscious formal experimentation in order to engage with the "essence" of the cinematic medium. Gone is the overt political aspect of his work of the 1960's, as he has come to be concerned here with aesthetic issues alone. (Arguably, this was a necessary step leading into his religious works of the 1990's.)

And all that highfalutin' interpretation aside, who doesn't want to see Burgess Meredith (and Norman Mailer) "playing King Lear" to Molly Ringwald (and Mailer's daughter's) Cordelia?

Note to Woody Allen fans: His cameo is about two seconds long. If he's your only interest, don't bother.

"King Lear" is a fascinating film experience. Godard expresses passionate views of power vs. virtue, as appears on one of his many taglines, but what is most remarkable about this masterful picture is its sheer ability to inspire provocative thoughts of American society today. Released to video October 9, 1992 and classified PG by CARA, "King Lear" also features optimal sound (c/o of Dolby), as is appropriate and necessary for Godard's cinematic scope. Set against the backdrop of a Swiss resort, "King Lear," indeed unfolds in "post-apocalyptic"(Leonard Maltin), post-Chernobyl time, revealing a surreal picture of the world as we may come to see it. Misunderstood and underappreciated, "King Lear" is not to be missed, if only to see Brat Packer Molly Ringwald in her best picture since 1986's "Pretty in Pink."

--and please keep in mind I am a fan of Jean-Luc Godard and of Shakespeare. This painfully dull and self-important film is a waste of time and talent. Instead, check out Godard at his peak in Vivre Sa Vie (My Life to Live), Breathless, or Un Femme Et Un Femme or try Laurience Olivier's late 1980's BBC version of King Lear or Orson Welles' version. This is perhaps my "most unfavorite" movie ever.

King Lear is one of Godard's best work.American people don't understand his breathless love for cinema.Actally "a woman is a woman" or "vivre sa vie" are his most naive and boring movies.

I adore King lear(I've read it at least four times and taught it two)& am a fan of artistic films, but this? The sound is appalling, though it may be in Dolby; the constant over layering of speakers is not poignant (as at a poetry reading) but incomprehensable. There is a contant screeching of birds, and while I know animals/birds of prey play are often used for imagery in Lear, but the contant sea gull screeches hurt one's ears! The characters are practically unidentifiable, as are their motivations. Not to mention, there are several scenes that seem to have absolutely no point whatsoever (such as Shakespeare the 5th being followed by girls imitating his gestures in the woods). Periodically, you'll see flashes of a black screen that say things such as "King Lear: A Study." A study in what? Crapulous nonsense? If you enjoy pretending to be hip while sipping a $7 latte and decontructing postmodernism, you may enjoy this film. If you love King Lear, you probably won't.