A Tale of Two Lears

Review (sort of) of King Lear at the National Theatre, seen 14 June 2014

After seeing the female 'Lear' at the Union Theatre (see previous post), I saw the more usual (king-related) form of the play (the better known Sam Mendes/Simon Russell Beale production at the much larger National Theatre) nine days later. So, this is not so much a review, more a sort of comparison analysis.

Think of it as a "play-off" [heh, sorry] - and like in sport, there’s a bit of violence, a plucky little underdog, and the spectators just get to enjoy the contest, admire the talent, and avoid the (fake) blood. 

First, some brief[1] comparisons:

• Edmund is better done as a character at the Olivier, for me. It's a brilliantly cold, smart, sociopathic performance from the mesmerising Sam Troughton and the bit where he puts on a voice to pretend to do astrology, complete with rising inflection, was pure comedy. Gloucester in contrast was better at the Union because he comes across more as one of the good guys and a man of integrity making choices, where Gloucester at the Olivier had a bit of "i'm doing this cos it's what the text says" about him. 
• Cordelia was good - and fairly similar - in both productions but I think the National has the edge. It justifies her refusal to speak at the start by having Lear as a military dictator-type, and her rebellion comes across as both a child's sullenness and a political protest - that by compelling protestations of love by sheer military power, the King has overstepped (perhaps for the latest time) a mark.
• The trial-in-the-barn scene is amazing at the Olivier and I will not spoiler it, but it worked and I think was the key scene of the play. Sheer Mendesian genius.

Queen Lear - it works, bitches!

(title shamelessly adapted from XKCD)

SPOILERIFFIC & UNSTRUCTURED THEATRE REVIEW: ‘LEAR’ at the Union Theatre

Show: 5^th June 2014 (their 2nd ever! - so some things may change)

Let’s get the main bit over with first: Lear played as a woman worked. (For those wondering, Lear is the only gender swap in the production.) One of the main reasons it works so well is the acting. Ursula Mohan’s Queen Lear is outstanding and I hope gets seen by a wider audience – vivid in her portrayal of an ageing, powerful woman of increasingly doubtful sanity. I had no trouble accepting that she had been the all-powerful ruler of the kingdom even when her presumed husband was alive, yet there was also immense vulnerability on display as she wandered in slippers and a nightgown through Goneril’s castle, losing her grip on power and on reality, or when she wakes confused at Cordelia’s war-camp. 

I reread the play over the two days prior to going to see this production, with the possibility in mind, and it actually made a lot of sense in the text. In fact, I think the clash of mother and daughters (as with fathers and sons) can be far more intense, far more brutal in the sense of betrayal and expectation, than a father and his daughters. And a woman with power being tracked for weakness or signs of frailty? Yep, that happens. 

In textual terms there were swaps of “king” to “queen” (and sure, what was lost from “ay, every inch a king” was more than made up for by the increasingly uninhibited queen wanting Oswald’s “service”, so no worries for those who like their Shakespeare with as many innuendoes as possible) and a few pronouns altered, but little else.