It is odd when the actors giving the best performances are those playing Oswald and the Duke of Cornwall. Ruth Wilson and Glenda Jackson were also very impressive.
Why were the actors miked? The distorted sound was very disturbing.
6
I’m wondering if it might not to be time to add another theatre reviewer to the paper. I saw the production this weekend. Certainly the point about the obtrusive music is correct. I do wonder though about the observations made regarding the seemingly disjointed cast and the director’s decisions, which your critic suggests are random or at least unfathomable or perhaps egregious. I think that times have changed in theatre, and that productions, like this one, that take dramatic risks are deserving of a critic who recognizes how nuances and contexts change with the times. So much of what Mr. Brantley has written over the years is of great note; maybe it’s time to divide his kingdom into several parts.
5
@Scott Haas
I do not think Mr. Brantley should be called out for stating the obvious. This production of Lear is so full of gimmicks that the play is mangled by the director's
"Concept". Taking risks often times makes for great theater but a complete understanding of the text MUST take precedent . Sadly, in this case that did not happen.
8
I loved it and so did the four people I saw it with. It wasn't perfect, but it wasn't muddled and the other actors did a great job together, in addition to Glenda Jackson being incredible. John Douglas Thompson as Earl of Kent, Pedro Pascal as Edmund and Jayne Houdyshell as Gloucester were especially great.
5
After purchasing tickets nine months in advance, I finally had a chance to see King Lear tonight. There were many highs and lows to the production.
Glenda Jackson was superb as was Ruth Wilson.
Some of the other actors seemed to be lost in their roles and accents. Having a deaf actor with another actor signing did not add anything to the drama of the play. And yes - this play is a drama. I don’t know why the audience was laughing at so many different times?
When Shakespeare is performed in a non-period fashion there is generally consistency to a period costumes, props, etc. I don’t know what period the director was attempting to recreate or create. There were artifacts spanning the entire 20th century.
I think the director was misguided in his direction for the play.
I love chamber music, but the Philip Glass selections were superfluous to the production. At times the sound balance was so off that the string quartet drowned out the actors performing their lines. Look it’s Shakespeare - so do you really need musical accompaniment that drowns out the words. Other sound issues included the storm sequences, which were too loud, and competed with the actors.
The set was very odd with the random ceramic animals and the gold flaked walls. The second act opened with a set that included furniture and flowers from act one, just tossed around the stage.
If you can overlook these issues, it’s still worthwhile to and see Glenda Jackson and Ruth Wilson.
6
@Carl - “this play is a drama. I don’t know why the audience was laughing at so many different times?”
You do know that Shakespeare always included comic moments in his tragedies, don’t you?
5
@Carl
Drat. Really sorry to hear that the string quartet is still competing with the actors' lines. I do love Philip Glass, but crossed fingers that they'd have remedied the sound problems by now. We're seeing the production this week.
We bought our ticket months ago as well. I had hoped against hope that they were bringing over the whole Old Vic production, directed by Deborah Warner. Ah, well. Still, very much forward to seeing my favorite actor, Glenda Jackson.
1
Last night my husband and I sat in first row of balcony of the Cort and saw Glenda Jackson do her magnificent tragic King Lear.
I do agree that the set was a bit strange and modern and I also did not understand the significance of the lion and the pug by the somewhat more dining chair than throne. If anyone can cite the symbolism, reply here is appreciated.
However no one here in comments or in Brantley's stiff and unforgiving critique gave props to the absolute stand out performance of Ruth Wilson. I was floored , as was every audience member at intermission that I spoke with, at how mesmerizing she made the part of the Fool. This part is not an easy one and in less deft hands, would be tedious. Ruth Wilson is in the ranks of Cate Blanchett and M. Streep and H. Mirren......just perfect.
9
@lynzisister -“If anyone can cite the symbolism, reply here is appreciated.”
Can’t read the set designer’s mind, but my thought was “English bulldog” and the lion in English royal arms.
1
@lynzisister
I agree - Ruth Wilson did a fabulous job as The Fool. Sadly, apart from her performance and that of Ms. Jackson, the rest of the acting fell far short.
2
I saw the play last night and, to summarize, it had one of the greatest feats of acting I have ever seen on the stage (i.e. Glenda Jackson) in one of the worst productions of a Shakespeare play I have ever seen (including amateur varieties). For example, as to the latter comment, at one point an actor pulls out a gun and shoots another character, rather off-putting. Further, what's the point of having a string quartet playing half the time - it interferes with the rhythms in the text and also at times it makes it hard to hear (and I was sitting in the fifth row center). But even with all of the negatives, I would still highly recommend seeing this Lear. I never really connected with Lear before and felt the tragedy. Also, how many more opportunities will we have to experience Glenda Jackson in a live production? (Although I did see her in Three Tall Women and she was excellent in that as well.)
8
I saw the production last night and thought Glenda Jackson was admirable. The rest of the cast was excellent and should be commended. Some of the directorial tampering was annoying but it did not destroy the greatness of Shakespeare's text.
The rather frequent laughter of the audience was surprising and bothersome. In this play, Shakespeare confronts the harsh truths
of human existence. I think the laughter may have been nervous laughter at the uncomfortable truths that are revealed in the course of the play.
4
I agree with your comments regarding the laughter. Perhaps this play is too sophisticated for the average “broadway audience”.
There was a lot of hype and publicity regarding this play, and some people go to see plays based on the marketing and hype.
Shakespearean drama is probably too much for the broadway audience that is looking to see a musical comedy (which this definitely is not).
2
Saw the play and I didn't find it "muddled" in the least. Perhaps what Mr. Brantley didn't like is that the like, unlike when most men play it, isn't a "star" vehicle. The company play the play. If you're not familiar with King Lear or Shakespeare the story is told in a way this is a clear as a bell and by the time we reach the finally scene, whatever Mr. Carvajal's shortcomings all come right in his final speech. I felt the waste and tragedy to the point of tears. P.S. Glenda Jackson is giving the performance of a lifetime and you'd be a fool to miss it.
6
The early preview reactions (both from audience and from theatre insiders) foretold much of what Mr. Brantley has to say. Why didn't the producers, or especially Ms. Jackson, step in and remove Sam Gold, get rid of the ridiculous set (and have Ms. Roth redesign her hideous costumes), and give Ms. Jackson a production she deserves? Too much already invested? It's called cutting your loses. All that was needed was an almost bare stage and Glenda Jackson. (Plus some better choices of better American actors. Even the wonderful Jane Houdyshell, terribly miscast, couldn't make this Gloucester believable. In the old days, the producers would have brought a "play doctor," like Jerome Robbins and George Abbott to tell them what was going wrong. In these days, reading comments in The New York Times would have clued them in.
7
I saw this in previews with my family. We left at intermission. I have been a huge fan of GJ since forever - I saw her play Cleopatra in 1979. Was so looking forward to this one, and was so disappointed. Ms Jackson struggled valiantly to overcome the relentlessly stupid and unhelpful direction, but her (I hate to say it) age-limited vocal range forced her to rely on stretching out her words for emphasis, giving too many of her speeches a turgid declamatory effect. And she was given almost nothing to do, but stand center stage and look up into the balcony most of the time. About the rest of the production (as much of it as I saw) I will say this: I've been IN a production of King Lear, yet I was often confused as to what was going on. My college-age son was baffled - clueless at intermission as to what the story was. Job one, Sam Gold, job one. What a waste and a shame.
9
@BlackieBroadwayYou are lucky that you left before the rubble filled second act.
4
Just saw it and absolutely agree with you. I love Glenda Jackson, and was fortunate enough to see her in “Three Tall Women, “ however her performance in Lear was almost 19th Century in its approach. When she did have a scene when she was more nuanced in her approach, it truly illuminated the text and allowed you to see the human being behind Lear. There just wasn’t enough of that, and for that I blame the director. This production was like a symphony where all the musicians went to their own separate corners.
4
They should have just brought over Deborah Warner's 2016 production, in which Ms. Jackson played King Lear at the Old Vic. Then, New York would have had a great Lear AND a great production.
7
I am an avid theater goer, normally see 1-2 shows per month and rarely if ever allow reviews to gauge my interest. I research the show, familiarize myself with the cast then make my decision.
I saw Ms. Jackson in Three Tall Women and she deserved every accolade. Her performance with the likes of Laurie Metcalf and Alison Pill was incredible to watch. My seat mate flew in from London for the performance after seeing Jackson in King Lear at the Old Vic, saying it was one of the most amazing theatrical performances she'd ever seen. That was good enough for me.
I love Shakespeare and appreciate Sam Gold's productions. It's different - so what? It's long - so what? One of the most incredible performances I've seen this year is The Ferryman which runs more than 3 hours. This said, if I find a performance that disappointing I don't hesitate to leave during intermission but that is a rarity.
I appreciate theater reviews but never read them until after I've seen the show. I made an exception for Ben Brantley but won't do so again. Don't let reviews spoil your interest in a show, take a risk. Art is meant to make you think, not agree with another's opinion even if that person is Ben Brantley.
13
Saw this last night without having read this review. It was a brilliant and gorgeous production. I hate when people use ambitious or clever or too many ideas as criticisms. This was riveting, timely, insightful and beyond critique. God- why do so many mediocre things get a pass and genuine brilliance gets combed through with a lice comb? Makes me feel like Lear too - lost in a wasteland and driven mad...
23
Are there plans to videotape this production?
1
I live for reviews of Broadway shows and this one makes me sad.
1
The moment I heard Glenda Jackson was coming to play Lear I booked my plane from Oakland. I agree completely that she was the only one worth watching w/some exception of Ruth Wilson, although I found her Fool unmemorable. I came away wondering if the director had mostly cast his friends. The staging was stagnant and I found the acting at a community theatre level. Still, I'm not sorry i went- I can't wait to see Ms. Jackson again.
11
Omitted from this generous review was the fact that the 1st act was 2 hours long. Why?
And even Glenda Jackson could not salvage the distracting jumble, mugging, often shrill cadence of this production. It was as though 'madness' was the environment Gold created & Lear floundered shouting through it.
The music was good and I found Wilson compelling, but Marvel did much eye rolling- not exactly a coherent character, and the odd meaningless casting choices had the main effect of making us feel disbelief, not suspend it.
12
When I saw the production, in previews, the music was going on WHILE the actors were talking, and you couldn't hear them. My impression from this review is that the musical bits are at least isolated on their own. If not, that's a cardinal sin, no? Drowning out the actors' voices?
Can someone comment on whether the music is still going on while they are speaking?
8
@Northpamet
I saw the play today. Music is still played while actors are speaking in many scenes but it's fairly muted - although some people don't even like that. I didn't mind it.
The only time for me that it started to drown out the actors was during the stormy scene in front of the curtain. I guess music is supposed to heighten the drama but I would have appreciated no music or softer music.
6
My friend was given a ticket and left at the intermission. Too much business.
7
My friend also had a free ticket and left at the interval.
1
I've got to wonder whether, when people get a free ticket, they're more likely to leave. With no money spent, with nothing invested in the experience except for time, they decide that they don't want to spend any more time.
3
@Kim10024 and Kim10024 - Wouldn't it be incredible if both of you had the same friend? (Two Kim10024s feels like there being two Mandy Moores.)
4
This was a theatrical treat of a rare order. So the production wasn't perfect? Let me know the next time you get to see Jackson, Wilson, Houdyshell, Marvel et al. together on stage bringing Shakespeare to life. I saw this a few weeks ago. I'd remove the music, even if Bach had written it, but other than that I thought I was simply lucky to get to see these wonderful actors. (IMO, the Fool's socks were a great touch, deftly delivered.) Confession: I'd watch Ruth Wilson watch paint dry, and I came of age watching Glenda Jackson be spectacular, so I'm not unbiased.
17
What I wouldn't give to see GJ in this. I did have the good fortune to see her in London in "Rose" in 1980. I came up to see V. Redgrave in NY in "The Year of Magical Thinking" in 2007. If only I could have seen her in "Long Day's Journey Into Night."
Jackson as Lear and Redgrave as Mary Tyrone. Two for the ages.
1
@Steve
I saw Vanessa Redgrave in that Broadway production of "Long Day's Journey Into Night."
Unfortunately, I saw Brian Dennehy as James Tyrone. I would've much preferred Albert Finney. My "magical thinking."
3
@Steve I got to see Ms Redgrave in "Long Day's Journey Into Night" and she was glorious.
8
Sam Gold’s staging of Hamlet at the Public Theatre was an exercise in pointless weirdness marked,at the performance I witnessed, by a steadily increasing stream for the exits. By intermission most of the seats were empty. Those who,left missed the baked ziti trauma and Ophelia’s muddy death. The conversation as we exited revolved around how the stage crew dealt with the mud on the carpet.
I admire Glenda Jackson and members of this cast immensely and was looking forward to seeing them tackle Lear. It appears that Gold, like some directors,doesn’t trust writers and performers and feels that his particular genius is responsible for improving Shakespeare and Glenda Jackson, a truly impossible feat. What an awful waste of talent.
14
@UESLit
What was the baked ziti trauma?
4
Like others, I found the production gimmicky, full of needless distractions and overwrought, with —sad to say—the glorious Glenda Jackson also seeming to lack stamina in the second act. In the preview I saw, the “innovative” staging behind Cordelia’s death actually elicited audience laughter. So much for tragedy! I will say, however, I loved Ruth Wilson’s performance as the fool. Thought she was memorably brilliant.
15
I agree with many of Brantley’s points. Whose idea was the music? And the corpse of Cordelia dropping down to the
stage?? The audience at the performance I attended was appalling, laughing as if they were watching a sit-com. Many of the powerful lines just sunk into the morass. At the end, I felt mostly unmoved. That said, like another commenter I plan to see this again and watch and listen only to Jackson, and ignore the rest.
10
I remember falling in love with King Lear when I saw Morris Carnovsky play him at the The American Shakespeare Festival. Rosemary Murphy and Carrie Nye were Goneral and Regan .
For four hours I was spellbound and in awe.
Since then I've seen many productions some good most just OK.
This Production however feels like the Classic Comics version one reads to avoid reading the play. Shame on you.
12
@Jim Mc Donald
This production of Lear with Morris Carnovsky and Carrie Nye on a beautiful evening in Central Park half a century ago thrilled me and has remained the best, most powerful theatrical performance I've ever experienced. I'll be seeing Glenda Jackson play Lear tonight and can simply hope the power of Shakespeare's language and this wonderful cast transform into another evening of wonder.
2
Glenda Jackson is to be praised for attempting Lear at her age. Her quiet 'mad" scene with Glochester brought a lump to my throat.
But the physical and vocal demands of the role
are beyond her reach. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak....but like you just hearing her speak "Oh reason not the need" filled me with wonder.
2
I too have fond memories of Mr Carnovsky. He was a fine actor and outstanding as Lear Shylock Polonius Prospero and Creon. One for the ages.
I loved the show as well. I often disagree with BB's assessments, as do many of my friends.
4
Sorry to the complainers... i loved the show as did everyone I was with.. i loved the sets, the music, the direction and all the performers especially Ruth Wilson and the Divine Ms Jackson... now go complain some more!
12
So often directors want to add music as a sort of "Hamburger Helper" to great plays. Why? Why? Why?
17
@Curmudgeonly, thanks for that reminder about "Hamburger Helper." I think it was Rodney Dangerfield's mom and dad whose parenting skills set an example of taking pleasure in what they had - they were so poor his folks would mix Hamburger Helper and Tuna Helper and they called it "surf n turf."
2
Could we please have a little quiet … LOL!!!
Quiet would definitely have been preferable to this evening's self-indulgent muddled mess.
Thank you, thank you Ben Brantley for this spot on review. I've been patiently waiting and you just nailed it!
14
I'm sorry Mr. Brantley failed to mention the actors playing the brothers Edgar and Edmund. They were wonderful. I don't agree with his praise of Ruth Wilson as Cordelia and the fool. of hearing I thought she was awful. The deaf Cornwall was ridiculous and confusing. I had been waiting excitedly to see this production for months and was so disappointed.
2
Mr. Brantley, I am so relieved that your review got it exactly right:
Re Jackson: "Her monologues are delivered defiantly to the heavens, as if she had a direct line to a cruel and almighty God. On the basis of this performance, I don't doubt that she does."
As to some of the comments from folks who claimed they couldn't hear her, I sat in the back row cheap seats (as I always do), and I not only *heard* every word, I almost *felt* them physically. The rest of the play I could take or leave (with the exception of the excellent Ruth Wilson as Cordelia/Fool), but I am going back for the second time to hear/feel Jackson's performance. Even the ridiculous staging of this play (the ceramic bulldog, the tacky Nazi flags, the anti-trump socks, the champagne drinking, the mismatched though hard-working Goneril and Regan) couldn't keep me from going back.
Thank you, Ms. Jackson for doing this play justice (and also, by the way, for your Three Tall Women performance). Both performances *genuinely enhanced my understanding of the human condition*. I'm so grateful.
13
The problem is Shakespeare: he’s uneven and overrated. This was an interesting take given the quality of the material.
7
@GC That’s a rather hot take, right there!
4
I’m serious. This stuff when written and performed was the equivalent of today’s action flicks. Just because you’ve heard Olivier (and now Glenda) perform it in plummy English doesn’t make it high culture.
Think back to when u studied it in college - Shakespeare was always the “gut” course in the lit curriculum. Very easy to analyze and write about.
3
I could not disagree more
3
Cheap anachronistic sets and costumes, thick accents that made lines unintelligible, and unnecessary distractions galore, made for a rather disappointing theater experience. Also, sitting in the nosebleed section made viewing the actors very difficult; if back of the balcony tickets are the only ones available I would pass on this production. Ms. Jackson, who sounds like the ghost of John Hurt, makes a tremendous effort and displays her formidable acting chops. In the end, though, her King comes across not as a tragic royal but a common petty tyrant.
13
This was one of the worst productions I've ever seen:
complete and utter torture.
Ms. Jackson was glorious for about ten minutes, until it became clear her voice could not live up to Lear's power and fury, even with the aid of copious amplification. (The entire cast is on body mics!) Still, I have to give it to her for taking on the role at her age. That's courageous.
As for the production and the remainder of the company, I have only one word: ghastly.
Mr. Glass' score was the only pleasure; much easier on the ears than three and a half hours of truly atrocious and abominable acting.
18
Brantley's review is spot on. I saw with my daughter the production in preview, and we both came away disappointed as well as dismayed by several aspects of the staging. The simulated sex scene between Goneril and Edmund immediately comes to mind.Glenda Jackson's performance is formidable,but the rest of the production is a mess. Sam Gold has done a disservice to both Jackson and Shakespeare.
23
The Sara Krulwich photo accompanying this article is masterful.
10
My personal opinion would be to ban Sam Gold from directing Shakespeare and other classics. He seems to feel the need to subvert the play with his strange interpretations and he undermines the meaning of the words and the drama. One explanation of why Brantley may have thought that cast members of Lear sounded mundane and pedestrian is because they were directed to deliver the words as prose instead of poetry. I found Goneril's vivid sex scene with Edmund akin to Polonius on a toilet in what was really a mediocre Hamlet at the Public and this despite a wonderful cast. I felt embarrassed for Oscar Isaac as Hamlet as he cavorted half naked around the stage and poor Peter Friedman who had to unfortunately follow Gold's mis-direction. Gold seems to hit it out of the park with contemporary plays -- Fun Home and A Doll's House, Pt. II. Still the great Ms. Jackson should not be missed.
20
If you're going to do King Lear with Glenda Jackson, you find a director who can support her entirely with a strong cast and a focus on Lear's journey, not a director who seems compelled to compete with her, either out of narcissism or fear. Who ever hired Sam Gold (an otherwise fine director of very different kinds of plays) made a fatal mistake.
40
Hers is a Lear which breaks the mold. An arrogant, self-possessed and self-righteous parent devolves into a pathetic and bewildered old soul - an abandoned, homeless soul who finally comes to a heartbreaking self realization. Jackson modulates the changes flawlessly. As a parent I felt the abject sadness and regret of Lear’s mindless choice as if it were my own.
I agree that the set was a total distraction. The costumes looked like they were an after thought. But I did enjoy Cordelia/fool’s performance and thought Jackson enjoyed it, too.
17
Glenda Jackson gave a classic performance, a vivid oration worthy of the Booths or the Barrymores. She cared not about being natural or pedestrian. No “R” went unrolled, no arm went unlifted, no “howl” went unhowled. It was stagey, it was retro, it was a chance for Ms. Jackson to play the part the way she undoubtedly saw it done by the giants of the prosceniums of her youth. Compared to her frighteningly realistic performance in “Three Tall Women” last year, she went a different way.
So how can you complain? She worked like a beast and deserved her standing O but was it one of the great Lears? It was not. Her first act worked well enough. The rejection of Cordelia was controlled and deadly. Her storm scene was properly blazing though the production gave it short shrift by playing it in front of the curtain which robbed it of the wild caged-animal movement it’s often performed with so effectively. The second act suffered from her slightness, her inability to show the strength that made her every bit a king and forget about carrying poor dead Cordelia around.
https://newsornotnews.com/2019/04/03/news-glenda-declaims/
8
I thought that the Fool's socks were Union Jacks and it was a comment on brexit.
1
@Hazel And from where I was sitting I thought they were American flags! Either way, a heavy-handed and unnecessary gesture; we get the parallels!
5
@Hazel I sat front-row center. The socks clearly had stars and stripes---clearly not a Union Jack look.
3
Sounds like a disorienting production and what a shame. Actors this keenly talented deserve to be trusted. I'm terrified by the idea of underscoring Shakespeare's text. The words ARE the underscoring and as a director, one should really know that. Music can certainly be utilized in beautiful ways, but if you can't hear the words, what's the point?
I also want to remark how jarring it is that Mr. Brantley continues to reference the character of Lear as he/him/his. In this production (the one he's reviewing) with MS. Jackson playing the character. It reads messy and seems a little old-fashioned in today's theatrical climate. If it's beside the point that the character is traditionally male, then why keep referencing it with opposite pronouns? If Ms. Jackson is the actor that brought out those qualities you felt in "when we first meet him" well then, in the Lear you saw, I believe you met a 'her'.
8
@Steve IT's a woman playing the male character in the original text. The director has not changed the text to create a female Lear. There's a difference. Lots of women have played male actors as male. Check out the history of 19th century productions of Hamlet
10
@reader Thank you!
2
@reader I understand production history and that's why I'm questioning how we look at Shakespeare when breaking gender tradition on this scale. Look at all the comments on here about how Ms. Jackson is lacking the 'strength in the second act', ect. I personally think it's limiting to hold characters to a gender based ideology and instead of re-edifying that Lear "is on his journey" why don't we use language to support the breaking of tradition.
Remember the famous Trump Christmas card with Baron sitting on life size( stuffed animal)Lion? On the side of picture all by himself , Dad on throne chair with Mom poising alongside.
Bulldog/"bully"?
Gilded everything?
The minute the curtain opened , I thought it was all too obvious, but hoping complete destruction when 2 nd act curtain came up is a hopeful sign.
Lets move this PLAY along. Its getting old.
1
Such a missed opportunity. When will we get the chance to see an actor with the astonishing pedigree of a Glenda Jackson in such a role again? She was swamped in this maddeningly gimmicky, lightweight, and shapeless production. I so wish she had had a Richard Eyre or Peter Hall or Peter Brook or even Michael Grandage to lend some gravitas and focus to the proceedings. The director failed at Directing 101, the first rule of which is to tell the story clearly. What a sad mess. Still, I could listen forever to an audio recording of Ms. Jackson's performance, largely a vocal one, with a voice like Halloween night. She was as big, coarse, variegated, ugly, ferocious, unpredictable, unsentimental, weird, and raw as all of Shakespeare. This production should have been built entirely around her, not the ditsy director.
46
This merely reflects a long-standing American tradition of Shakespearean production in which each actor clearly comes from a radically different school of acting. (Ditto Chekhov and Shaw.) The Public Theater has been mounting such productions for decades. (Which is not to say that ALL American productions follow this tradition; just that many do).
9
Jackson ‘s performance should not be missed and the gender issue disappears seconds into the play. Nevertheless, the set was a real distraction and I was confused by the attempts to milk comedy from this tragedy. Ruth Wilson was great, but the other performances were uneven.
6
A number of posters here seem to agree that the overall production was unfortunate, for various reasons.
Did Jackson enforce much of the decision-making here, as someone suggests? If not, how could she allowed so much confusion around her? As is famously known about Jackson, she's not one to suffer fools, including bad directors.
As for Glass's music, I recall how intrusive it was as I watched the film "The Hours." That his music compromised this "Lear" comes as no surprise.
One thing is certain: Jackson will win her second Tony in a row. It was hers when they first announced she was appearing on Broadway.
3
Jackson will certainly be in contention for a Tony, but I hope the award goes to the divine Elaine May for her performance in “Waverly Place.”
7
@SNA
It was fun to see Elaine May in Waverly Place but the play is over long and clearly an early, immature work by the playwright.
Such a disappointment.
And the real acting chops in the production were displayed not by May, who seemed a bit fragile (given lines via hearing aids?), but Michael Cera. Perfect Massachusetts accent from this Canadian, and he underplayed the role perfectly.
3
@samludu
The Glass music was intrusive in Crucible as well. Even if you love Glass (and I think I mostly do, though I'm a neophyte when it comes to his work), no one wants the dialogue in a theatre to be obscured by the music. Especially not the dialogue of this play in particular.
Pray God, Sam Gold doesn't move on to Hamlet.
4
This is a performance I will cherish for the remainder of my theater going days. I saw "King Lear" five years ago at BAM with Frank Langella which was powerful, but as Langella was bigger in stature than Ms. Jackson, his power was assumed, where the terrific Glenda comes off as a shrinking elder who has maintained their power through their simple commanding personality. At times, I could swear I was seeing Joel Grey in the role and had to snap myself back to reality. The garish set made its point to me as well, and seeing the collapsing, garbage strewn set at the end of the first act was a terrific metaphor for the fall of this royal family.
I was also touched by the frailty of Jayne Houdyshell's Gloucester, amused by her/his comments in the first act, then terrified for her/him in the second act as the vulnerability and simple desire to just die took over. A perfect production? Perhaps not. A memorable one? Definitely. There are times in the theater today where you feel that you have gone back to the glorious days of Broadway past, and I sat in the Cort Theater in absolute heaven, as if I was back in 1947 and seeing Dame Judith Anderson in "Medea" or in 1945 seeing Laurette Taylor in the original "Glass Menagerie".
26
I never knew Lear was a knee slapping comedy! The audience
laghed thruout the performance I attended.
And Ms. Jackson just did not have the stature, tiny small voiced, to be tragic. It was like she was reading the part, not acting it.
10
@Irate citizen Oh, many laughs. So clunky. Agreed. And I agree with Mr. Branltley's review except his Jackson-worship. Sorry, luv. I was awed by her in the Albee last year, but here, as Lear, she just didn't cut the mustard. Ruth Wilson's was strong as Cordelia, but lost in the clutter as the Fool. It all falls in the director's lap. And the producers', too, given the time/money/power game that is prestige Broadway. A real misfire.
12
@Wilder
I did like Glass' music. He happened to be in line for the men's room in front of me and we reminisced about the old days, including when my band opened for his.
As it hapened, I was seated next to him and his wife So I could count the number of times he nodded off during the play, when his music was not being played.
4
Can't wait to bring my 91 year old mom to see it!
1
It's an English bulldog, not a pug. Symbolism, along with the English Lion, obvious.
11
Brantley is too cowardly to put the blame for this misguided and insensitive production where it belongs-- on Glanda Jackson. Many people associated wih the production will tell you that she ran roughshod over the director and basically directed herself, turning Shaeksapear's finest tragrdy into a travesty for the audience.
22
@Albert Podell
Ms. Jackson didn't force a string quartet on Gold, or Goneril's sex scene or suggest the awful junkyard of a set. If she stood up to Gold, she probably recognized that Gold was out of his depth and needed help.
6
@Albert Podell
Glad to hear she ran roughshod over the director. Someone clearly needs to. And thankfully, from the sounds of it, at least her performance survived a mess of a production. I saw his Glass Menagerie. Sally Field, who I had so looked forward to seeing in this role, was trapped by a director who seems to feel a need to sabotage his actors.
7
Ruth Wilson is the only one who emerges unscathed. Her Fool is compelling and touching; even her Cordelia, a severely underwritten role, is memorable. Glenda has her moments, but that's about it. A complete mess.
24
jackson is a wonder.... i cannot help but think shakespeare himself has a direct communication to this superb actress. gold, on the other hand.....it seems to me a particular affectation to treat shakespeare as a build-a-bear project. it is the pure interpretive power of glenda jackson which permeates the director’s ego with a performance for the ages.
2
I saw this very misguided production in previews. How I wish I could have seen the Deborah Warner version of Jackson-as-Lear, rather than this garish mish-mash courtesy of Sam Gold. The divine Glenda makes her entrance looking like a feeble Mr. Peanut, and the following three hours are a messy downhill slog through a director’s silly bag of tricks. Jackson is sublime as the mad king. That voice! That presence! Her ability to wring truth and overwhelming sorrow from every line are all but lost in this claptrap of a production in which she must compete with everything from that annoying quartet to the usually-marvelous Elizabeth Marvel whose Goneril leaves her mark in a clumsy attempt at being provocative. How sad that Mr Gold apparently doesn’t trust Shakespeare or Jackson (or the wonderful Ruth Wilson). He piles on so much unnecessary business that distracts from some really lovely choices (it’s the first time the Cordelia-Fool connection makes perfect sense for me, and the final moments are heartbreaking). What could have been the season’s most memorable production is instead an interesting, intriguing but ultimately exhausting disappointment.
21
@Tim Hedgepeth Cordelia and the Fool have often been acted by the same actor
2
@Tim Hedgepeth
Tim, I saw both productions and I’m not sure which one was worse. Both overblown, gimmick-laden monstrosities.
As a man I am deeply offended that the producers could not find a MALE actor to portray Lear. Since when are actors allowed to take on characters that differ from their own gender, personality, and race? Since when is the clown allowed to plaster HIS face with paint.
This is not acceptable.
5
@L. de Torquemada to answer your question, "Since when are actors allowed to take on characters that differ from their own gender, personality, and race?" I suggest looking into how Shakespeare's plays were performed during his lifetime.
37
(I *think* he was joking.)
10
I guess this is the new thing-like having adults play children in To Kill a Mockingbird. I agree it is a bit bizarre but sadly tickets sell.
2
1. Lear is the sort of role that really doesn't need to be gendered. I am surprised more women haven't played it.
2. Why does anyone add music to straight plays?
12
@Simon DelMonte
If Shakespeare had no sex in mind why didn't he simply call it Lear?
@Simon DelMonte -
“Why does anyone add music to straight plays?”
Ask Shakespeare.
2
Given that Jackson and the production in London were so successful I cannot understand why the producers did not simply move the production to Broadway and instead went for such a gimmicky and garish staging.
50
@Bill - Gimmicky and garish is a Sam Gold stamp! He ruined the classic The Glass Menagerie with Sally Field and Joe Mantello. Why he continues to direct on Broadway is anyone's guess. He's more suited to Off Broadway and BAM.
21
Please don’t send Sam Gold to BAM or Off Broadway.
I currently enjoy those venues and don’t want Sam Gold going their and messing this up like he has on Broadway.
2
Far and away, the best part of this everything but the kitchen sink production is Glenda Jackson's superb performance. Regardless of the variable quality of the projects in which she has appeared during her career, Ms. Jackson has never failed to impress and even astound me. This production, the first time I ever have seen her onstage, is certainly no exception. Do go!
9
Sorry, I didn’t understand half of Ms Jackson’s words. There was not a king standing on stage, but a small elderly person who was trying hard.
The rest of this review I do agree with.
30
Im pretty much in line with this review. See it for Jackson. A once in a lifetime experience. Uneven production, great daughters, great sons, great storm. After that, a little too much of everything else.
8