King Lear is Shakespeare's greatest play and very likely the greatest work in all of literature. Its themes are of the most profound nature: redemption; self-realization; the myth of universal justice; fortuitousness in the battle between good and evil; the nature of evil. The 80-year old Lear has been King for many decades. During his reign he has slowly and inexorably become blind to reality. He is a man of vast potential; a man of enormous passion, humanity, dignity and strength who has been inundated with lies, flattery, unchallenged obedience and false adoration. When the play opens, Lear's psychological state is such that he is often incapable of controlling his strongest emotions. Lear has always been a man of towering passion, but had the incredible mind and will to match it. Now, however, his purpose and control have been eroded by his increasingly irrational emotional state. In any production of King Lear, we must see the lion in Lear and his raging battle between his age and failing mind. There must be a constant struggle between the Lear of old and the present Lear. If we don't see the towering Lear we're left with the ill, debilitated, sorrowful Lear and the conflict is gone - we never see his basic nature, which is the cause of decline. What makes him so fascinating and exciting (there is absolutely nothing fascinating or exciting about Olivier's Lear) are his tremendous extremes of temperament. First and foremost he must always be a fighter and never give in to adversity. Olivier's Lear could never have been a towering figure, only a whining, crying, feeble, self pitying grouch. In fact, this is exactly how he saw the role. In an interview at the time, he said, "Lear is an easy role to do. He is simply an old fart". This, about a man who fights an epic and magnificent struggle against overwhelming physical and emotional turmoil and whose implacable refusal to surrender make him one of the greatest, most towering and passionate tragic characters ever created. And the most difficult portrayal in the entire Shakespearean canon. The actor portraying Lear can't drive the torment, confusion and bewilderment that emanates from Lear – they must drive him. No amount of brilliant faking will work. It's either real or not. We must see the torment. Olivier's whimpering, faked performance is totally devoid of this. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast is also totally lacking. The actor playing Gloucester has four qualities throughout: grief, bluster, loud and louder. His voice is so unpleasant it's unbearable listening to him. He plays the same boisterous level continuously without the slightest nuance. Gloucester is an undiscerning, selfish, credulous and superstitious man. He is basically decent, but with a weak, impressionable nature. If Gloucester, as here portrayed, is loud, crude, obnoxious and stupid, a catharsis is impossible. Edgar, Gloucester's legitimate son, is a totally trusting, inexperienced and ingenuous soul who has vast, untapped potential. He goes through an incredible process of development and maturity. This Edgar comes across as a demented, weird, dull-witted creep. The idea, at the end of the play, that he may possibly become one of the leaders of Britain is too ludicrous and frightening to contemplate. Edmund, Gloucester's bastard son is willing to do anything to achieve his nefarious ends. He is not immoral, but amoral. He has the uncanny ability to unleash each woman's full sexual potential. This, plus his physical attractiveness, his feigned but convincing warmth and concern, his self-confidence and sense of humor make him an ideal, consummate lover. With the obvious obsession that Goneril and Regan have for Edmund, nothing less will suffice. In this version Edmund comes across as a weak, boyish, obviously villainous child who lacks the charm, confidence, fearlessness, dominance and supreme ability to dupe others. To think that this innocuous little boy conquers Goneril and Regan and comes within a hair's breadth of assuming the throne of Britain is hilarious. Albany, Goneril's husband, is a decent, sensitive, ethical and intelligent man who prefers to avoid altercation and acrimony. Unfortunately, he is portrayed here as a lethargic, pedestrian slow-thinking dunce with no obvious appeal or perception. Cordelia is not, as here seen, a sweet, frail, delicate ingénue. If she were, Lear would never favor her. She is, rather, much like Lear: resolute, dignified, proud, outspoken and fearless. This is why Lear adores her. Indeed, she must match Regan and Goneril in strength and tenacity. It's inconceivable imagining this Cordelia leading an army to rescue her father. The Fool comes across as analytical, sober and objective, when he should be a creature of nature. Pure instinct. Spontaneous, unpredictable and uncontrollable. As written, Goneril is the dominating sister; here we have the opposite. This Regan would have killed Goneril before she allowed herself to be murdered. The directing is abominable and senseless. Just a few examples. After Cordelia blatantly attacks her sisters' hypocrisy, they all embrace warmly. Ludicrous. When Edmund and Goneril are leaving together for Goneril's castle, Regan blatantly embraces Edmund in front of Cornwall, making clear her feelings for him. Absurd. Regan and Edmund could not have been alone together, much less been intimate, since Regan and Cornwall arrived at Gloucester's the same night as the blinding of Gloucester and the wounding of Cornwall. Regan walks out on Cornwall, leaving him to die after he's wounded by one of his men. Their last lines (which of course are cut) belie this. The fact is Regan and Edmund become intimate after Cornwall dies and Edmund returns with Goneril's message. I could cite numerous other examples. Suffice it to say that the direction is devoid of nuance, passion and intelligence. The blocking is pedestrian: stilted, simplistic, unimaginative and unmotivated. Ultimately, Lear, the 80-year old with the heart of a gladiator, should arouse in us, not tears, primarily, but awe that such a man could exist. Unfortunately, Olivier achieved his vision. This King Lear is indeed an old fart.

An all-star cast takes on Shakespeare's greatest tragedy. Laurence Olivier is Lear -- once a mighty king, now a weak, jealous old man. Tired and in need of rest, he divides his kingdom among his three daughters. Cordelia, the youngest, is good and kind, while Regan and Goneril are wicked schemers who soon turn against the king and try to murder him! Lear has loyal friends, like Kent the noble, and his jester, the Fool. Colin Blakely makes Kent into the perfect, rugged sidekick, as brave and reliable as Sam in LORD OF THE RINGS. And John Hurt makes the haunting, half-crazed fool as helpless and pitiable as Gollum, without all the creepy sliminess.But the real stars of the play are actually the villains. Diana Rigg is delicious as Regan, the younger of the two "wicked sisters." Even when she is shiveringly evil, (joking about Gloucester's pain as she pokes out his eyes!) she remains a stunningly desirable woman. And the twisted affair between Regan and the studly but wicked Edmund is much more erotic and involving than in most productions. Robert Lindsay captures the gigolo side of Edmund perfectly, always teasing and tempting and making poor love-struck Regan literally pucker up to kiss the empty air. Diana Rigg really plays all sides of the character -- watching her pout and sulk in her tent would be sweetly endearing if she weren't so truly and completely cruel. As a result the viewer is spellbound, unable to resist the evil but horrified by the inevitable tragedy.With an all-star cast, original scenery and a haunting musical score, this bold production is Shakespeare at the summit!

This version of Lear was made for television, and it shows. The scale is small, the sets cheap, the action cramped. However, Olivier's acting is something to be remembered. Lear comes across very convincingly as a pathetic, deteriorating, crumbling old man, weak and defenseless in spite of an unseen past of terrible power and - presumably - ferocious cruelty. Kurosawa's Japanese adaptation plays much more on the terrible past of Lear as counterpoint to the present weakness and madness, this English version leaves the lost power and cruelty only as a hazy background. If this is a defect of Olivier's acting, or whether it faithfully reflects his views on the character, I do not know. But I think Olivier did exactly what he wanted to do, focus on the old Lear, his weakness and his fading away, as a symbol of human nature in general, and of his own advanced age in particular. In the final scenes Lear appears shaven off his beard, showing the naked face of a very ancient man, not the face of an actor at all. There must be a reflection of Olivier's own becoming old and brittle and approaching death, on the deterioration and dying of Lear. And there is the weakest glimmer of hope, both for the character and for the actor, as dying Lear recovers lost love in the midst of destruction.Of the rest of the cast, the best characters in my opinion are Goneril and Regan, perhaps a little overplayed but very convincingly so, as the hard hearted, scheming sisters. The fool and poor Tom somehow are not quite convincing. Gloucester is moving but a little dumb. Kent is handsome and masculine. Cordelia is pretty. But no question, this is Lord Olivier's show.The score has justly been criticized as noisy and intrusive. Staging is not always clear enough for comprehension of the plot.All in all, this movie is well worth seeing. Perhaps there are better interpretations of Lear, perhaps more adjusted to Shakespeare's vision; however, this version has enough merit so as to stand by itself. And Olivier remains the quintessential Shakespearean actor of all times.

In any production of King Lear, we must see the lion in Lear and his raging battle between his age and failing mind. There must be a constant struggle between the Lear of old and the present Lear. If we don't see the towering Lear we're left with the ill, debilitated, sorrowful Lear, the conflict is gone and we never see his basic nature, which is the cause of decline. What makes him so fascinating and exciting (there is nothing exciting about Olivier's Lear) are his tremendous extremes of temperament. First and foremost he must always be a fighter and never give in to adversity. Olivier's Lear could never have been a towering figure, only a whining, feeble, self pitying grouch. In fact, this is exactly how he saw the role. In an interview at the time, he said, "Lear is an old fart". This, about the greatest, most towering and passionate tragic character ever created. The rest of the cast is also quite bad. Despite Gloucester's ignorance, credulity, and misapplied trust, he must have significant potential worth and the innate ability to learn and understand profound lessons about life. If Gloucester, as here portrayed, is loud, crude, obnoxious and stupid, a catharsis is impossible. Edgar comes across as a demented, weird, dull-witted creep, when in fact he should be an ingenuous, credulous, spoiled, inexperienced man who has a vast yet untapped intelligence, understanding and empathy. Albany is portrayed here as a lethargic, pedestrian slow-thinking dunce with no obvious appeal when he should be a sensitive, ethical and intelligent man. Edmund is played in this version as a weak, boyish, obviously villainous child who lacks the charm, confidence, fearlessness, dominance and supreme ability to dupe others. The quality that makes Edmund so convincing is his ability as with Iago)to lose himself completely in his assumed role. He should never slip out of character when duping Gloucester or the others. This actor, by contrast, indicates his contempt when the others aren't looking, something Edmund would never do. The actress playing Regan is determined to dominate Goneril, although the play calls for quite the opposite relationship. The Fool, although not a bad actor, comes across as analytical, sober and objective, when he should be a creature of nature. Pure instinct. Spontaneous, unpredictable and uncontrollable. The director of this pathetic production obviously had no understanding of this magnificent play. Almost all of his directorial choices are absurd: frequently he makes none at all. there are many examples, but citing them would give away the plot. Suffice it to say that the direction is devoid of nuance, passion and intelligence. The blocking is pedestrian: stilted, simplistic, unimaginative and unmotivated. The actors are given no sense of place or circumstance. Unfortunately, Olivier achieved his vision. This King Lear is indeed an old fart.