Shamefully overlooked and unavailable on DVD in the United States (though viewers can order the region 2 disc from Britain), this is one of the best Shakespearean films--no one will ever call it "stagy"! Inspired by Peter Brook's legendary 1962 stage production, this version of Lear is absurdist and Beckettian, unfolding in a cruel universe devoid of meaning. Filmed in stark black-and-white in the most barren regions of Denmark, the setting is almost post-apocalyptic; the barbaric costumes, assembled from masses of fur and leather, make the cast look truly "like monsters of the deep." Brooks directs and edits in a rough-edged style that will confuse those who mistake innovation for incompetence. Lines are often addressed toward the camera, characters melt in and out of focus during moments of crisis, negative space abounds along with inserts of complete blackness, zooms are timed to the endings of lines, and the finale features brutal shock cuts. These effects are not intended as mere flashiness--they convey the alienation and disorientation at work in Shakespeare's cruelest play. Brook's handling of the storm scene exemplifies this. It's hard to imagine anyone doing a better job--the screen flashes black one minute and is scorched white the next, thunder seems to converse with Lear, whose initially blurry image (thanks to rain streaking down the camera lens) is replaced by low angle shots of him raging at the void of the sky.The casting is often perfect, with Tom Fleming's rough-edged but jovial Kent; Jack Macgowran's low-key, sharp Fool; Alan Webb's Gloucester, initially fussy before turning into the film's most moving performance; Robert Lloyd's vigorous Edgar; Irene Worth's Goneril, with her lizard smile and she-wolf's eyes; and Patrick Magee's Cornwall, the epitome of banal, soft-spoken evil.The only disappointment is Paul Scofield's Lear, which like the film itself diminishes during the last third. Scofield is the impressively imposing and monolithic Lear on film (when he says "Unnatural hags!" the cameraman shakes), speaking in a tone somewhere between a grumble and growl. But the voice grows monotonous; his Lear seems stolid. Neither madness not compassion seem to really touch him. Scofield occasionally breaks free in moments of extreme distress, like the storm scene, where he hints how magnificent his voice can be, but not often enough. Brook's emphasis on bleakness limits the range of a play that is meant to be emotionally wrenching. A scene like the wounding of Cornwall is almost comically rushed, as if Brook was embarrassed by a scene involving genuine decency (the old man who aids the wounded Gloucester is cut of course).As noted, the final third of this adaptation feels rushed, almost like a digest, though Brook ingeniously improves on Shakespeare when handling the comeuppance of Regan and Goneril. Regardless of its flaws, Brook's King Lear perhaps the most daring and experimental film made from one of Shakespeare's plays. Wintry, brutal, and thrilling, its images will stay with you for years to come.

The above reviewer certainly completely missed the point of this production. Perhaps he needs to do some research into King Lear before he berates this particular interpretation. Certainly it's challenging to watch, but that was entirely Brook's intention. He's taken King Lear and emphasised the absurdist elements of the play to draw out its nihilism. It's supposed to be bleak/non-sensical in some parts/incoherent/challenging for an audience to watch. I suggest you understand it before you berate it. If it just didn't tickle your fancy then that's fine. In the post-modern tradition Brook removes and alters significant chunks of the original Shakespeare text. The film is chaotically edited, reinforcing the theme of Order to Chaos within the play. Brook's interpretation is definitely challenging to watch. Absurdist theatre is intended to be confronting for a viewer. It is totally bleak, but keep an open mind as you watch it.

Paul Scofield is a magnificent actor and for me the definitive Lear,but his powerful performance is grievously handicapped by some savage editing of the text which renders much of the story confusing to those coming new to the play This is bad enough but the neurotic direction of Peter Brooks makes it worse It is a bleak play and the frozen watelands of the external scenes are apt and well rendered by the camera crew.I maintain however that if we are to grasp the full horror of Lears's predicament we need to see how far he has fallen and the interiors look scarcely more inviting than the moorland =In Lear text is paramount and nothing should take our attention away from the words and the actor uttering them .Brook evidently does not agree and the camera is constantly fidgeting and at times not even focussing on the actor but zooming around like an over active fly It is not an uplifting play being rather about the fragility of sanity and reason,the key line for me being" as flies to wanton boys are we to the gods/they kill us for their sport" It should be an unsettling experience because of the story and the implications for us as humans,and not because some showoff with a movie camera wants to prove he is a "Director" and in the process sabotaging a uniformly fine cast

Easily one of my favorite movies of all time, Peter Brook's King Lear demands that you think, and will disturb you because you are alive and will one day (statistically speaking) be an old, foolish, feeble, mistake-laden human. Comment to the angles and lighting and all the things that seem to consistently disturb viewers: place yourself in the mind of a slowly ebbing ego, driven to rage over confusion and denied shame--an old man of four score and not a day more, in love with his youngest daughter, living his final days having denied and banished her... of course you are never going to see someone clearly, steadily, squarely, or in the same screen area. This masterfully bleak representation of one of Shakespeare's more difficult plays is unjustly in moratorium. I have shown it to many of my classes and will continue until the tape is worn with holes. Brook's treatment of Edgar is so haunting, so perfect, if you leave this feeling empty and lost, bravo! He who scoffs at their first viewing of this film is simply not watching the film, but is watching their expectations dashed on the wall.