Okay, a couple corrections. This is a pretty good summary, but there were a few minor details that were inaccurate or parts which left out an important detail. 0:41 This is not a mere discussion between the king and two noble friends. This is typically portrayed as a public ceremony, which places limits on what the characters can say. They all have to act a part and follow certain social conventions of the time. This is a key reason for the actions of Lear and his eldest daughters. 2:04 "New husbands"? No. Both sisters have already been married to the Dukes, ruling the lands of Albany and Cornwall with their respective husband. In one account of the mythological tale which Shakespeare drew the story from (see Holinshead for more details), the girls were awarded with husbands at the ceremony, so I can see where you got this confused. However, in Shakespeare's version, Cordelia is the only sister who is unmarried. In fact, part of the reason for the public ceremony is so Lear can make his daughters' dowries known so his sons-in-law won't go to war after his death. He explains this to the crowd during the ceremony. (Let's be honest, Cornwall would dominate Albany.) 2:13 This sisters actually didn't say that at all. Goneril worries about the rage Lear has just flown into, recklessly banishing Kent and Cordelia. She fears that as his mind goes, he will grow more rash and end up causing problems for them. Regan supplies that their father has always had anger issues, but now that he is older, he cannot as easily contain them. They agree to make plans in case his deteriorating mental state interferes with the interests of the kingdoms. This is not a sign of insincerity, and they were honor-bound to agree to their father's flattery game. This is not a cartoon villain moment. They have the kingdoms, so they're not plotting to seize anything. They are now trying to rule the best they can, and note that their father might make it difficult. 2:28 Again with the misinformation about the sisters. These are common misconceptions that turn the sisters into blank villain archetypes, rather than the complex characters Shakespeare wrote them as. (Can you imagine anyone doing that to Lady Macbeth?) Regan never says anything remotely like that over the course of the entire play. Goneril does instruct Oswald to ignore Lear until she can confront him herself, and both sisters eventually decide not to allow their father any of the knights he had reserved. However, you cannot merely state these facts without mentioning the vital reason the sisters did this: The "knights" were not knights, merely a riotous band of countrymen and squires that turned their palaces into taverns. They were drunkenly assaulting servants and impeding Goneril from actually ruling the kingdom. Because they were sworn to Lear, the sisters could not force them to stop. They proposed to Lear to give him some of their own servants, so he would be well-attended AND they could be disciplined if they committed crimes. This wasn't so much evil as it was reasonable, and leaving out this detail twists the whole scenario. 2:41 I love that you included Caius in this video! Although to be fair to him, Kent didn't just do it to stay in the country. Loyal to a fault, he wanted to protect Lear in the hard times ahead. Second of all, it was Regan and Cornwall (mostly Cornwall) that put Caius/Kent in the stocks. Goneril had nothing to do with it. Third of all, again it is very important to mention the reason. Caius had attacked Oswald for delivering a message to Regan, then argued with the entire court and threatened many of them. For this, Cornwall places him in the stocks (a punishment which Cornwall later confesses was much less harsh than the law required, but he actually softened Kent's punishment). This was not because Caius/Kent was loyal to the king. This was a reasonable legal action. 3:10 Edmund is his own case study in complex motives, which again, a mention of would be nice. However, my main complaint is that he "plans to steal the legitimacy" of his brother, Edgar. What? That's not how birth status works at all. 3:27 Gloucester was the one who jumped to conclusions, certainly not the other way around. Edmund assured him the letter was a test. Gloucester, fearing a conspiracy, actually asked Edmund to go investigate the situation. (Sidenote: It wasn't really "jumping to conclusions". The letter said it pretty directly.) 3:32 This video puts the events out of order. There were days between these two conversations, and in between, Edmund warned Edgar that their father thought he was involved in a conspiracy. Days later, Edmund hears that Regan and Cornwall are coming to visit, and he uses this fact to trick Edgar into thinking that they are coming to arrest him. He helps Edgar "escape" and then wounds himself, pretending that his "investigation" went wrong, leading to a swordfight. He then screams for his father's help, and Gloucester comes running. Depicting it like that ruins the timeline of this subplot completely and doesn't explain what really happened. 3:48 Since when did this happen? The sisters (and Cornwall) meet with Lear at Gloucester's palace and try to reason with him. They explain their position, but Lear's madness begins to take hold. This is why he runs out into the storm. Unable and unwilling to stop him (which at this point, if you've actually been paying attention to what the sisters are really saying, makes sense), Goneril, Regan, and her husband, go inside to take shelter from the storm, advising Gloucester to do the same. However, Gloucester eventually goes after the king to make sure he will be alright. There is no letter about cruel treatment. That's complete fiction. However, he does recieve a letter that Cordelia has arrived in the kingdom in Dover with an invading army. 3:53 Again, false. Gloucester offers Lear food and shelter, in the lands of Gloucester, not Dover. However, he does pass on the information about Lear finding assistance at Dover to Caius/Kent. 4:15 Well, partial credit on that one. Edmund actually informed Cornwall that his father had shown him a letter that the French army was secretly amassing at Dover and invading the lands, and Gloucester was keeping it a secret. They didn't turn on Gloucester because "oh, he likes the king". The turned on Gloucester because he committed literal treason. I think that's the main part. You could have just mentioned that instead of meandering about Gloucester and Lear. Edmund doesn't add that "oh, by the way, we're being invaded". That was Edmund's entire point. 4:43 Why was Edmund there? They sent him away at the beginning of the scene so they could punish Gloucester more freely. That's a big part of it. Gloucester doesn't find out that Edmund told his secret until after the eyeball-stabbing is over. He actually cries out for his son to help him. 6:13 Absolutely not. The timeline of the whole play has been rearranged entirely in this video. Yes, Lear forgot himself and was sedated by Cordelia's doctor. That was in the previous act. Not only was Lear conscious and recovering at their point of capture, but he also had an emotional speech comforting Cordelia as they were led away to prison. 6:52 And also grief. 7:00 No one cared about the adultery part. Goneril and Albany had an openly unhappy arranged marriage. The part that was bad was her plot to kill Albany. 7:10 Another minor timeline mistake. Edmund reveals this before, and Albany sends a captain to try to save them, but he arrives too late. Overall, not too bad. It's hard to recap everything perfectly, but a lot of important details were left out, which made the plot and characters a lot less complex. These are minor corrections to help the viewer understand the play better, because the version portrayed here is watered down and clearly biased against certain characters.
What a great job following all those twists and turns. Just increases my appreciation of the simple and straightforward one like Othello, Merchant of Venice, Hamlet, Machbeth.
William wallace: Were going to king lears kingdom Stephen: Will I get to kill some englishmen? William wallace: Yes, you'll get to kill the english. Stephen: Excellent!
This is a bit too concise. The sisters are much more developed and 'gray' than they are depicted in this summary. They aren't just mindless villains. I would have added a few sentences near the beginning describing their thinking a bit more
This pile of shit was what I was forced to study at GCSE when it had been cemented that The Government Would Not Save My Soul. Enter early influences of a CGI Jeremy. It would be better if King Lear was a short story of a royal interaction. They leave the impression that they could not complete, so they add another element A Fresh Element 8nstead. Anyway, I started studying King Lear after they made this decision for me.
Okay, a couple corrections. This is a pretty good summary, but there were a few minor details that were inaccurate or parts which left out an important detail.
0:41 This is not a mere discussion between the king and two noble friends. This is typically portrayed as a public ceremony, which places limits on what the characters can say. They all have to act a part and follow certain social conventions of the time. This is a key reason for the actions of Lear and his eldest daughters.
2:04 "New husbands"? No. Both sisters have already been married to the Dukes, ruling the lands of Albany and Cornwall with their respective husband. In one account of the mythological tale which Shakespeare drew the story from (see Holinshead for more details), the girls were awarded with husbands at the ceremony, so I can see where you got this confused. However, in Shakespeare's version, Cordelia is the only sister who is unmarried. In fact, part of the reason for the public ceremony is so Lear can make his daughters' dowries known so his sons-in-law won't go to war after his death. He explains this to the crowd during the ceremony. (Let's be honest, Cornwall would dominate Albany.)
2:13 This sisters actually didn't say that at all. Goneril worries about the rage Lear has just flown into, recklessly banishing Kent and Cordelia. She fears that as his mind goes, he will grow more rash and end up causing problems for them. Regan supplies that their father has always had anger issues, but now that he is older, he cannot as easily contain them. They agree to make plans in case his deteriorating mental state interferes with the interests of the kingdoms. This is not a sign of insincerity, and they were honor-bound to agree to their father's flattery game. This is not a cartoon villain moment. They have the kingdoms, so they're not plotting to seize anything. They are now trying to rule the best they can, and note that their father might make it difficult.
2:28 Again with the misinformation about the sisters. These are common misconceptions that turn the sisters into blank villain archetypes, rather than the complex characters Shakespeare wrote them as. (Can you imagine anyone doing that to Lady Macbeth?) Regan never says anything remotely like that over the course of the entire play. Goneril does instruct Oswald to ignore Lear until she can confront him herself, and both sisters eventually decide not to allow their father any of the knights he had reserved. However, you cannot merely state these facts without mentioning the vital reason the sisters did this: The "knights" were not knights, merely a riotous band of countrymen and squires that turned their palaces into taverns. They were drunkenly assaulting servants and impeding Goneril from actually ruling the kingdom. Because they were sworn to Lear, the sisters could not force them to stop. They proposed to Lear to give him some of their own servants, so he would be well-attended AND they could be disciplined if they committed crimes. This wasn't so much evil as it was reasonable, and leaving out this detail twists the whole scenario.
2:41 I love that you included Caius in this video! Although to be fair to him, Kent didn't just do it to stay in the country. Loyal to a fault, he wanted to protect Lear in the hard times ahead. Second of all, it was Regan and Cornwall (mostly Cornwall) that put Caius/Kent in the stocks. Goneril had nothing to do with it. Third of all, again it is very important to mention the reason. Caius had attacked Oswald for delivering a message to Regan, then argued with the entire court and threatened many of them. For this, Cornwall places him in the stocks (a punishment which Cornwall later confesses was much less harsh than the law required, but he actually softened Kent's punishment). This was not because Caius/Kent was loyal to the king. This was a reasonable legal action.
3:10 Edmund is his own case study in complex motives, which again, a mention of would be nice. However, my main complaint is that he "plans to steal the legitimacy" of his brother, Edgar. What? That's not how birth status works at all.
3:27 Gloucester was the one who jumped to conclusions, certainly not the other way around. Edmund assured him the letter was a test. Gloucester, fearing a conspiracy, actually asked Edmund to go investigate the situation. (Sidenote: It wasn't really "jumping to conclusions". The letter said it pretty directly.)
3:32 This video puts the events out of order. There were days between these two conversations, and in between, Edmund warned Edgar that their father thought he was involved in a conspiracy. Days later, Edmund hears that Regan and Cornwall are coming to visit, and he uses this fact to trick Edgar into thinking that they are coming to arrest him. He helps Edgar "escape" and then wounds himself, pretending that his "investigation" went wrong, leading to a swordfight. He then screams for his father's help, and Gloucester comes running. Depicting it like that ruins the timeline of this subplot completely and doesn't explain what really happened.
3:48 Since when did this happen? The sisters (and Cornwall) meet with Lear at Gloucester's palace and try to reason with him. They explain their position, but Lear's madness begins to take hold. This is why he runs out into the storm. Unable and unwilling to stop him (which at this point, if you've actually been paying attention to what the sisters are really saying, makes sense), Goneril, Regan, and her husband, go inside to take shelter from the storm, advising Gloucester to do the same. However, Gloucester eventually goes after the king to make sure he will be alright. There is no letter about cruel treatment. That's complete fiction. However, he does recieve a letter that Cordelia has arrived in the kingdom in Dover with an invading army.
3:53 Again, false. Gloucester offers Lear food and shelter, in the lands of Gloucester, not Dover. However, he does pass on the information about Lear finding assistance at Dover to Caius/Kent.
4:15 Well, partial credit on that one. Edmund actually informed Cornwall that his father had shown him a letter that the French army was secretly amassing at Dover and invading the lands, and Gloucester was keeping it a secret. They didn't turn on Gloucester because "oh, he likes the king". The turned on Gloucester because he committed literal treason. I think that's the main part. You could have just mentioned that instead of meandering about Gloucester and Lear. Edmund doesn't add that "oh, by the way, we're being invaded". That was Edmund's entire point.
4:43 Why was Edmund there? They sent him away at the beginning of the scene so they could punish Gloucester more freely. That's a big part of it. Gloucester doesn't find out that Edmund told his secret until after the eyeball-stabbing is over. He actually cries out for his son to help him.
6:13 Absolutely not. The timeline of the whole play has been rearranged entirely in this video. Yes, Lear forgot himself and was sedated by Cordelia's doctor. That was in the previous act. Not only was Lear conscious and recovering at their point of capture, but he also had an emotional speech comforting Cordelia as they were led away to prison.
6:52 And also grief.
7:00 No one cared about the adultery part. Goneril and Albany had an openly unhappy arranged marriage. The part that was bad was her plot to kill Albany.
7:10 Another minor timeline mistake. Edmund reveals this before, and Albany sends a captain to try to save them, but he arrives too late.
Overall, not too bad. It's hard to recap everything perfectly, but a lot of important details were left out, which made the plot and characters a lot less complex. These are minor corrections to help the viewer understand the play better, because the version portrayed here is watered down and clearly biased against certain characters.
Damn you must love Shakespeare 😭
"A couple corrections." LOL.
🤓
I appreciate you taking the time out to do this as I’m going to see the play tomorrow night in Dun Laoighaire Pavilion.THANK YOU.
Oh ok these are the Corrections 🥴🙄
Just came here to say thank you. Your videos help me very much with my studies. Please keep making videos like this. ❤️
What a great job following all those twists and turns. Just increases my appreciation of the simple and straightforward one like Othello, Merchant of Venice, Hamlet, Machbeth.
6:07 😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
This video is the perfect test for ADHD.
😂
best educational channel ever
Watch the movie Ran it is an adaptation of this play and is one of the greatest movies I have ever seen.
Thank you for giving us a hint of king lear
more like Thank you for letting me know that everyone dies in King Lear @chelangegatpaula
This may be the first time I liked a Shakesperean tragedy.
Thanks for summary
am i the only one that thinks of Gonorrea every time i hear Goneril & Regan?
Thanks you for this summary
can you please summarise a clockwork orange?
THANK YOU
Excellent explanation, thank u
cr7 the goat fr
Came here after succession references
Thank you
I definitely see how they based this off Succession. Poor Tom
I think perhaps Succession was based on King Lear.
What the heck? Black Albany?
Fr😂😂😂😂😂😂
lol tmr my test and im watching this to understand king lear play
i replied on my own comment lol
My daughter is doing this play and she is 9 years old
Si t'es élève en Khâgne, force on est ensemble :)
Who is here after watching succession?
King Lear was a real historical character who's recorded in many historical documents. He is not a "mythological" character.
William wallace: Were going to king lears kingdom
Stephen: Will I get to kill some englishmen?
William wallace: Yes, you'll get to kill the english.
Stephen: Excellent!
came here after watching Japanese movie RAN.
I'll be the clown in my school play.
This is a bit too concise. The sisters are much more developed and 'gray' than they are depicted in this summary. They aren't just mindless villains. I would have added a few sentences near the beginning describing their thinking a bit more
Game of thrones vibes here
Hey..
What's your country name?
😂😂😂😂 cane here from some weird ass soccer o fooootball award 😂😂😂😂
Sir Henry vanga en ve in awm em PUC
Its me Bangladeshi from jashim sir,gaghsc
Summarize Huckleberry Finn
But!
Why is there a black character? No blacks in that part of the world in 700 BC.
Racist😂😂
Were you there
nazi spotted
Who gives a shite mate 😂
💀
The king and the idiot went fishing, or some shit...
That's the most confusing story ever
❤
This plot is absurd. Give me Racine!
The Duke of albeny was a black man? Was there many black Duke's in england in the 16th century? lol
This pile of shit was what I was forced to study at GCSE when it had been cemented that The Government Would Not Save My Soul. Enter early influences of a CGI Jeremy. It would be better if King Lear was a short story of a royal interaction. They leave the impression that they could not complete, so they add another element A Fresh Element 8nstead. Anyway, I started studying King Lear after they made this decision for me.
The Duke of Albany was black? Lol
Hi 0:14