Act 1 Scene 1 | King Lear | 2017 | Royal Shakespeare Company
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ส.ค. 2024
- The company of King Lear perform part of Act 1 Scene 1 with Antony Sher as King Lear, Natalie Simpson as Cordelia, Kelly Williams as Regan and Nia Gwynne as Goneril in Gregory Doran's 2016 production of King Lear with the Royal Shakespeare Company.
![[Watch Party] RoV Pro League 2024 Winter | with Moowan ( Bacon Time Vs Talon )](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CCEDhu6dPN8/mqdefault.jpg)
Her performance is amazing. “So young and true” lovely.
I can't help thinking about Henry VIII and his daughter Mary. Cordelia is often associated with Elizabeth (as in Spencer's the fairy queen) because in the original 'happy endings' of this play (which were believed to be history) she returns and rules alone. But this scene is so Mary. She refused to accept him as head of the church and divorced to her mother, because it simply wasn't true. She could not lie and in her view risk her immortal soul. So he refused to see her and separated from her mother. She went from his beloved daughter to an ungrateful nuisance. She didn't flatter his ego, so he punished her, banishing her from his sight, even though I'm sure she still honored him and loved him dearly. She finally broke down and accepted him as head of the church and herself as a bastard after both her mother and Queen Anne were dead, but needed to be coaxed by the Imperial diplomat Chapuys and promised the pope's forgiveness.
Natalie Simpson is AMAZING ❤️
Whoa. Such artistry in verse. In a goofy way, I can identify with the 3rd daughter in as much as I admit I lack the facility with language to express properly my appreciation for Shakespeare's gift for writing verse. My 2 cents for all those who fancy the argument in favor of Shakespeare's plays having been written by a multiplicity of authors--> I humbly submit that the arguments in favor of that position collapse under their own weight in that they are predicated on the sheer brilliance of Shakespeare's works and the fact that by definition genius is always singular in nature. What I mean by genius being singular in nature might be clarified by the following thought experiment. Imagine a very difficult graduate level Physics exame that would require an IQ of 160 in order for a student to answer accurately all problems and receive a grade of 100%. No team of students (no matter how many in number) comprised of non-genius albeit relatively intelligent Physics students w IQ's in 120's could solve the entirety of exam's set of problems. These teams would certainly do better than the average person. Presumably, the team as a whole could do better than many or most of the individuals would have done had they taken the exam on their own. However, there remains a plateau beyond which no member of that team and the collection of these individuals can reach because none of them have the necessary talent to solve the problems in their entirety. This analogy does have some basis in the real world. I am not a genius (as you may have guessed), but I did major in Physics at an Ivy League school and was put into an honor's physics course. This was a very tough course and we formed a study group. We were often stumped as a team. "Luckily," my brother (now a tenured Physics professor at an Ivy League University) has a genius level IQ and I would call him and he would give us the solutions. There is no substitute for genius and no collection of non-geniuses (even fairly bright ones) can perform on the same level. Shakespeare was a genius as we can infer from the quality of his work. His genius stands alone. Just sayin'
Weirdo
@@user-ks3mk9kq4l , hey, I may be weird. I dunno. Don't much care either way. I do what I do and don't give a f@ck if people don't get it.
@@hopelessstrlstfan181 Is it not simply possible that the group of people who took the name of Shakespeare were all geniuses?
@@joellovell6240 , I have thought of that possibility & I tend to think it far less likely than the bulk of the plays having been written by a single genius. More on that later, but 1st my acknowledgement that the Shakespeare Corpus of writings did have an element of collaboration in its production. It is akin to what happens in the process of making films, wherein the Screen plays may be adapted by the director & etc. In the case of Shakespeare's plays there are different versions and different publications from centuries paat actually seem to have chosen to publish as a single version of a given play combinations of what were originally separate versions. My position is that singular Brilliance of the Shakespearean Corpus recognized worldwide is the result of a single playwright being behind the bulk of the Corpus. Not every single line of Shakespeare's plays are themselves brilliant. OK, why is it more likely that a single Genius in 16th Century England produced the plays, rather then a team of geniuses?
#1 There is no evidence of the existence of any competitor of Shakespeare being as brilliant as he, outside of the (conspiracy ?) theory that all the geniuses capable of producing such brilliant plays decided to allow a single person to get all the credit and financial reward for the plays production.
#2 No plausible motivation for such a group of individuals remaining anonymous has been presented as an explanation for creating such a conspiracy involving a team of genius to renounce their individual rewards for their separate and brilliant work.
#3 The above 2 observations and Ocum's razor seem to favor the simpler explaination that a single genius is responsible for the uniquely brilliant body of work known as the Shakespearean Corpus, although I grant that editors and directors and actors did likely affect those plays in smaller ways, but, thankfully with out destroying what made those plays stand alone in the history of English Literature.
Just my opinion.
I could be wrong.
@@hopelessstrlstfan181 fair enough. I think you were kinda saying this but I agree that the likelihood there would be multiple master playwright geniuses is less than their beeing one (I'm thinking of your original argument) and that the consistent vision in all of his plays would be hard to sustain with multiple talents trying to stay coordinated.
How long does it take to travel from ancient England to Westeros? It Varys.
Thank You to help me in my English homework
Nothing, absolutely nothing, beats "Theatre." "Threatre is able to reach the soul and to touch the spirit and to mold the heart in ways that are forever lasting in its effects. The richness of "Theatre" has sadly been largely lost and forgotten in the shadow of endless TV channels, Music Videos, the internet, Social Media, and the endless rhetoric of our present society's, "Much Ado About Nothing." We are all, sadly, living in a sorry state of affairs...
capitalism
I’m watching theatre right now
Where can I watch the full play?
shaylene morin Right here on TH-cam. There’s a modernised version w Anthony Hopkins as Lear, w Emma Thompson, Emily Watson, Bob Hoskins & other excellent actors. I like it better than this one, for its subtlety, dark humour & character clarity. There is also a Radio version w John Gielgud, Judi Dench & the list goes on. Good luck!
Here is a link to the full play here on TH-cam: (I hope!!) facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1288457133454&set=pb.1290986121.-2207520000..&type=3&size=640%2C480
Bravo
Good job
Hi guys from Nelson 🤧
CORDELIA:
Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave
My heart into my mouth. I love your Majesty
According to my bond; no more nor less.
Good my lord,
You have begot me, bred me, lov’d me; I
Return those duties back as are right fit,
Obey you, love you, and most honour you.
Why have my sisters husbands, if they say
They love you all? Haply, when I shall wed,
That lord whose hand must take my plight shall carry
Half my love with him, half my care and duty.
Sure I shall never marry like my sisters,
To love my father all.
King Lear:Tell me, my daughters,--
Since now we will divest us both of rule,
Interest of territory, cares of state,--
Which of you shall we say doth love us most?
That we our largest bounty may extend
Where nature doth with merit challenge. Goneril,
Our eldest-born, speak first.
GONERIL
Sir, I love you more than words can wield the matter;
Dearer than eye-sight, space, and liberty;
Beyond what can be valued, rich or rare;
No less than life, with grace, health, beauty, honour;
As much as child e'er loved, or father found;
A love that makes breath poor, and speech unable;
Beyond all manner of so much I love you.
CORDELIA
[Aside] What shall Cordelia do?
Love, and be silent.
LEAR
Of all these bounds, even from this line to this,
With shadowy forests and with champains rich'd,
With plenteous rivers and wide-skirted meads,
We make thee lady: to thine and Albany's issue
Be this perpetual. What says our second daughter,
Our dearest Regan, wife to Cornwall? Speak.
REGAN
Sir, I am made
Of the self-same metal that my sister is,
And prize me at her worth. In my true heart
I find she names my very deed of love;
Only she comes too short: that I profess
Myself an enemy to all other joys,
Which the most precious square of sense possesses;
And find I am alone felicitate
In your dear highness' love.
CORDELIA
[Aside] Then poor Cordelia!
And yet not so; since, I am sure, my love's
More richer than my tongue.
KING LEAR
To thee and thine hereditary ever
Remain this ample third of our fair kingdom;
No less in space, validity, and pleasure,
Than that conferr'd on Goneril. Now, our joy,
Although the last, not least; to whose young love
The vines of France and milk of Burgundy
Strive to be interess'd; what can you say to draw
A third more opulent than your sisters? Speak.
CORDELIA
Nothing, my lord.
KING LEAR
Nothing!
CORDELIA
Nothing.
KING LEAR
Nothing will come of nothing: speak again.
CORDELIA
Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave
My heart into my mouth: I love your majesty
According to my bond; nor more nor less.
KING LEAR
How, how, Cordelia! mend your speech a little,
Lest it may mar your fortunes.
CORDELIA
Good my lord,
You have begot me, bred me, loved me: I
Return those duties back as are right fit,
Obey you, love you, and most honour you.
Why have my sisters husbands, if they say
They love you all? Haply, when I shall wed,
That lord whose hand must take my plight shall carry
Half my love with him, half my care and duty:
Sure, I shall never marry like my sisters,
To love my father all.
KING LEAR
But goes thy heart with this?
CORDELIA
Ay, good my lord.
KING LEAR
So young, and so untender?
CORDELIA
So young, my lord, and true.
1:00
Time stamp for me don't mind
Having a play out here
Wait what ….
Beautiful social comment
3:27 timestamp for me
We need to be careful because there are a lot of internet myths about paganism (including All Saints Day, Easter, and Christmas!) that just aren’t true. We need to be wise as serpents and not be led astray, for sure.
s3c beste
shit video no grüsse gehen out
I sometimes wonder if the British people have even a shred of self-respect left. Then a production like this one happens along and answers my question. The answer is an emphatic no, followed by an exclamation point so loud they can hear it in space.
To me it seems like a very good production. Could you tell me why you don’t think so?
@@massimobernardodolci Cordelia is a Moor.
@@RJStockton So you’re saying this production proves that “the British People haven’t even a shred of self-respect left” because they cast a black woman. I see. If this makes you scream “no” so loudly they can hear it in space and write insulting remarks about these theatre professionals, maybe it is you who should be worrying about tainting the dignity of the british people.
@@massimobernardodolci Devastating riposte. She still isn't British, which is why the company cast her. Because making Cordelia black is demoralizing for the British public, which the London set hate with a passion. It's disgusting to watch, frankly.
@@RJStockton oh we chose that good old pASSionate racism today nice cool,, can’t wait for time to finish off any generation that thinks like you
Diversity or else. Noish
2017? this looks like a production from the 50s.
What do you want, CGI?
Stilted. Why put him up on a silly box? Couldn't relate. Pity.
Shakespeare’s hierarchy of being states that the only beings of higher importance than a king are heavenly beings. He believed that kings (to his subjects) reflect what god is to his angels. I guess it’s depicted in how they set up the stage.
It also results in less crowding, so you’re not trying to look over characters’ heads to see another. Lear’s easy to see, and so are the people who are in front of him, talking to him. That’s something you have to consider when directing theatre.
@@leesolbiI don’t think you know what you’re talking about, but it is your god given right to invent the most ridiculous foolishness and then post it.