“Upon such sacrifices dear Cordelia, The gods themselves throw incense.”
Thanks to Night Creator Studio for helping me create this.
King Lear Inspired AI Art
king lear
Shakespeare On Dragons
Tonight is the Chinese New Year, beginning the Year of the Dragon. I’ve talked before about the fascinating relationship between Shakespeare and China, and I thought I’d illustrate it here by talking about a shared cultural mythology- the concept of dragons. Both Western and Eastern cultures use dragons in their myths, but as you’ll see, they have very different cultural meanings.
Quotes from Shakespeare About Dragons
Before thee stands this fair Hesperides,
Antiocus, Pericles
With golden fruit, but dangerous to be touch’d;
For death-like dragons here affright thee hard:
Sometimes we see a cloud that’s dragonish;
Antony and Cleopatra
A vapour sometime like a bear or lion,
A tower’d citadel, a pendent rock,
A forked mountain, or blue promontory
In Western myths, dragons are symbols of wrath and fierceness. In ancient Greek and Viking myths, dragons are often guards of treasure, (and sometimes in modern stories like Harry Potter). In the myth of Hercules, a multi-headed dragon guarded the golden apples of the Hesperides, (the apples that kept the gods young and immortal). King Antiochus wants to scare Pericles by comparing his daughter to the apples; if he fails to win her love, he’ll be devoured as Hercules almost was.
Coriolanus and Dragons
His CORIOLANUS is grown
Coriolanus
from man to dragon: he has wings; he’s more than a
creeping thing.
Shakespeare’s Roman general Coriolanus is frequently compared to a dragon in Shakespeare’s play. According to Dr. Peter Saccio of Dartmouth College, this is because the general is unable to relate to other humans- he is solitary, violent, jealous of his power and wealth, and prefers to strike first, then retreat from other people when the battle is won. This is why he utterly fails to get the Roman people to elect him consul in this scene from Ralph Fiennes’ movie. I find it ironic that Fiennes has played not only this character, (who is associated with dragons), but with Lord Voldemort, (who controls several large serpents), and also Francis Dollarhyde in the film Red Dragon:
Swift, swift, you dragons of the night, that dawning
Cymbeline
May bare the raven’s eye! I lodge in fear;
Though this a heavenly angel, hell is here.
Sometime he angers me
Hotspur, Henry IV, Part I
With telling me of the mouldwarp and the ant,
Of the dreamer Merlin and his prophecies,
And of a dragon and a finless fish,
A clip-wing’d griffin and a moulten raven,
A couching lion and a ramping cat,
And such a deal of skimble-skamble stuff
As puts me from my faith.
A thousand hearts are great within my bosom;
Advance our standards, set upon our foes
Our ancient word of “courage,” fair Saint George,
Inspire us with the spleen of fiery dragons!
Richard III
St. George and the Dragon
In the medieval story of St. George, the titular knight defeats a dragon, which is basically a stand-in for Satan. George was seen as the ideal knight- virtuous, devoted to his cause, strong, and patriotic. His defeat of the dragon was an allegory for how knights should devote themselves to protecting their lords, ladies, and the innocent against evil. Therefore, it’s intentionally unsettling that Shakespeare has Richard III telling his soldiers to act not like the virtuous St. George, but like the cruel and violent dragon. Richard is Shakespeare’s most villainous king, so it makes sense in context that he would side with the dragon, and thus his defeat would seem even more like a triumph of good over evil. In addition, the real King Richard flew this flag with a dragon on it during the actual Battle of Bosworth Field.
Peace, Kent!
King Lear
Come not between the dragon and his wrath.
Dragons and Chinese Culture
None of the animals is so wise as the dragon. His blessing power is not a false one. He can be smaller than small, bigger than big, higher than high, and lower than low.”
–Chinese scholar Lu Dian (AD 1042-1102)
Qualities of Dragons
Dragons didn’t have the negative connotations of Western myths. In China, they were symbols of good luck, strength, and success. They were also known to be proud and temperamental-sometimes kind but sometimes vengeful to people who didn’t show them proper respect. In a sense, the dragon was like the ancient Greek gods- they should be viewed with respect and gratitude as well as fear.
Zodiac
The Chinese calendar goes by a cycle of years, not months. It has 12 animals that represent various qualities and those qualities will characterize the coming year. So hopefully a year of a dragon will be a year marked with courage, good fortune, and justice.
IV. What would a Chinese Lear look like?
Looking at the quotes I showed you earlier, it’s interesting that King Lear calls himself a dragon, and it made me think- Lear is a powerful warlord who demands absolute loyalty from his children. Would a Chinese version of King Lear work?
There was a Chinese production of King Lear back in 2017, where the translator and director traveled to the Royal Shakespeare Company in England and worked with the actors and directors of a London production to make their production gain insight into the characters’ motivations. However, I wonder how successfully they translated the Western ideas and values of the play for a Chinese audience. One of the reviews from China Daily.com describes the play like this:
Originating from old British legend, King Lear is one of Shakespeare’s four most famous tragedies. Through the internal disorder of the royal family, the rise and fall of King Lear’s fate and the final punishment of evil powers, Shakespeare expresses his optimistic views in the future of society, thereby adding the glory of strong idealism into his work.
ChinaDaily.com
The last word I would use to describe King Lear is “optimistic”. It is the only tragedy where not only does everyone die, but the entire future of the monarchy is in question. Nevertheless, reading about this production makes me interested in imagining my own version of King Lear, one that emphasizes Chinese values, but also questions them.
Many Chinese stories stress family loyalty, communalism, and respect for elders. You could portray King Lear as a story about the disastrous consequences of self-interest. After all, Regan and Goneril cast their father out and dismissed his followers, and it led their kingdom into civil war. In that version, Lear is like the Dragon King, who in Chinese folklore, was a powerful ruler of the seas, (giving new meaning to the lines “Blow winds, and crack your cheeks”). As a bonus, historically, many imperial Chinese rulers decorated their palaces with images of dragons, and the emperors themselves were associated with the creature, (especially during the Han Dynasty), so when Lear says “Come not between the dragon and his wrath,” In his mind, he literally is a dragon.
In 1736, Jean-Baptiste Du Halde wrote about the Emperor: “His clothing is embroidered with dragons: they are his emblem, and only He can wear dragons with five claws – any infringement to this rule is punished severely.”
Cornell University: Emblems and Mascots of Rulers:
Chinese Imperial Dragons
That said, some dragons were associated with bad luck and ill omens. I’ve said before that Lear’s biggest flaw is that he fails to take time to examine himself or think about the consequences of his actions until it is too late. Maybe Lear thinks of himself as a benevolent dragon, but really is a bad man cursed with bad luck; he is not a dragon, he just has one on his back. So, in short, a Chinese re-imagining of King Lear could be a fascinating look at Chinese culture and give a fresh re-imagining of Shakespeare’s tragic story.
I hope you enjoyed this look into dragons in Shakespeare and Chinese culture. Joseph Campbell said that all cultures share and interpret archetypes to understand their own culture, but also to grasp what makes us all human. For whatever reason, every culture on Earth has some kind of large serpent- Chinese dragons, European dragons, The Aztec god Quetzalcoatl, the Viking Yormungand, even the Piasa of the native tribes of the Mississippi. and they can mean many different things to many different people, which means that we as humans are in some way tied to gether through all these dragon tales (no pun intended).
V. Sources
- https://www.kennedy-center.org/whats-on/explore-by-genre/young-audiences/2023-2024/dragon-kings-daughter/#:~:text=Chinese%20dragon%20mythology%2C%20martial%20arts,inspiring%20songs%20by%20Marcus%20Yi.
- https://www.historyskills.com/classroom/year-7/chinese-dragons/#:~:text=Another%20well%2Dknown%20legend%20involves,benevolent%2C%20divine%20force%20in%20nature.
- https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/mythic-creatures/dragons/asian-dragons
- https://www.topchinatravel.com/china-guide/chinese-dragon-language.htm
- https://studycli.org/chinese-culture/chinese-dragons
- https://rmc.library.cornell.edu/AnimalLegends/exhibition/emblems/dragons.html#:~:text=Already%20a%20royal%20symbol%20in,and%20his%20brother%20Yan%20Di.
Remembering Michael Gambon
It’s a moment of tragic irony, worthy of King Lear himself that the actor who played Snape died before the actor who played Dumbledore, but here we are. I’m saddened to say that we’ve lost another beloved Shakespeare and Harry Potter actors.
Gambon was born in Ireland in 1940. His first Shakespeare role was in a production of “Othello” at the Gates Theater in Dublin Ireland. He went on to win an Olivier Award, a BAFTA, several SAG awards, and was knighted in 1988.
Sir Michael became accomplished both on TV, in movies, and on stage. He played many of Shakespeare’s greatest roles, including a famous performance as King Lear with Antony Sher at the Royal Shakespeare Company. Here are some highlights of his stage work:
Now before I go on, I’d like to address the elephant in the room, or rather the MEME in the room:
I’ve never understood the animosity that Gambon got for changing the interpretation of this line, and no one seems to have a real explanation for why he changed it from the book. So this is all speculative, but as a Shakespeare actor myself, I want to provide some rational explanations that while you might not like his choice, you hopefully won’t come to the conclusion that it was the “Worst mistake ever.”
1. If You Don’t Change Something, You’re Not Doing Your JOb
Sources:
https://pagesix.com/2023/09/28/sir-michael-gambon-dumbledore-in-harry-potter-dead-at-82/
https://www.mtv.com/news/3m9lil/harry-potter-and-the-gobleddafiyah
Article Review:
“Upon Such Sacrifices: King Lear and the Binding of Isaac”
I’ve compared King Lear to a fairy tale in the past, but i haven’t compared it to a story from the King James Bible, even though Shakespeare, in all likelihood wrote and performed it for James himself. This article form the Jewish Review of Books is a comparison between Lear and the Old Testament Bible. First, the author has a tantalizing historical tidbit that might explain why Shakespeare chose to write Lear for King James:
Before ascending to the English throne, James VI of Scotland wrote a political guide, Basilikon Doron, for his eldest son advising him never to divide his kingdom (as Lear does) but “make your eldest son Isaac, leaving him all your kingdoms.”
Noah Millman.
The article also draws some fascinating parallels between Lear and other Biblical patriarchs especially the sacrifice of Isaac, which takes place in Genesis 22, or as it’s known in Jewish tradition, the akeda.
The akedah prompts different questions than King Lear does, not of how so much tragedy could have sprung from a foolish love test, but how the God of all creation could have put his faithful servant to such an unconscionable test in the first place. And so there is a long interpretive tradition that labors to elide that fact in increasingly creative ways. Surely God never intended Isaac to be a sacrifice—the boy was merely to be present at the sacrifice! How could Abraham have thought otherwise, when God had already sworn that it was through Isaac that his promise to Abraham would be fulfilled? Or, alternatively, surely Abraham never doubted that God was merely testing him—after all, Abraham tells Isaac himself that God would provide a lamb to substitute!
Millman. Reprinted from:
https://jewishreviewofbooks.com/articles/2789/upon-sacrifices-king-lear-binding-isaac/?#gf_25
It’s interesting to see the parallels between Lear and an Old Testament patriarch. He constantly asks his gods for help and swears by them when he pronounces his doom, yet arguably he has no real faith in his gods or his daughters, which is why his foolish love test in Act I, serves as the catalyst that corrodes and destroys his kingdom and his life. However, maybe Lear sees himself this way, as a king appointed by God, with the authority to test his daughters’ love as God tested Abraham. Ian McKellen seems to share this view and sees Lear as a priest who is unwilling to give up his “special relationship with his gods.”
The actor playing Lear can benefit from studying the sort of old-fashioned patriarchs presented in the Bible because they help shape his worldview. In addition, the concept of faith and how it is tested is another big theme in Lear and contrasting how men in the Bible keep their faith while Lear loses it is an illuminating way to contextualize both works. Was Shakespeare trying to write a parable for kings? Perhaps, but he certainly encapsulates very well the struggles and anxieties of keeping power, and the desire for divine intervention when a kingdom bleeds.
https://jewishreviewofbooks.com/articles/2789/upon-sacrifices-king-lear-binding-isaac/?#gf_25
My favorite Productions of King Lear
John Gielgud- Renaissance Theater Troupe (1994)
Ian McKellen- Royal Shakespeare Company (2008)
William Hutt- “Slings and Arrows” (2007)
James Earl Jones- Public Theater (1974)
This is my absolute favorite of all the King Lears I’ve seen. Jones nails the blind rage and puffed-up pride of Lear, while also being absolutely clear in his delivery. Unlike a lot of other Lears I’ve seen, you get the sense that, although this man is a bad dad and probably a bad king, he wasn’t always like this, that he was very respected and magnanimous.
In addition, the supporting cast is incredible- Raul Julia (famous for playing M. Bison and Gomez Adams), brings a delicious slimy charm as Edmund and Rene Aberjounois as Edgar brings every bit of his chameleon-like acting to Edgar, Poor Tom, the guy on the cliff, and the guy who fights Oswald. It’s simply astonishing to see Rene play so many different characters and do so many different voices in one performance.
The cast’s excellence doesn’t stop there- Rosalind Cash, Ellen Holly and Lee Chamberlain are all excellent as Lear’s daughters. Cash in particular has the bearing of a queen, and she isn’t afraid to go toe-to-toe with her father, even though he’s played with such might by Jones. Holly plays Regan as sort of a sniveling middle child, which I didn’t enjoy as much, but I think it’s a legitimate interpretation. And of course, Lee Chamberlain does a great job capturing the gentleness and grace of Cordelia, truly a “Kind and dear princess.”
Jones will always be my favorite performer in this version, but I have to give a special shout-out to Douglas Watson as The Earl of Kent. I’ll be honest, he really helped me understand the character, and I put elements of his portrayal into my own. First off, even with the elaborate verse that Kent has to deliver, Watson makes it sound like it was written yesterday. In addition, he does a great job of playing the ‘plain knave’ aspect of Kent. He’s gruff and loud, especially with Oswald, whom Kent can’t stand because of his simpering sycophantic ways. I hope I remain true to the spirit of the character, while, also giving it my own spin.
Hopefully watching all these great performances will get you interested to watch the humble little radio play, (though please don’t measure our performance against these masterpieces). Hope to see you tomorrow to watch the show!
New Podcast: Crafting a character: Kent from “king Lear”
In my new podcast, I trace the journey of my character in “King Lear.” Hopefully this will help you enjoy my performance this Saturday!
Again, the Youtube link to Saturday’s performance is below:
The Origins of King Lear
Shakespeare’s King Lear is an age old tale. Like Cinderella it has been reinterpreted throughout time and in many different cultures. Here are a few interesting highlights in the old legend and how it got to Shakespeare in the 1600s.
The Princess Who Loved Her Father More Than Salt
This is an old folktale from my favorite podcast, Journey With Story, which starts with the Cordelia/ Lear plot of a foolish king who banishes his honest daughter. Then through extraordinary circumstances it becomes a Cinderella story. I think at some point these two stories were one and the same until they diverged and one became a story about an absent father and a wicked stepmother, while the other became about a wicked father and a dead mother.
https://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/boeb/boeb05.htm
The ancient ballad of King Leir
The ancient ballad of King Leir, which helped inspire Shakespeare. It serves as a cautionary tale against flattery, and it places equal blame on Lear and his daughters:
And calling to remembrance then
His youngest daughters words,
That said the duty of a child
Was all that love affords:
But doubting to repair to her,
Whom he had banish'd so,
Grew frantick mad; for in his mind
He bore the wounds of woe:
Which made him rend his milk-white locks,
And tresses from his head,
And all with blood bestain his cheeks,
With age and honour spread.
To hills and woods and watry founts
He made his hourly moan,
Till hills and woods and sensless things,
Did seem to sigh and groan.
Even thus possest with discontents,
He passed o're to France,
In hopes from fair Cordelia there,
To find some gentler chance;
Most virtuous dame! which when she heard,
Of this her father's grief,
As duty bound, she quickly sent
Him comfort and relief
The characters of Gloucester and his children, Kent, and the Fool are absent in this ballad, but unlike the fairy tale above, both Lear and Cordelia die in each other’s arms.
The Annonymous History of King Leir, (first published c. 1594)
This play was written for Shakespeare’s rival acting company The Queen’s Men around 1590). Since the Queen was patronizing the company, most of their plays were government-funded propeganda. For instance, it was the Queen’s men who first did a tragedy of the wicked King Richard III.
If you watch the first 20 minutes of the documentary above, you will see that Wood and many other scholars believe Shakespeare must have worked for the Queen’s men, or at least performed their scripts, since they did their own versions of King Lear, Richard III, King John, and Henry V.
However Shakespeare got a hold of The Queen’s Men’s scripts, he didn’t adhere to them rigidly. Their King Lear follows the fairy-tale / history format of having Cordelia be banished, disguise herself as a peasant (like Cap ‘O Rushes in the earlier version), and eventually she is restored to her rightful place. Shakespeare’s version must have been a MASSIVE shock to anyone who read these old tales and ballads. In Shakespeare’s version, everyone dies and there is no guarantee that the kingdom will survive. Every other tragedy ends with a new king or emperor to take over the kingdom but Lear leaves the audience with a sense of apocolypse; that Lear’s madness and Edmund’s machinations have doomed England and all these characters’ lives will be erased by Time.
As pessimistic as Shakespeare’s Lear is, it does seem more true to life than the previous versions. Perhaps this is because of a legal case from 1603 that might have inspired Shakespear to adapt the story: In 1603, two daughters tried to have their father declared insane. By an astonishing coincidence, the third daughter, who protested, happened to be named Cordelia! Perhaps Shakespeare, (who had three children and was preparing to retire), might have been inspired by this case and worried he might suffer the same fate.
8 lessons from ‘King Lear’ as we head back to work or nights out after COVID-19
Slings and Arrows, Season 3
What Is Slings and Arrows?
Slings And Arrows is a Canadian sitcom about a theater festival loosely based on the Stratford Shakespeare Festival in Ontario. Its hero, Geoffrey Tennant (Paul Gross), in addition to dealing with the seemingly endless problems (or should I say, “Slings and Arrows?”) mounting a Shakespeare play, is also worried he’s going mad, since he keeps seeing the ghost of his old mentor/ director Oliver Wells (Stephen Ouimette). For a recap of Season One and Two, click here to read my review.
Series Retrospective
I describe this show as a funny, tragic, bittersweet comedy about drama. It’s The Office for Shakespeare Nerds!
Season 3 Retrospective: The Promised End?
Before settling in to write this review, I went back and read some of your comments on the whole of the series, and if there was a common thread to them, it was the idea that season three is almost too painful to bear by the end, that watching these last three episodes where everything we’ve come to love so much utterly falls apart is something like ripping off a Band Aid. I can see that. I usually watch season three all in one gulp, and having to delay my viewings every week became almost torturous, both because of the plot momentum the show builds up and because I had a week to let the things happening at New Burbage stew away in my brain. What makes it even worse is that nobody here is a bad person.
Emily St. James, AV Club, 2013.
https://www.npr.org/2007/07/21/12144988/outrageously-entertaining-slings-arrows
To succinctly summarize this season, it’s a bad season with a good finale. This season is the show at its most raw, and frankly most of it I can’t bear to rewatch. Accordingly, this won’t be a review of the season, so much as a review of one great episode; the series finale, “The Promised End”. But first, I’ll talk about the characters and tropes that got us there.
The Cast
William Hutt as Charles Kingman
The majority of the drama around season three revolves around Charles Kingman (William Hutt). Mr. Hutt was a distinguished Shakespearean actor and while he was working on this season, Hutt was struggling with leukemia. The final episode aired on August 28, 2006, and Mr. Hutt died peacefully in his sleep on June 27, 2007.
Hutt delivers a great performance as Lear and Charles, and you’d never know he was dying with all the incredible energy and skill he delivers. However, once you know he’s dying, the arc of his character and the way Charles talks about age and death is heartbreakingly poignant:
Stephen Oimette as Oliver Wells
I’ve avoided talking about Oliver because he’s honestly more of a comic relief or a Shakespearean fool for most of the series. In this season, however, he becomes a real character as this clip shows. Geoffrey finally goes to therapy, (which Oliver twists into a ghost couple’s counseling session). It’s wonderful to see them finally address their love-hate relationship and I think it carries over into Geoffrey’s arc (more on that later).
Darren Nichols
Again, Darren Nichols is mostly comic relief, but he actually becomes a full-fledged antagonist in Season 3. In Seasons 1-2 he was a character foil- a director who hates theater, except as a vehicle for himself. In Season 1 he’s literally a foil for Geoffry, (in that he clashes with Geoffrey with literal fencing foils). In addition, he crams his production of Hamlet with pointless spectacle. In Season 2 Darren is a foil to Sarah in Romeo and Juliet– he loves being clever and cynical and wages war on the sentimentality of the love story.
In this season, first Daren is a foil to Richard- mocking the sentimental storytelling of musical theatre, (as you can see in the clip above). Next, he becomes Richard’s pawn; taking credit for Richard’s skill as a director and propelling himself to become the new Artistic Director. He’s basically Edmund in King Lear- a narcissist and a cynic who loves to mock and tear down institutions.
Paul Gross as Geoffrey Tennet
Geoffrey has a very dynamic arc this season, but to achieve it, he actually regresses a lot. In the first few episodes, Geoffrey seems to hate being at this theater even after his Macbeth became a great success. He starts crying randomly, which I interpret to mean he’s horrified at the possibility that he might have to be in this theater for another year. In essence, after a full year of growth, Geoffrey has regressed to the selfish, obsessive jerk he was in Season One. As you’ll see later, this regression was necessary in order to justify his arc, but I find it nearly unbearable to watch.
That said, it’s nice to see that Geoffrey isn’t a perfect person, and he still hasn’t addressed the source of his pain- his breakdown, Oliver’s betrayal, losing Ellen, and losing his job as an actor. The only glimmer of hope in this bleak season is that Geoffrey finally confronts his pain and learns to make peace with himself, with Ellen, and Olliver.
King Lear tropes in Season 3
Trope 1: a kingdom divided
Shakespeare wrote King Lear at the same time that King James was trying to unite England and Scotland, which is why a big theme of the play is how foolish it is to divide a kingdom. In Season three of Slings and Arrows, the Lear production has to share the theater with a new musical about addiction (loosely inspired by Rent). As you can see in this clip; while they rehearse this corny, ridiculous musical, Charles is telling the story of Shakespeare’s King Lear.
Often in theater rehearsals, actors will tell the story of the play from their character’s perspective. What’s brilliant about this clip is that, while the musical demonstrates a paper-thin understanding of addiction, dramatic storytelling, or even good musical theater, Charles is conveniently leaving out Lear’s cruelty to his daughters, his failure to see their flattery, and his insane clinging to power when he has already given it away. Charles’ inability to see Lear’s flaws also mirrors his inability to see his own, which brings me to my next trope:
Trope 2: Love, or enabling addiction?
Like I said earlier, Charles understands the positive aspects of Lear, but fails to see the negative, which is why he also fails to see them it in himself. Lear is not just a dear old man who was betrayed for no reason; he’s a selfish, deluded, violent, old narcissist who cares about no one but himself. That is why he goes mad- he defines himself by power, and when he loses it, he loses his identity.
What’s really great about this season is that it doesn’t just show the dark and light aspects of Lear, it also questions the ethics of Kent and Cordelia, (the heroes of the play), who try to save him. Geoffrey eventually plays Kent in the final episode, and it’s quite obvious that he mirrors Kent’s arc; sacrificing everything to help Charles play Lear one last time. He and Anna (who is basically Cordelia in this season) even get Charles drugs to help him with the pain of cancer. Charles’ desire to play Lear mirrors Lear’s desire to play the king; they are both addicted to something that is ultimately killing them.
As you look at the season as a whole, you have to ask, was it worth it? Was it worth it for Geoffrey to lose his job and his theatre, get a bunch of other people fired, and eventually lose the festival as we know it just for one man? In the play and the show, this question is never answered, but it is useful to contemplate.
Episode Six: The Promised End
Just like in Season two, we get a beautifully directed, beautifully shot, condensed version of “King Lear” in the final episode, but the tone is completely changed. Everyone has been told that if they do this show, they will be fired, and they do it anyway. This conflict means that onstage and on screen for the actors and characters, this is a bittersweet last-ride for everyone. We know this is not just the last show for Charles, Jeffrey, Ellen, and the company, it’s also the last for Paul Gross, Steven Oimette, and the rest of the terrific TV cast.
The truly heartbreaking moments in this episode come from Geoffrey, Oliver, and Charles. We see how amazingly good Charles is, (once he accepts his age and mortality). In essence, making this everyone’s last performance made it better all around.
“A Higher Purpose”
In a great twist of fate, Geoffrey has to fill in for Jerry as the Earl of Kent. He’s horrified since the last time he acted he had a nervous breakdown. This has been a problem the whole series for Geoffrey- he blames Oliver for his breakdown and he hates the New Burbage theater because it reminds him of his breakdown. But now, he must confront his fears and get back onstage and who helps him? Oliver. He coaxes Geoffrey through his stage fright by getting Geoffrey to focus on Charles. This, by the way, is how all actors deal with it- we find an objective and spend 2-3 hours fighting for it so we don’t have time for fretting about the audience.
It’s truly lovely to watch Oliver coaching Geoffrey- not only does it mirror Geoffrey doing the same thing for Jack in season one, but we see the story of Lear from Kent’s perspective- a man trying to serve his king. This puts Geoffrey’s arc through the season into sharp focus as well- he was trying to save Charles, not Lear- Charles.
“What are we doing here?” “Putting on a play.”
Like I said before, Geoffrey starts this season with a real self-destructive streak and it’s telling that in therapy he admits that he has no work-life balance. He defines himself by making art. Through playing Kent and doing something outside the theater, Geoffrey finds meaning in his life offstage. This is why I can bear to watch this episode instead of the others- yes the theater is gone, yes Darren and Richard win and all the characters I care about have been fired, but at least Geoffrey, Ellen, Oliver, and Charles finally grow and get to move on. Charles can die in peace now that he gets to do one last performance, (without letting it drive him mad). Geoffrey gains a new perspective on his life, and thus he doesn’t need Oliver anymore. I now have reason to hope that he and Ellen can now make a life together and not mess it up like they did the last time.
In conclusion, Season Three is not fun or cheerful, and there’s no satisfying conclusion for most of the characters. That said, this might be the best-written, most amazingly performed, and most heartrending sign off for a series I’ve ever seen, and if it took so much toil and pain to get here, so be it. It’s also a tremendous tribute to a great actor, William Hutt; I feel privileged to see his final performance on this show, and rejoice that at least one more time, I got to see the king bow:
When we our betters see bearing our woes,
Edgar, Act III, Scene vi.
We scarcely think our miseries our foes.
Who alone suffers suffers most i’ th’ mind,
Leaving free things and happy shows behind;
But then the mind much sufferance doth o’erskip
When grief hath mates, and bearing fellowship.
How light and portable my pain seems now,
When that which makes me bend makes the King bow
Play ME OUT CYRILL!
Shameless plug! If you’re here for more Lear, I’ll actually be playing Kent in an online radio play this Saturday, October 22nd, at 1PM EST. Here’s a link to the Youtube channel where it will be broadcast:
The Shakespearean Student 