MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2082716416 · doi:10.1353/shb.2007.0037

King Lear (review)

2007· article· en· W2082716416 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarah Neville

Notice bibliographique

RevueShakespeare bulletin · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésNothingArtKnightArt historyPathosComedyPerformance artLiteratureHistoryPhilosophy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: King Lear Sarah Neville King Lear Presented by Soulpepper Theatre Company at the Young Centre for the Performing Arts, Toronto, Ontario. August 31-October 18, 2006. Directed by Joseph Ziegler. Designed by Christina Poddubiuk. Lighting by Kevin Lamotte. Music and sound by Richard Feren. Fights by John Stead. With Damien Atkins (Burgundy, Curan), Derek Boyes (Albany), Kevin Bundy (Oswald), Les Carlson (Gloucester), Oliver Dennis (Lear's Knight), Patricia Fagan (Cordelia), Jonathan Goad (Edmund), Stuart Hughes (Kent), C. David Johnson (Cornwall), Diego Matamoros (Fool), Nancy Palk (Goneril), Brenda Robins (Regan), David Storch (Edgar), Jovanni Sy (France), William Webster (Lear), and others. "Shakespeare wrote too many lines for that play," said the 15-year old schoolboy sitting in front of me, as the actors left the stage. ("Dude, I know," was his seatmate's reply.) And while adolescent males are hardly the prime audience for Jacobean tragedies delineating the ruins of age and grief, the kid had a point. Even at its best, Lear is a long play, and by the time its protagonist ascends, Gloucester-like, toward death, audiences have been engaged with his weakening bombast for the better part of two acts. Watching the diminished, frail King cradle his dead Cordelia in his arms, audiences should be equally exhausted, spent with the effort of watching his slump toward inevitable pathos since his "Nothing will come of nothing." Lear should, in fact, feel exactly as long as it is. But just as Gloucester never really ascends Dover and never truly falls, neither did William Webster (Lear) in Joseph Ziegler's Lear; rather, he began and ended the play on the same, time-ravaged note, a doddering, petulant old man who can no longer get his way. Right from the start, Webster's Lear appeared less than majestic, his gravitas immediately marred by a shrillness accompanying his pronouncements of Cordelia and Kent's banishments. Five acts with such a Lear is too long indeed. The seeming over-length of the production found its root in Ziegler's conception of the play as a domestic tragedy. His casting of a middle-aged Goneril (Nancy Palk) and Regan (Brenda Robins) to tyrannize the visibly-younger Cordelia (Patricia Fagan) hinted at a bitterness that found its origins in blended family life. In an interview, Palk admitted that the actors conceived of Cordelia as the product of Lear's second marriage, offering an effective and powerful motivation behind Goneril and Regan's step-sisterly invective: "Lear's bias toward her is an annihilation of our mother's memory" (NOW Magazine Vol. 25 No. 53). Goneril's [End Page 95] desperation for her father's affection was palpable, and scenes between her and Lear bore the weight of a lifetime of disappointment and rejection, making Lear's comparisons between his daughters a matter of recurrent abuse rather than a new phenomenon. The production's take was compelling, but uneven pacing and casting ultimately buried the domestic emphasis of Lear as a story of a broken family. A prime example was in 1.1.268–283, where the subtle effects of Palk and Robins's combined talents offered a powerful contrast to Lear's nascent senility, making the most of this short but vital scene between the sisters. As they were left downstage by the rest of the court, the polarized relationship between the three women could be seen in the two elders' immediate linking of hands and their indifference to their younger sibling's exile; Goneril and Regan had bonded with each other as a result of Cordelia's monopolization of paternal affection. Through this staging, Cordelia's haranguing disapproval of her elder sisters seemed a childish response to not being included, her self-righteousness as much a defense against bullying as a genuine claim to a higher morality. But enhancing Lear's sibling rivalry requires a light hand to avoid obvious Cinderella parallels that strain against the text. It takes a strong, not a precious Cordelia to withstand Regan's menacing "Prescribe not us our dutie" and respond with a withering couplet—a Cordelia capable of leaving the stage a fatherless child only to return later at the head of an army. Unfortunately, Fagan...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,689
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,997

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0580,004

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,030
Tête enseignante GPT0,246
Écart entre enseignants0,215 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueShakespeare bulletinMême sujetShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary CriticismTravaux en français237 207