Theatre Review: King Lear is a story of love, lust, deceit and murder

The University of Adelaide Theatre Guild have tackled quite a challenge in presenting one of Shakespeare’s last plays, King Lear. Imagining the play set in the future, it challenges the notions of modern civilisation. In fact, Shakespeare’s commentary on power, lust and betrayal is as relevant today as when the play was scribed in the early 1600s.

There are multiple interconnected storylines, but the main events stem from when King Lear (Michael Eustice) realises he is getting old and should divide his kingdom between his three daughters. Basing his benevolence on how much his daughters love him, the two older sisters, Goneril (Georgia Stockman) and Regan (Rebecca Kemp), both flatter him with platitudes that he doth enjoy immensely. The younger sister Cordella (Rhoda Sylvester) is far more pragmatic and struggles to find flattering words. This angers the old king and he banishes her and refuses to give her share of land. This, in turn, leads her suitor, the Duke of Burgundy (Harry Passehl), to break off the engagement (as she has no prospects). The King of France (Robert Baulderstone)  instead chooses to marry her. Lear’s friend, the Earl of Kent (Sharon Malujo), protests his decision, and Lear, in turn, also banishes him.  He returns in disguise to aid the king.

The story is vastly more complex than this and runs for 5 acts over 2 1/2 hours. There were some standout performances. Geoff Revel as the Fool was suitably entertaining whenever he was on stage, as Sharon Malujo as the disguised Earl of Kent. The two sisters, Goneril and Regan, were deliciously flattering and simpering, whilst scheming for power at the same time. Robert Baulderstone gave a solid performance as Edgar, the banished son of the Earl of Gloucester (Brant Eustice).

This version of the play is set in a broken post-apocalyptic future, in which the themes of power and betrayal still ring true. However, the minimalistic set didn’t add many visual clues to where the action occurred. A crucial element was that King Lear had 100 knights and was supported in turn by each of the sister’s households. Apart from a few oblique references to these 100 knights, there was no indication of them. The same set was used for the lost King at the end of the play as the castle he commanded at the beginning.

Although Shakespeare’s writings are full of rich phrases, that many have become commonplace sayings, the dialogue at times felt rushed and recited rather than a feeling of watching real conversation. The famous line, “Out, Damn Jelly”, uttered whilst Regan and Cornwall gouge out the Earl of Gloucester’s eyes barely raised a ripple of laughter.

Overall this was a competent telling of the story of King Lear that could have been elevated with more judicious use of scenery, lighting, sound and costume changes to really help set the scene and explain the plot more succinctly.  The Theatre Guild should be applauded for tackling a complex play such as this. It’s still worth seeing, and a few tweaks to the overall design and delivery would elevate it.

THREE STARS (OUT OF FIVE)

King Lear cast