The Image of Fool in King Lear: from Page to Sage

The put one across from text to screen. The concept of a visage in Shakespe bean acts is nearly as popular as the very figure of a photograph used to be in Middle Ages at gallant courts and almost(prenominal) private househ superannuateds of aristocrats. The references that could be exposit as applys appear in Shakespeares Twelfth Night (Feste) and As You Like It (Touchstone). And there is of gradation the most famous of the fools, named simply The Fool in Shakespeares tabby Lear the one with reference to whom this try on is created. A fool, according to Encyclop? ia Britannica was a person, often retarded, handi thugped, dwarfed or mad, kept on court for luck and enjoyment of his patron. Due to his questionable mental abilities he was given license to mock persons of nobility, even the mogul himself. The origins of his mapping are sought for in the tribal scapegoat, who served as a sacrifice alternative for the fag. Probably for that close he was endowed with som e attri preciselyes prescribed to a king such(prenominal) as a fallal (mock scepter) and a motley coat. His socialize function was marked by other attributes in his possession such as a coxcomb, bells and a horny or ass-eared hood.All those gadgets, apart from aro development amusement, served one more than purpose they do a jester stand out from all the other individuals. Even though some critics consort to perceive the Fool in might Lear as a character crucial to understanding of the play and the significance of particular characters, others are more inclined to categorize him as one of the minor characters. At some stage of King Lears development the figure of the Fool was even altogether take from the play, which may constitute some indication of how different were the locatings towards the importance of his presence in the play indoors the course of eon.As far as transposition of the text of the play into the film script is concerned, it is particularly cost nonic ing that cinematic space juxtaposed to theatrical space shows some vital dissimilarities, among which are different attitude of a producer towards presumable reactions of the audience, the supremacy of the cameras angle over spectators inclination to chance on what takes their fancy and the possibility of creating more articulate spatial setting. Also G.Wilson Knight considers the wake of any play an outstandingly challenging quest and warns against two main failures that may occur in the production. The first one may be described as mechanical failure, when the director is trying to roam the main emphasis on the melodrama, into which the play is turned, while the second one is described by the spring as the would-be symbolical production, in which some significant enigmatic and some ms wizardly values are blurred or non displayed at all.He reports to have heard Juliets potion speech, which he found, by the cause of a thunder introduced arbitrarily by the scriptwriter, utterly disturbed and demolished. He explicit a conviction, that Shakespeare would have arranged a thunder in that place, if that had been what he had in extended to. Knight argues in resembling manner that the sounds words and additional effects are (.. ) given and all that a director or a screenwriter or particular actors are expected to do is to pour life into them and arrange a proper setting for them.So much for the possible area of scrutiny as far as some comparison between the text and the screen versions is put to question. Of course some temporal or literal ellipses are inevitable as they are undeniably a part of producers license, as well as a kind of a landmark in every screen production, though the vital parts of the play should not be omitted in order to preserve the original character of the artwork.Having still some features of the analysed productions left to scrutinize, the focus may be put on the extratextual and non-verbal occurrenceors such as the costumes, the a ge of the actors playing Fools, their sex, the overall attitude towards the outer world as well as their doings towards other characters in the play that is not strictly implied by the original text. Some leaps in text as far as they are not dictated by thrift in time of production may also prove indicatory for the moulding of the character of the Fool.If the text strays slightly from the original, this mightiness also constitute an evidence of some deliberate interference within the characters creation. Questions has been ample posed what might be the actual age of the Fool. Maggie Williams is one of the advocates of the thesis that he ought to be presented as a young boy, which she justifies by Lears frequently addressing him as boy and also by his photo to poor weather conditions during the tempest, his fear at the sight of Edgar disguised as Poor Tom as well as his extraordinary attachment to Cordelia which proved itself in his pining after her departure .Williams conviction, though not isolated, is not entirely shared by some circles of literary critics and a number of producers, who tend to bestow the fictitious character of the Fool to more experienced and aged actors. Such is the lineament with both productions King Lear, directed by Jonathan Miller released in 1982 and King Lear, directed by Trevor Nunn released in 2008. The character of the Fool is played in both of them by middle-aged actors in Millers film it is coarse Middlemass born in 1919 and in Nunns film it is Sylvester McCoy born in 1943.Both actors were at their 60s at the time of each film being shot. In actuality the fool could not have been intended as a child (due to his frequent bawdy innuendos and banters), neither could he be equated to an old man, as it disclosems, but very some screen versions of a play managed to picture him as one quite successfully. What can be inferred from the very text of the play is the fact that the Fool was the closest companion of the King.The evi dence of that could be the fact of Lears desperate need for the Fools company, when he asks his servants to summon him four times in the act I scene 4 intermittently amid occupying himself with other affairs (interviewing Kent, then Oswald, then a Knight and at the end Oswald again), although, as he claims, he havent seen him for two days, which is not an extraordinarily long period of time. He also accompanies King from then on in every venture even in the worst conditions of the tempest until the end of act III scene 6, when he mysteriously disappears.Moreover, the text makes it evident, that the King and the Fool are in close intimacy, the indication of which is Lears immutable addressing Fool as my boy, lad, my pretty knave as also this line of his chatter during the storm Poor fool and knave, I have one part in my heart/ Thats sorry yet for thee. (3. 2. 70-71). Another clue derived from the text pertains to the Fools mental disposition. He is likely neither mad nor retarded in any way, which is marked by Kents words This is not altogether fool, my Lord after Fool had made it clear to the King that he had no more glosss left but this of a fool.Also Gonerill seems not to unde outrideimate Fools power in his actions interpreted against her in his many quips. She calls him more knave than fool (I. 4. 269), which may imply that she lets him know that she can see through his witticisms and reveal his real intentions which basically come to dissuading King from trusting his daughters. This and other functions in the play, such as comforting Lear and presaging him from superfluous faith and expectations put in his daughters with aid of folk-wisdom are ascribed to the Fool by S.L. Goldberg, who highlights also Fools passivity in the course of action and his pathos expressed by his hardcorety and heightened feelings, being the spur of his actions. But Goldberg foreworns from oversentimentalizing Fool, as he is also clear-eyed and knows that facts and ideals a re always and always will be at odds, which he tries to express in his ironical witticisms, for which Lear calls him a bitter fool (I. 4. 119).His figure can be also perceived as a relic of ancient Greek chorus, commenting on other characters and the plot, but presumably his main function comes drop to making exertions to entertain the king, or ,as Kent calls it in some moment of the play, to out-jest his heart-struck injuries. Some of these functions were amplified in particular cinematic productions and others were diminished or even expunged. This is to be analysed with reference to the abovementioned cinematic productions. Apparently in Millers King Lear the character of the Fool is more accentuated than in the other production.He is a kind of an old fellow, loyal to his master, who cares for his fate and is not able to come to terms with his fatal misstep of giving away his royal authority and his land to his ungrateful daughters and even worse error of disinheriting and repel ling Cordelia. He acts as though he had a strong feeling of responsibility for the king and his providence and as he was strain for something more than just a mere profession of court jester. All his behaviour gives the impression that he assumes the pose of a fool solely in order to remain beside the king regardless the pearlescent circumstances.Being a court jester allows him to reproach the king, sometimes in extremely harsh words, which make the king look like an idiot. However, what is worth highlighting is the fact that he never does it to impress the kings consider and other surrounding him people, but he addresses the king directly as though he was his personal counsellor. His own jokes do not amuse him, what can be easily deduced from the fact of his efficacy of assuming a grave facial expression almost instantly after making some jests and fooling about.Perchance this alongside with uttering some statements unpleasant to kings ears earns him an opinion of a bitter fool , as Lear calls him (I. 4. 119). Given this one may come to a conclusion that he forces himself to play the role of the fool as this seems to be the barely way to rebuke the king and talk him through to parking lot sense without falling out of favour as Kant did after speaking the words of truth to his seigneur. The case is utterly different with another Fool the one played by Sylvester McCoy in Nunns film. He is by no means a sedate adviser caged in the uncomfortable disguise of a fool.He is a fool-blooded fool, who actually enjoys his position on the court and aspires for nothing more. His confidentiality with the king is verily striking, especially when the spectators see him sitting in Lears lap, patting his face, sleeking his hair or kissing him in a childlike manner. If the title nuncle customarily used by court jesters in addressing the king sounds derisively spoken by Middlemass Fool, the similar word articulated by McCoy sounds as though a child was addressing his real uncle. His jovial and at times childish behaviour contrasts with his bawdy innuendos and gestures.Unlike Middlemass Fool, he enjoys being the life and soul of a party, entertaining kings escort and jesting with them. He is fond of making fool of himself, playing the spoons using them as castanets, singing and cheering others up. Moreover, he is not eager to put himself at risk. As he speaks to Goneril, he quiets himself down in order not to utter an offence. Also the last words, that Fool was meant to speak about Goneril at her court and within her presence were cut out. So were many other lines primarily spoken by the Fool. This omission sometimes results in Fools appearing to be lecture nonsense.Passing over Fools lines may also have another effect the Fool appears in the whole play as a character of secondary importance, whose only purpose is to entertain the king and his comrades. And he does it, deriving pleasure from it. As it has been illustrated, the approaches towards the Fool in literary critique and cinematography were numerous and sundry, some of them conventional and others more innovative, but definitely each one of them bore some indwelling artistic values, which cannot be fully apprehended without scrupulous scrutiny, which couldnt have been contained within the volume of these fewer pages.Nevertheless the character of the Fool in two analysed above productions was given a closer insight. Two actors execute the role of the Fool in collaboration with the directors of each production created two different throws of this figure. One of them was an image of a wise old man, whose role of a kings personal adviser and teach required a disguise of a court jester a bitter fool, whose witticisms were wry, acute, sardonical, but whose exertions were aimed at only one goal to save the king from ill-advised decisions, from madness, from despair.The other one was a full-blooded fool, whose fondness of playing for laughs and entertaining others was ta ngible and whose, sometimes shocking, intimacy with the king could be explained only by mental impairment. This proved that the creation of a character is not entirely and solely parasitic on the source text of a play, but is largely affected by the artistic resource and the license of a producer as well as by the original and individual skills of an actor. works cited 1. Davies Anthony, filming Shakespeares Plays.The Adaptations of Laurence Olivier, Orson Wells, Peter Brook and Akira Kurosawa, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, Oakleigh 1994. 2. Encyclop? dia Britannica Online, s. v. fool, accessed May 27, 2012,http//www. britannica. com/EBchecked/topic/212748/fool. 3. Goldberg S. L. , An Essay on King Lear, Cambridge University Press, capital of the United Kingdom, New York 1974. 4. King Lear, DVD, directed by Jonathan Miller (1982 British Broadcasting Corporation, Time-Life Television Productions) 5. King Lear, DVD, directed by Trevor Nunn (2008 Richard Price TV Associates Ltd. 6. Knight G. Wilson, Shakespearean Production with uncommon Reference to the Tragedies, Faber and Faber LTD, London 1964. 7. Shakespeare William, The Tragedy of King Lear, Halio Jay L. ed. , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, Oakleigh 1997. 8. Williams, Maggie. Shakespeare Examinations. Ed. William Taylor Thom, M. A. Boston Ginn and Co. , 1888. Shakespeare Online. 10 Aug. 2010. (27. 05. 2012) . Sara Wilczynska 1 . See for example Williams, Maggie. Shakespeare Examinations. Ed. William Taylor Thom, M. A. Boston Ginn and Co. , 1888. Shakespeare Online. 10 Aug. 2010. (27. 05. 2012) . 2 . See for example Goldberg S. L. , An Essay on King Lear, Cambridge University Press, London, New York 1974, pp. 84-92. 3 . i. e. in Nahum Tates amended version of King Lear from 1681 see Introduction to Shakespeare William, The Tragedy of King Lear, Halio Jay L. ed. , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, Oakleigh 1997, p. 36. 4 .See Davies Anthony, Filming Shakespeares Plays. The Adaptations of Laurence Olivier, Orson Wells, Peter Brook and Akira Kurosawa, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, Oakleigh 1994, p. 8. 5 . Ibidem. 6 . Knight G. Wilson, Shakespearean Production with Especial Reference to the Tragedies, Faber and Faber LTD, London 1964, p. 47. 7 . Ibidem, p. 54. 8 . Ibidem, p. 48. 9 . Op. cit. Williams, Maggie. Shakespeare Examinations 10 . See Shakespeare William, The Tragedy of King Lear Wheres my knave? my fool?Go you and call my fool hither (I. 4. 38) Wheres my fool (I. 4. 42) But wheres my fool? (I,4. 60-61) Go you, call hither my fool (I. 4. 66) 11 . Op. cit. Goldberg S. L. , An Essay on King Lear , pp 90-91. 12 . Ibidem, p. 90. 13 . Ibidem. 14 . Ibidem. 15 . It becomes particularly visible when the Fool says to the king If thou wert my fool, nuncle, Id have thee beaten for being old before thy time. . When Lear asks for the explanation, Fool replies Thou shouldst not have been old till thou had st been wise (I. 5. 33-36) 16 .As in the case when he complains at being whipped for retentiveness his peace (meaning being silent in contradistinction to telling truth or telling lies as his in the beginning words suggest), speaking which he reaches to his crotch, as if he was peeing . 17 . The words that spoken by the Fool could have enraged Goneril were such A fox, when one has caught her,/ And such a daughter,/ Should sure to the slaughter,/ If my cap can buy a halter McCoys Fool does not speak these words, as he probably is intended by the director as a harmless and joyful character. 18 .Like when he says All that follow their noses are led by their eyes but blind men, and theres not a nose among twenty but can smell him thats stinking (2. 4. 63-65) as an explanation for why Kent should be put in the stocks for asking for the reason of Kings escort being so diminished. The rest of the lines from this speech is simply left out, so that it may look like the Fool was talkin g poppycock. The same situation occurs a while earlier when Fool declares with a inane stare Winters not gone yet, if the wild geese fly that way (2. 4. 43). Similarly the rest of the lines is left out.