oints to Olivier's Lear as a star turn, but the evidence of the film as a whole is that there is ample emphasis on presenting King Lear as a fully realized narrative. One index of this is what one could say is a stellar supporting cast. Another and more important index, however, is that the mise-en -scene serves the narrative more than as (say) flattering closeups. That is, the concern is to tell the story and explore the consequences of certain human behavior.
The decorum of the mise-en-scene is established in the first scene, when Lear undertakes to hold court and divide his kingdom. The action that follows, as demonstrated by the actors' interpretation, shows the increase and diffusion of emotion and a progressive transformation, or more exactly deterioration, from decorum to chaos, from castle to wood to various locations on the stormy heath. Indeed, the style of the production seems very much a matter of change: emotional, physical, mental. The increase of the storm, for example, parallels and aggravates the decline of Lear's mind and royal status. On the other hand, Lear's own emotional comportment varies inversely with the growing storm. In I.i we see Lear as master of all he surveys and a picture of vanity. So vain is he, indeed, that he insists on being flattered; that is the explanation of his requiring public and formal declarations of love from his children. In his vanity, Lear behaves without judgment or a sense of fitness and proportion. When Cordelia declares that she will give him the love he is due, he behaves toward her with the rage and bluster a less vain parent and king might have reserved for a deliberate insult. Indeed, as Goneril comments, "The best and soundest of his time hath been but rash" (I.ii), anticipating erratic and self-absorbed behavior from him in the future.
His behavior at Goneril's castle is no less self-absorbed and blustering, and he maintains his vanity with his much resente...