l-mercedes-l
Has left the building :D
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2004
- Messages
- 167
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2005
These are the notes i came up with for King Lear before the trial. I've added a few lines but these are the things the I wish someone had told me before I started studying this module. So this is my offering to you. It's very simplified so that it makes sense if you haven't started studying this module yet its probably still woth reading to get you thinking in a certain direction. I hope it dosen't sound like im insulting your intelligence as your all clearly intelligent people to be taking this course, but i like to think of it as a lead in, something that i wish I'd had. *Sorry in advance for any spelling errors, i wrote this a fair while ago*
To start at the start, King Lear is a play. Which means it is open to the interpretation of its audience, director and players. There is no finite meaning, unless we consider the specific context of its inception.
**Brief Overview** [This is oversimplified out of all meaning… but a starting point]
King Lear [of Britain] decides to split his land between his daughters based on their declarations of LOVE for him. His eldest two daughters oblige and are given land, the youngest refuses to flatter him and is banished. This sets up a complex family situation suggesting that power and family relationships don’t mix… *Notice in different productions whether Lear seems like a king or a father? – theres no answer to this but it is the sort of observation that aids your argument =)*.
The second plot involves a father and his two sons, one legitimate and the other illegitimate. In our society being a ‘bastard’ dosent have the same social/political connections.
You can find some reasonable summaries on the net which are detailed but I don’t want to give away the ending… although the title, ‘the tragedy of KING LEAR’ gives a reasonable idea.
I enjoyed studying this module, however after having studied it I’d like to share with anyone willing to read this thread what I thing the goals and purposes of this module are because I think that it would have made studying the module a lot less confusing at first.
I think that what the module is getting at is causing HSC students to see that certain views we take of texts [like King Lear] are influenced by a whole heap of things. For example, when we watch a film like ‘Shrek’, there is a wealth of allusions that can be made and this gives the film deeper meaning. Children can enjoy the film but the more we’ve read, seen and know, the more meaning we can draw from it.
In the module you will watch productions which show how directors highlight particular aspects of the text. The play is hugely complex and not all of it is going to be relevant, so directors have to be selective about what they think is important. You use the productions as evidence for your arguments.
Once you have studied this module, [play-text, critical readings, productions etc] you will have a huge wealth of knowledge and what the module requires you to do is apply what you now know to form an argument.
I didn’t realise this at first and struggled with this module but if you follow these guidelines I’m confident that you will address questions really well because over the past few HSC’s this seems to be what they’re getting at.…
1. What do I think??? Do I think that the play is about family relationships, or power struggles, or Freudian psychology etc. You need to make a choice about what you think is important and central to the play.
2. Why do I think that??? What have I come across in my readings/viewings that make this reading seem valid, which critics support what I’m arguing, which ones don’t? What parts of my own context help me to accept a certain reading, 9/11 etc is always a good example for political drama, the present political climate might suggest and existential viewpoint.
3. How can I prove/justify what I think??? What productions and scenes are appropriate to prove what I’m saying? What things are the actors doing? Do Lear’s unscripted tears in the BBC production suggest the directors preference for a family drama view of the play?
These are notes from the 1/2yearlies which summarise some of the key things in the rubric… but challenge and think about them yourself, I make no claim to have all the answers!
Meaning changed over time by:
- Context
- Different Readings
- Different production values
- Cultural and socio-cultural factors
- Each individual performance
- Editors; i.e. Folio/Quarto versions
Script + Performance + Audience = “Play”
Script > What ideas
Performance > Hows/Techniques
Audience > Effects
Lines of argument;
K.L is about subverting expectations
K.L is a play about impossible choices > scale/weighing up imagery
K.L is a family drama/Aristotelian tragedy/political drama/
K.L can be viewed as a redemptive/nihilistic drama
K.L is about nature/human nature
K.L is an allegory for the flaws in human nature
The values in K.L are relevant to universal human existence
Key issues running through the text include,
- blindness
- folly
GOODLUCK GUYS!!!!
Any questions, PM me, i probably wont come back to this thread again.
RUBRIC said:
To start at the start, King Lear is a play. Which means it is open to the interpretation of its audience, director and players. There is no finite meaning, unless we consider the specific context of its inception.
**Brief Overview** [This is oversimplified out of all meaning… but a starting point]
King Lear [of Britain] decides to split his land between his daughters based on their declarations of LOVE for him. His eldest two daughters oblige and are given land, the youngest refuses to flatter him and is banished. This sets up a complex family situation suggesting that power and family relationships don’t mix… *Notice in different productions whether Lear seems like a king or a father? – theres no answer to this but it is the sort of observation that aids your argument =)*.
The second plot involves a father and his two sons, one legitimate and the other illegitimate. In our society being a ‘bastard’ dosent have the same social/political connections.
You can find some reasonable summaries on the net which are detailed but I don’t want to give away the ending… although the title, ‘the tragedy of KING LEAR’ gives a reasonable idea.
I enjoyed studying this module, however after having studied it I’d like to share with anyone willing to read this thread what I thing the goals and purposes of this module are because I think that it would have made studying the module a lot less confusing at first.
I think that what the module is getting at is causing HSC students to see that certain views we take of texts [like King Lear] are influenced by a whole heap of things. For example, when we watch a film like ‘Shrek’, there is a wealth of allusions that can be made and this gives the film deeper meaning. Children can enjoy the film but the more we’ve read, seen and know, the more meaning we can draw from it.
In the same way, looking at King Lear from a variety of viewpoints [Critics interpretations, eg Bradley and Lamb, Directors interpretations and audience response over time] creates a huge base of knowledge and it is inevitable that when we view different productions or consider different readings we apply all of our own preconceived ideas.Some definitions said:
In the module you will watch productions which show how directors highlight particular aspects of the text. The play is hugely complex and not all of it is going to be relevant, so directors have to be selective about what they think is important. You use the productions as evidence for your arguments.
Once you have studied this module, [play-text, critical readings, productions etc] you will have a huge wealth of knowledge and what the module requires you to do is apply what you now know to form an argument.
I didn’t realise this at first and struggled with this module but if you follow these guidelines I’m confident that you will address questions really well because over the past few HSC’s this seems to be what they’re getting at.…
1. What do I think??? Do I think that the play is about family relationships, or power struggles, or Freudian psychology etc. You need to make a choice about what you think is important and central to the play.
2. Why do I think that??? What have I come across in my readings/viewings that make this reading seem valid, which critics support what I’m arguing, which ones don’t? What parts of my own context help me to accept a certain reading, 9/11 etc is always a good example for political drama, the present political climate might suggest and existential viewpoint.
3. How can I prove/justify what I think??? What productions and scenes are appropriate to prove what I’m saying? What things are the actors doing? Do Lear’s unscripted tears in the BBC production suggest the directors preference for a family drama view of the play?
These are notes from the 1/2yearlies which summarise some of the key things in the rubric… but challenge and think about them yourself, I make no claim to have all the answers!
Meaning changed over time by:
- Context
- Different Readings
- Different production values
- Cultural and socio-cultural factors
- Each individual performance
- Editors; i.e. Folio/Quarto versions
Script + Performance + Audience = “Play”
Script > What ideas
Performance > Hows/Techniques
Audience > Effects
Lines of argument;
K.L is about subverting expectations
K.L is a play about impossible choices > scale/weighing up imagery
K.L is a family drama/Aristotelian tragedy/political drama/
K.L can be viewed as a redemptive/nihilistic drama
K.L is about nature/human nature
K.L is an allegory for the flaws in human nature
The values in K.L are relevant to universal human existence
Key issues running through the text include,
- blindness
- folly
GOODLUCK GUYS!!!!
Any questions, PM me, i probably wont come back to this thread again.
Last edited:
