Review: King Lear (1987)
A review I wrote in 2023 for Godard's weird Shakespeare adaptation.
Did you know Godard made a King Lear movie starring Burgess Meredith and Molly Ringwald? Up until a few days ago, I had no idea either, but I did get to see a 35mm print of it last night. Those familiar with Godard’s iconic works like Alphaville or Breathless might imagine this being some sort of scrappy, low-budget, frenetic affair. Charmingly off-beat with good old Parisian bohemian aesthetics. If you were like me, you might have even expected some kind of stereotypically New Wave retort to Akira Kurosawa’s timeless and epic Ran. However those more familiar with Godard’s later more intelectual, deconstructionist works (such as La Chinoise) will know to expect something way less formal, way less traditional, and way less narrative-driven. This is Godard taking his eccentric, meta-textual proclivities to an extreme. To be clear, King Lear is a very, very messy film, though I would not go as far to say that it is a pointless film. Those interested in seeing novel, cinematic things that they‘ve never seen before on screen will find a lot to dig into here. For one, we get to see Godard acting (and speaking in English!), playing the role of some sort of cultish tech wizard, commune leader, exerting his influential to a group of young, pretty, impressionable magazine models. He wears rca cables and other electronic junk over his head like it’s a wig, and utters these strange babblings about art, culture and society. You have to admire how utterly uninterested Godard appears to be in expressing a clear idea. What propels this film into any semblance of genuine quality is the beautiful, blue-tinged, naturally lit photography coursing through the entirety of the film. Even if you have no idea at any point what is going on, it’s always quite gorgeous and serene to look at.
I’d say what is most frustrating about this film is that if you compartmentalize it and try to analyze it from a scene by scene basis, you can catch very brief but exciting glimpses of the genuinely great films which could have sprouted from this: a unique, and novel rendition of King Lear as Jewish gangster in modern times, a Charlie Kaufmanesque study of the creative process in which we follow a writer’s attempt to make their ancestor’s work relevant to modern times, and a quirky character study about a frazzled intellectual and his rag-tag group of obedient acolytes. Godard, ever the maverick, seems more intent on proving some sort of a point rather than making something that will produce an emotional response in the viewer. It’s hard to be mad at him about this since it is this very rebellious, trollish approach to filmmaking which made him such an iconoclast in the first place. This is the work of a master filmmaker who had already secured his place in the cinema pantheon. No longer worried about proving himself, he is now totally liberated to make whatever weird, indulgent, experimental work that investors would be willing to throw their money at. What results is an unparalleled oddity that will be offensively pointless to some and excitingly inventive to others. For me it fell somewhere right in the middle. I neither loved nor hated it. There’s too much I appreciated about it but also too much about it that annoyed me about it. Definitely something for enthusiasts only!
Rating: ⭐️⭐️½
