Like Father Like Daughters?
in
King Lear
Two questions always
bother me when reading or seeing this, Shakespeare’s most emotionally gruesome
play, King Lear: Are Goneril and Regan as awful as everyone says they
are? And if they are – why? What is
there in the text that prompts directors to immediately show them as haughty,
false, lying, hypocritical, vampy, etc., etc., from the moment they walk onto
the stage?
To quote a few of the
characters, my answer is, “Nothing.”
Maybe I’m missing
something but in the whole first scene what I see are two respectable older
daughters and a saucy younger one, and a manipulative, hypocritical,
hot-tempered, frighteningly irrational father.
Here’s the situation. The
old king, to the surprise of everyone and the dismay of some, is retiring and
dividing his kingdom equally among his three daughters. Sounds good, right? But
in the very first lines of the play we are informed that Lear tends to play
favorites: Kent says to Gloucester: “I thought the king had more affected the
Duke of Albany than Cornwall.” That is, Goneril’s husband more than Regan’s
husband. Gloucester agrees but goes on
to say that now that things are to be divided equally, who knows?
Enter the king and the
whole gang. In the eleventh line he
speaks, Lear reveals himself to be an emotional manipulator:
…Tell me, my daughters -
Which of you shall we say doth love us most?
That we our largest bounty may extend
Where merit doth most challenge it?. (Scene 1)
Wha’?! he just told them
it would be divided equally, now they have to compete by loving him most? I think the daughters can be excused for
being a bit puzzled but Goneril and Regan are daughters to a king, wives to
dukes and heads of great households. They are trained in the art of diplomacy
as would all women of their class be. Goneril starts with, “Sir, I do love you
more than words can wield the matter…” Regan ends with, “…I am alone
felicitate/ In your dear highness’ love.”
Flowery yes, but
hypocritical? Why should we think so?
This is a ceremonial moment. They are put on the spot. They rise to the occasion and if we might
think, “Why should they love the brutal old coot – I sure wouldn’t!”, I doubt
that we would say so if we were in their position.
That Cordelia dares to go
against this is in fact very strange. We find it admirable as do Kent,
Gloucester, the King of France but I can’t help but wonder why they do.
A saucy young daughter who sasses back to her royal father in public in the
name of honesty – yes, of course we cheer her on but why do these three males
who represent the patriarchal power structure admire her so much? Would they want their daughters to…?
Lear’s reaction, at least
his initial dismay, is understandable from him point of view but we still hate
him for his virulent rejection of her and the alert spectator/reader will note
that he, for all the court, proclaims, “I loved her most.”
That’s never a fun thing
for siblings to hear and as we find out it’s not the first time Goneril and
Regan have heard it.
That the three sisters are
not the sweetest of friends we detect in Cordelia’s farewell to Goneril and
Regan:
…I know you what you are,
And like a sister am most loath to call
Your faults as they are named. Use well our father,
To your professèd bosoms I commit him.
But yet, alas, stood within his grace
I would prefer him to a better place (Scene 1)
What? What? What are their faults. Why would Lear be better off somewhere
else? This is probably what directors
base their presentation of the immediately nasty G&R on but for me it’s far
too vague. Goneril says, “Don’t tell us what to do,” i.e. “Prescribe not us our
duties” and Regan tells her to mind her own business. Cordelia sweeps out with her new king after
telling them their faults – whatever they are – we do not know, Shakespeare
doesn’t tell us! – will be revealed.
Nor in the exchange
between Goneril and Regan that immediately follows do we see anything other
than two daughters concerned about the irrational behavior of their angry
father but three things are clear: 1) they know that: “He always loved our
sister best”, 2) that “he hath ever but slenderly known himself” (very astute
of Regan!) and 3) that his irrationality is likely to continue and get
worse. Conclusion? Let’s stick together
and do something.
These are not the evil intrigues
of evil women. They are the unhappy
observations that most children make over their aging parents – even those of
us who had lovely, or at least normal, parents – and the feeling of “we have to
do something” is surely universal. And for Goneril and Regan it is, as it is
for us, a new situation.
Let’s jump to Lear at
Goneril’s. We learn in Scene 3 that Goneril is already at her wits’ end because
Lear is not a gracious houseguest. You must agree that if Lear and his one
hundred rowdy soldiers were staying with you, you’d be as angry as Goneril?
That you’d be frustrated and impatient because the “idle old man” still wanted
to “manage those authorities that he hath given away!” (Scene 3)? Haven’t you ever been driven crazy by visiting
parents, even the nice ones?
Still she speaks to him
rather more respectfully and reasonably in Scene 4 than I would have managed to
do in the face of the taunting of both Lear and his Fool. Her appeal to him is filled with the words
sir, safe redress, fearful, good wisdom, beseech, understand… And these words
should be delivered in a manner to show a woman who wants to do what is right,
who wants to be respectful but is desperate because her entire household is in
an uproar caused by Lear’s and his soldiers’ totally unacceptable
behavior. Not as the evil conniving
power-hungry daughter she is so often shown to be.
What follows is among the
most painful scenes in Shakespeare, Lear’s curse on his daughter.
He starts by calling her
“detested kite” (for us non-bird people the Norton edition tells us this is a
carrion-eating hawk) and a liar, claims his soldiers are as sweet as lambs
(come on! A hundred soldiers all in one confined place?!) and that he was wrong
about Cordelia. So before the curse even
starts Goneril is called by her father King Lear a carrion eater and a liar and
compared (for the umpteenth time) to his other, favorite daughter.
And then the curse:
…Hark, nature, hear;
Dear goddess, suspend thy purpose if
Thou didst intend to make this creature fruitful.
Into her womb convey sterility!
Dry up in her the organs of increase;
And from her derogate body never spring
A babe to honour her. If she must teem,
Create her child of spleen, that it may live,
And be a thwart disnatured torment to her.
Let it stamp wrinkles in her brow of youth,
With cadent tears fret channels in her cheeks,
Turn all her mother's pains and benefits
To laughter and contempt, that she may feel –
That she may feel
How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is
To have a thankless child.
I can
literally find no words strong enough to express the profound, the absolute
cruelty of this curse. Most women want
children. In Lear’s time and society (whenever that is) it is absolutely vital
for noble women to bear children to carry on the family line, especially a
royal line. That Goneril has been
married to Albany for some years is not explicitly stated but it’s fair to
assume so. That they do not yet have children can – and must – be seen to be if
not a sorrow for Goneril at least worrying.
In her society bearing children is essentially the only thing expected
and demanded and accepted of her. And her father not only says he hopes
she never has children, he calls upon the goddesses to “dry up in her
the organs of increase” – the very fount of life and, at least sometimes, joy.
And then he
adds the curse that if she does have children they will turn against her. With
his famous line about thankless children Lear, the expert manipulator, turns
himself into the victim.
I hate him.
He is a terrible father and what he has done cannot be forgiven no matter how
cuddly he gets with Cordelia in the end.
Surely somebody among all the Shakespeare scholars throughout the
ages has not only seen this but turned the academic spotlight on the essential,
vital significance of this curse in the play.
Yes, Lear later in his madness is given great credit for coming to some
understanding of the suffering of his lower class subjects but he never
expresses regret over the suffering he has caused his two older daughters. He never comes to the tiniest insight,
has the tiniest inkling, that he is in the wrong in this relationship.
You know
what? I can’t go on. I was going to
analyze all the exchanges between Goneril and Lear and Regan and Lear but this
is enough. Regan is far nastier than
Goneril ever gets to be and with less visible cause but I’ll have to leave her
and the two sisters’developing rivalry for Edmund’s favors for another time.
For now I will simply leave this text with the image of a daughter devastated
by the cruelty of her father and abandoned by her judgmental husband (also to
be dealt with another time) and turned thereby into a cruel and manipulative
villain.
Like father,
like daughter.
Works cited:
- The Norton
Shakespeare, based on the Oxford Edition. Ed.
Greenblatt, Stephen et al. Second edition. 2008.
Spinoffs and Lear related films seen:
- A Thousand Acres 1997. Director: Jocelyn
Moorhouse. Cast:– Jason Robards -King Lear;– Jessica Lange Goneril; – Michelle
Pfeiffer - Regan; – Jennifer Jason Leigh –Cordelia (they all had other names of
course). This might be the best Lear
film so far. The parallels are clear, the story tragic, but from the sisters’
point of views.
- Ran Akira Kurosawa 1985. Cast: see the
movie review on the movie blog. These
are not names I recognize, except for Kurosawa.
The film is visually impressive and at times very dramatic. It is a masterpiece, I can agree, and must be
seen. But it doesn’t grip me.
Films seen:
- BBC, 1982.
Director: Jonathan Miller. Cast: Michael Horden - King Lear; Gillian Barge– Goneril;
Penelope Wilton– Regan; Brenda Blethyn– Cordelia; Michael Kitchen – Edmund;
Anton Lesser – Edgar; John Shrapnel - Kent; Norman Rodway - Gloucester. In hindsight, having seen all the other
versions, this one stands out as perhaps the best. Quite straightforward, as the BBC productions
tend to be, and with many strong actors in the cast, this one is definitely an
OK version to watch.
- Olivier 1983
Cast: Laurence Olivier– King Lear; Dorothy Tutin – Goneril; Diana Rigg – Regan;
Anna Calder Marshall – Cordelia; Robert Lindsay– Edmund; David Threllfall –
Edgar; Colin Blakely- Kent; Leo McKern- Gloucester. It starts out good with perhaps Olivier’s
best performance and much of the cast is strong but it loses momentum in the
storm.
- Nunn and
Hunt 2008 Cast: Ian McKellen – King Lear; Frances Barber – Goneril; Monica
Dolan – Regan; Romola Garai– Cordelia; Philip Winchester – Edmund; Ben Meyjes –
Edgar; Jonathan Hyde - Kent; - William Gaunt - Gloucester. Ian McKellen is unbeatable but the production
is even more uneven than Nunn usually is and really doesn’t reach the heights
that one expects.
- Davenall
1974. Cast: Patrick Magee – King Lear; Beth Harris – Goneril; Ann Lynn – Regan;
Wendy Allnutt – Cordelia; Patrick Mower – Edmund; Robert Coleby – Edgar; - Ray
Smith - Kent; Ronald Radd - Gloucester. This
one is almost a disaster. It was almost
impossible to watch but I stuck with it.
- Brook 1971 Cast:
Paul Scofield – King Lear; Irene Worth – Goneril; Susan Engel – Regan; Anne-Lise
Gabold – Cordelia; Ian Hogg – Edmund; Robert Lloyd – Edgar; Tom Fleming - Kent; Alan Webb -
Gloucester. Some very dramatic and
powerful filming but another uneven production that didn’t carry it off.
Seen on stage:
- December 11,
2011 with 1-2-3 Schtunk, a comedy trio who had us laughing from start to…almost
to the finish, which was as tragic as the play is supposed to be.
- On October
26, 2013 at Stockholm’s Stadsteatern with the Swedish acting legend Sven
Wollter in the lead. Set in a modern day
psychiatric geriatric clinic with outstanding stage settings and visual
effects, this is in some ways better than all the films put together. But it
too has its flaws which make it less than the original.
