Omnibus King Lear (1952–1961) watch online HD

This production was performed Live on the Omnibus TV series, which was the fore-runner to much of what PBS has become. The actors were directed by Peter Brook in 3 whirlwind weeks, and it features incidental music by Virgil Thompson... an impressive array of talent. It centers on a bravura performance by Welles in the title role, although Alan Badel also shines as the Fool.

Shot on a circular, 6-segment set with 2 cameras that traveled around the perimeter, it required innovative camera-work, especially at the end of scenes, where one camera had to sneak off to the next set to begin the following scene. The lighting is very contrasty and daring, sometimes even flaring the camera (unheard of for TV lighting). The confrontation between Lear and his two wicked daughters, for instance, is handled on one camera, very tight on Lear framed by the profiles of the daughters. The camera moves inches to the left or right, deftly shifting the dramatic axis of the scene moment by moment.

The production manager told me that during rehearsals, the prop man approached him in an agitated state, saying, "I just talked to Orson. For the mad scene, he wants a crown of thorns. Like Christ's... only bigger."

I'm astonished firstly that this cleverly shortened 'King Lear' was presented LIVE on TV more than 50 years ago, and secondly that the occasion was recorded and can be seen on video. Of course, the sets and costumes are pretty rudimentary, but the storm and shelter scenes are imaginative and there's nothing wrong with the acting. Orson Welles, despite his false nose and enormous beard, is a splendid Lear, who starts well and gets better and better - the more regal as he learns humility - and becomes very moving. Alan Badel is a marvellous Fool, Micheal MacLiammoir a fine Poor Tom (divorced from Edgar, absent in this version)and the Goneril, Regan, Albany, Kent and Gloucester are all very fine. Oswald takes over the character of Edmund to surprisingly good effect. Welles was a great Macbeth, a magnificent Othello and, on this showing, a classic Lear. Let's be grateful for his mighty talent.

This version of "King Lear" is worth seeing despite a low-budget look and some significant omissions from the original play. Orson Welles could do as much as anyone could with limited resources, and the rest of the cast perform their parts well enough - which is important, because the acting really has to carry this version almost by itself.

The concise version of the story about Lear and his daughters, which may have been affected by broadcasting constraints, leaves out some interesting and important characters who are meant to complement the main part of the story. Likewise, it probably could have been much more absorbing if they had devoted just a little more time and expenditure on the meager sets. Still, the main story is more than adequate when it is told well, and Welles always gives a distinctive interpretation to a weighty character like Lear.

Overall, this cannot be considered as one of the very best filmed versions of the play, since the accommodations made for television are all too obvious. But it is worth seeing, as it brings out the most important ideas in the play, and has some strengths of its own.

This is a fascinating curio of the so-called "Golden Age of Television": a black-and-white, one hour and sixteen-minute long condensation of "King Lear" starring Orson Welles, preserving one of his greatest stage performances for posterity. Peter Brook, who would go on to direct a vastly different "King Lear" with Paul Scofield years later, directed Orson on Broadway in 1953, and it is his production that was preserved on kinescope, although Andrew McCullough directed the actual TV production. This is a stripped down, no frills Shakespeare, with minimalist sets, authentic period costumes, and an outstanding score by Virgil Thomson. The text is drastically pruned, and the subplot of Gloucester and his sons Edgar and Edmund is omitted. Nevertheless, this is a "Lear" of raw power and visionary grandeur, more faithful to the spirit of the play than many more elaborate productions. Lear is a role that Welles was born to play: with his imposing physical presence and deep, craggy bass, Welles is every inch a king; if there's any flaw to his interpretation, it's that he's a little too robust to be an eighty-year old; Juri Jarvets, in the Kozintsev "Korol Lir," was a more fragile, vulnerable Lear. Of the excellent supporting cast particularly noteworthy are Micheal MacLiammoir as Poor Tom, Alan Badel as the Fool, and Arnold Moss (whom "Star Trek" fans will remember as Anton Karidian in "The Conscience of the King") as Albany. Despite its omissions, this is a faithful performance of Shakespeare's greatest tragedy, free of directorial gimmicks or pointless modernizing (both of which Brook has indulged in elsewhere). "King Lear" is available on DVD as part of Passport Video's "Orson Welles Collection," along with "The Stranger," "David and Goliath," and "The Trial" (also reviewed by this author).

Peter Brook directs an abbreviated version (75 of the shows 90 minutes) of Lear for the 1950's TV show Omnibus with Orson Welles as Lear in a live performance that removed all of the subplots and just focused on Lear. Welles makes for a formidable Lear and I would have loved to have seen a version with him on the stage.He is the proper force of nature required by the role while also being quite touching. The production itself is a rather run of the mill, owing in part to the conventions of TV, which works against the production because we're left with a bit too much posturing and limited movement on the screen. The film in away actually reminds me of a Welles film from the period with a good many closeups and Welles wearing too much make-up (During the Blow Wind Speech Lear loses his mustache which end up flapping in the wind). Its a good production, one of the better filmed Lears I've seen, that ends up confined and hurt by the needs for the television camera. Worth seeing for Welles performance and a promise of what might have been great on the stage (instead of good on the screen)

Orson Welles had to live, or rather survive all his life or nearly. He managed to find in television the means to earn the income he needed to be able to remain ready to do some of the most beautiful films ever produced. This here King Lear is such a survival buoy in the hard life of a rejected genius. With no financial budget of any consequence, with so few actors and just as few extras, with nothing but a stage and little decoration, he manages to produce a rather touching rendition of King Lear. The play is reduced to its essential framework and 73 minutes but Orson Welles, as King Lear, is quite convincing in his suffering and in his madness. It was when television was still being incubated and nursed into being an original medium and at that time producers considered it as being another form of theater and were led to producing all kinds of classical plays for this little screen. That's how Shakespeare reached full generations of Americans. But Peter Brook and Orson Welles knew this small screen could not be the big one, and his production is quite adapted to it. The shooting is more centered on the characters, even on their faces and heads, and all superfluous props are avoided not to encumber the screen with distracting details. Even the acting is adapted to that small screen and Orson Welles avoid any kind of rash or brusque gesture that could not find any amplitude. That makes the play extremely emotional and it probably erases the real political meaning, the fight between the crown of England and that of France, already. The introduction of the time is funny with presenting King Lear as being a Celtic king. I would have believed we were not that far in history and were only dealing with the Anglo-Saxons, one or two centuries before William the Conqueror. The two advertisements from the two sponsors are admirable, and it is a very good thing to have kept the TV show in its original shape.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines

The film is in black and white video, and takes liberties with the plot. The Duke of Gloucester and his evil son Edmund, major characters in the play, are absent from the film. Orson Welles' King Lear costume makes him look like a refugee from Mystery Science Theater 3000.

After watching this production of King Lear I can appreciate more and more what the BBC did in giving good productions to all the Shakespeare plays. Sad to say this has become badly dated.

Not to criticize Orson Welles who would have made a magnificent King Lear in a full blown big budget production for the big screen. He fills the role out fine here. But the production is a cut rate version literally.

Everything in the way of a subplot is a eliminated here. We only see what happens to that foolish old king when he decides to turn over power to his daughters and their husbands because he wants to enjoy a little peace and quiet. As Shakespeare said in another of his works "uneasy lies the head that wears the crown" and King Lear is looking for a life of some ease toward the end. As we know it all went disastrously wrong.

Alan Badel as the fool also stands out with his sly trenchant comments about the situation at hand. This was Orson Welles television debut and it was on the Omnibus program with Alastair Cooke's silky and intellectual narration. It also has the prehistoric look of early television.

You will see Orson Welles doing Shakespeare to better advantage in his own production of Othello, a bit less so in his MacBeth where Republic's penny pinching Herbert J. Yates constricted him considerably. But fans of Welles will definitely enjoy this.

I guess that Welles started with the idea that Lear is a fool from the beginning, a conceited oldster with a limited awareness. This way, the play becomes humbler. Peter Brook himself staged the play for 'Omnibus', omitting or skipping the … subplot, which move makes it almost as much Brook's own play, in any case his rendering and choice, therefore it's a selective staging, in a committed avant-guard unrealistic style, and it resembles a folk tale, with Lear in the tempest, I remembered the summer in my childhood when I have read the play, I remembered Goneril and Regan and the dukes; yet I enjoyed Welles' role less than I expected …. It's plausible that King Lear was meant as less hieratic than usually shown, but Welles turns him into a Falstaff (but not wholly, as his Lear isn't as hearty, as he is stylized …), or perhaps into a comics character …. His role was less good than deserved, less convincing, and less heartrending; it's also insightful, as it denies Lear a dignity he didn't deserve, making him less a tricked oldster, a duped king, and more a victim of his own conceitedness and unawareness. Maybe his idea has been also to emphasize the fantastic and primeval nature of the play, so it's fairer for me to write that I have found his performance not very convincing (most of it is very good, v. King Lear during the storm), rather than blame the aesthetics of the staging. So the play is eerie, and Welles brings a bombastic, almost camp performance shaped by makeup, that is supposed to boost, to enhance the effect, and it gives the stage an almost Asian look, and makes the old king resemble a puppet from a 'Punch and Judy' show; this is a bit astringent, like Olivier playing Chekhov, or Hopkins playing 'Titus …', simple but also a bit monotonous, of a simplicity that might itself seem affected, contrived. Whatever is Celtic suits me.

But I am at least as certain that the show has been effective. The reversal is set up by Lear himself, by his carelessness and conceit, not by his trust or generosity. Hence, Welles' bombastic, over the top role hints to Lear's initial foolishness and zaniness. Lear begins by being unaware of his relatives. There's no guilt either, as King Lear is a simple, limited, not wholly dignified being, not an insightful one. Welles makes the tragedy humbler, simpler, more plausible, making it an earthly drama of delusion. I guess this could of been done better by a more convincing role; but it's a hypothesis.

The insane king tracking the dead body of his daughter is of infinite sorrow. King Lear is deluded from the beginning, and easy to delude; he acts like a fool, he behaves like a delusional oldster wearing a precious stone, and he sets up his own demise, not because he trusts, but because he trusts unwisely. Being so easily convinced and won over by praise, he's vulnerable. He wears a precious stone on his chest. His nonchalance testifies to his overconfidence. King Lear is simultaneously overconfident and vulnerable, easily convinced by praise and easily kicked into insanity by malice. As an old king, he's not wise, but already fool.