Joseph F.

McCrindle Foundation

Grigori Kozintsev: Talking about his "Lear" and "Hamlet" films with RONALD HAYMAN
Author(s): Grigori Kozintsev and RONALD HAYMAN
Source: The Transatlantic Review, No. 46/47 (Summer 1973), pp. 10-15
Published by: Joseph F. McCrindle Foundation
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41513324
Accessed: 19-10-2015 19:18 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Joseph F. McCrindle Foundation is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Transatlantic
Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 157.182.150.22 on Mon, 19 Oct 2015 19:18:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Grigori Kozintsev

" "
Talkingabout his Lear and "Hamlet"filmswithRONALD HAYMAN

s deathis an enormousloss. Most of theraidsthatthe

GrigoriKozintsev'
cinemamakeson literature The size of thebooty
are piraticallyinsensitive.
mattersmorethanthedamageinflicted ingrabbingit.Kozintsevwas oneof
thefew directorswitha deepfeelingforliteratureandhisHamletmustrank
as thebestShakespearefilmevermade.
R.M.

Grigori Kozintsev's firstbook, Shakespeare , Time and Conscience

containeda diaryof his workon the Hamletfilmand threwa greatdeal
of lighton his use of elementalimageryin the film - stone,fire,sea and
earth.His secondShakespearebook, whichhe was just finishing, is called
The Space of Tragedy.He was workingon partsof it whilepreparinghis
filmof KingLear and the titleis, among otherthings,a pointerto the
influenceGordon Craig had on his thinkingand on his cinema.He was
talkingto me about thiswhenhe was in London fortheopeningofLear.
'His greatbook Towardsa NewTheatreis,I think,Towardsa New Cinema,
and I was greatlyimpressedby his ideas, his understanding of the tragic
of
meaning space, his understandingof big visual imagery in Shakespeare.
He has writtenabout Macbeth, whichis a verysimpleplay,withonlytwo
big images,a rock,a mountainof stone on whichwarlikepeople were
living.That's one. The otheris fog, a mist,whereghosts were living.
Mist is made of water, and water destroysthe mountain. And as
Gordon Craig puts it, the directorin the theatrewould unfortunately
like to explain the play in termsof archaeologicalresearchinto the
materialsof the castles of Cawdor and Glamis. But the two images of
stoneand mistareenough.I was greatlyinfluenced by theideas of Gordon
Craig.I thinkhisproductionofHamletin 1912at theMoscow ArtTheatre
was ofgreatinterestbecauseitwas a meetingofthetwogeniusesofmodern
theatre,Gordon Craig and Stanislavski. Gordon Craig (togetherwith
Meyerhold)was the firstto understandthe tragicmeaningof the whole
visualimagination, thewholeuse of space. And Stanislavskiwas thefirst
to understandthatall figuresare realisticfiguresand thatit was necessary
to fightagainstdeclamation,thehighstyleof speakingverse.This Hamlet
of 1912 was an importantexperimentfor the whole deveopmentof
moderntheatre.'

This content downloaded from 157.182.150.22 on Mon, 19 Oct 2015 19:18:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 KOZINTSEV11
GRIGORI

The achievement ofbothKozintsev'sfilms, whicharenotmerecinematic

of
transcriptions stage plays, but which coax a new imageryout of the
Shakespearianbedrock, can be understood against the backgroundof
theseideas. 'In myview Shakespeareon the screenmustbecome more a
tragicpoem than a play, more of a relationshipbetweencharactersand
landscape, a historical and geographical representation.But simple
historicalnaturalismhas no connectionwith Shakespeare. Historical
materialismcan destroythe poeticunityof Shakespearianplays. It's not
merelya questionof speakingversein frontof the camera and moving
fromlong-shotto close-up.It's necessaryto createa pictorialimagery,a
visualpoetrywith the same qualityas thatof the Shakespearianverse.'
Lear, in anycase, cannotbe placed in historyas Hamletcan. 'The time
of Hamletcan be understoodto be thatof ElizabethanEngland.I don't
especiallylike specifically historicalsets and costumes,but Hamletneeds
a kind of Elizabethanethos,absolutelydifferent fromthatof KingLear,
whichis moretimelessand universal.VeryoftenLear was presentedas a
Titan, as a greatmythicalfigureor like a hero in a Michelangelofresco.
I don't thinkhe should be. It's an interesting and paradoxicalsituation:
Lear was a greatking,thedominantpersonality in his kingdom,withhis
his his
will, thoughts, feelings. But he's also quiteordinary - theeccentric
behaviourof Titansis not partof anynationalhistory.And no tyranthas
ever been in a positionto understandhis own defects.But when Lear
becomeslikeeverybody else,likea beggarin themidstof a crowdof poor
people- this moment the real beginningof his greatnessas a tragic
is
figure.This the way I understandit. His wisdomand his capacityfor
is
pitystartfromthatmoment.The paradoxis thatwhenhe was a towering
figurewitheverybody else verysmallin relationto himhe was at his most
ordinary.But his soliloquies and his dialogues with blind Gloucester
make his own earlierbehaviourand the whole structure of relationships
withinthekingdomlook veryfoolish.
'He has a chance to see everything froma totallydifferent angle of
vision. When he becomes a simplehuman being,like the "poor naked
wretches"he beginsto be a philosopher.It's an ironicalphilosophyat
firstbut thisis onlythe beginning.When he meetsCordelia and he asks
formercy - not like a greatkingnow- thisis thebeginningof his under-
standing what the real values are in human life and what the false
of
valuesare. I thinkthekeyto theimageryin KingLear is thegreatcontrast
betweengoldenappearancewithits emptinessand the real values in the
historyof humanityand civilisation,the difference betweenthe clothes
and thereal man.

This content downloaded from 157.182.150.22 on Mon, 19 Oct 2015 19:18:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
12 REVIEW
TRANSATLANTIC 46/47

'But the differences betweena stage productionand filmproduction

do not primarily involvequestionsof technique.It's a questionof under-
standingthe deep philosophyof the tragedy.I'm not interestedin the
opportunities thatcinemaprovidesforhugesetsand big crowdsof extras.
For mewhat'smostimportant is thechanceto explainthedeeplycomplica-
ted philosophyof the tragedyin real terms.' Here theinfluenceof Jan
Kott, who was a friendof Kozintsev's,is discernible.In his chapteron
'King Lear or Endgame' in Shakespeareour Contemporary , Kott says,
'The feudal orderis absurd and can be describedonly in termsof the
absurd.' He also writesof the relationshipbetweenthe old-styletragic
heroand thecentralcharacterin a moderngrotesquecomedy.The down-
fallof thetragichero is a confirmation and recognitionof the absolute;
whereasthedownfallofthegrotesqueactormeansmockeryoftheabsolute
and its desecration.'
Kozintsevwas morepronethanmostEnglishShakespearianswould be
to talk as if therewere a coherentphilosophyunderlyingShakespeare's
tragedies,but he was protectedby his respectfor the philosophyhe
diagnosedfromany temptationto recreatethe play as a desecrationof
theabsolute.Nevertheless his castingof theEstonianactorYuri Jarvetas
Lear pitchesthe filmdecisivelyaway from19thcenturyconceptionsof
heroicgrandeur.Lear becomesa frailand petulantold man,subjectboth
to accesses of Dostoevskianpassion and phases of grotesqueunreason-
ablenessreminiscent of Ionesco's BérengerI.
But ifLear theindividualis slightly shrunk,his kingdomis enlargedby
thefilmto universaldimensions.4InKingLear thewholehistoryofhuman
civilisationis summedup, fromthepre-historic hearthto themodernirony
and the modernunderstanding of the possibilityof catastropheand of
what is necessaryto stop this catastrophe.In the 19th centuryVictor
Hugo said "The worldis sickfromhatred,hatredagainsthatred."I think
that'sa verygood sloganforKing Lear.'
The pre-historic hearthis represented in our firstglimpseof the play's
royalfamily near the fireplace. It was an ancientfireplace,whichintro-
duces a touchof pre-historical fire.A fatherand his threedaughters - the
the
family, clan, near the It
fire. is only a touch.It would be verybad to
explain this in a heavyway.'
Othermilestonesin the developmentof Westerncivilisationare also
indicated.Tor me it was also important to showthemarriageof Cordelia
on the screen,not in a church,but on the road. It is the firstyear of
Christianity- in Cordeliathereis a suggestionof Christianideas. And it
was important to show thatthe Fool was livingamongthedogs and like

This content downloaded from 157.182.150.22 on Mon, 19 Oct 2015 19:18:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 GRIGORI
KOZINTSEV13

a dog. For thesepeople he's not like a personbut a pet. It also fitswith
Lear's imageryof huntingwith dogs and falcons,the ten knightsand
squiresand so on.'
As in the Hamletfilm,Kozintsevshowedhimselfto be unusuallyalert
to the presencein the text of values and attitudeswhichwere charac-
teristicof the Renaissance. 'Albany is one of my favouritecharacters
because he's a typicalRenaissancefigure.He's a humanistwho's fitted
forthelibrarybut he's obligedto go outsidethelibrary.For me it's very
importantto presentAlbanyin a library.He has no desireforpowerin
thestate:he's notfighting forthethronebut in defenceof humandignity.
Gonerilunderstandsnothingabout herhusband.'
In Hamlet, which Kozintsev also saw in Craig-liketermsas being
centredon two main images,Wittenbergrepresentsthe main focus of
Renaissancevalues. 'Wittenberg represents thehighpointof Renaissance
humanisticideas and it represents the pre-history of Hamlet's days as a
student - beforethetragedybegan.The secondimageor metaphorwhich
contradictsthe firstis Elsinore,a state which is absolutelyhumanistic
in its relationshipsbetweenpeople but unhumanisticin its methodsof
education,as we see in Polonius's treatment of his children.There's the
careerismof Rosencrantzand Guildenstern;there'sthe killingof love in
the relationship betweenPolonius,Laertesand Ophelia. And so on. The
destruction of all normalrelationships bothin thefamilyand in thestate.
This is Hamlet. Two worlds:Wittenberg and Elsinore."
In KingLear thestructure ofimage-clusters is morecomplex.Tn Hamlet
there'sthe one greatfigureof Hamletwiththewhole worldagainsthim.
ButKingLear is muchmorecomplicatedbecausetherearemanyimportant
figures.From productionson the stage I've neverreallyfoundout who
theDuke ofAlbanyis,who theKing of Franceis. And in myopinionthese
figuresare veryimportant.It is necessaryto explainall thefiguresin the
playnot onlyas charactersbut as materialisations of crueltyor goodness,
theworstpartsof humannatureor thebest.Thereare manycharacters -
likeCordelia,theFool and Albany- who explainthegood side.The figure
of the Fool is expressivenot only as a courtcomedian,a jester.In my
opinionhe also represents the voice of the poor people. He has a good
technique as a harlequin, can dance and singbut he tellsthetruth.He
he
is theonlyman in theplaywho knowsrealityforwhatit is, buteverybody
takes what he says as a joke. Nothingis more laughablethanthe truth.
And hisunderstanding is not thatof an old man but of theyounggenera-
tion. He is a figurenot unlikethe orchestrain Auschwitzthatwas made
up of men condemnedto death. They were beaten to make themplay

This content downloaded from 157.182.150.22 on Mon, 19 Oct 2015 19:18:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
14 TRANSATLANTIC
REVIEW
46/47

better.He is the voice of the truthin a worldof cruelty.But it is a very

strongvoice, and thefigureslike the Fool, Cordelia,the King of France
and Albanyare veryimportantas elementsin what,afterall, is not just
a tragedyofcrueltybut a tragedyofmercy.The greatnessof Shakespeare's
geniusshowsin theway he makesthesemercifulfigureslive the lifeof a
new generation.'
If thehistoricalperspectiveis basic to thefilm'sconception,thepoetic
geographygrowsdirectlyout of it. Each of the main charactershas his
own climate,and 'when Lear goes mad at the beginningof the storm
scene,thisis thebeginningof an absolutelynew relationship withnature.
withthislandscapea countrywhichis notbare,notcruel.
I tryto illustrate
I tryto show Lear himselfas a part of nature,in a fieldof flowers.His
hairspreadslikemoss,thegreyhairof nature.Once man is seen as a part
of nature,the movementtowardsregeneration can begin. Cordelia too
had her own landscape- sea and a verywide landscape- with waves
and seagulls.All the importantcharactershave theirown atmosphere
and thereare relationships notjust on thelevel of characterbut between
different aspects of nature.
'The naked bare forkedcreaturesare like the Kingdomof Lear which
is also naked,bare and forked.But thisisn'tmyidea, thisis Shakespeare's
idea- thesuffering of thewholeuniverseis themostimportantpart.The
whole populationof the countryis seen in termsof naked wretches.As
Poor Tom, Edgar is like a chorus leader in the tragedy.What is the
reasonforall thosesayings,all thoseproverbshe has? Thereare so many
peasantsongs,so muchbeggars'slang he comes out with.It is the voice
of the Kingdom.' Here Kozintsev's approach gives him a means of
strengthening one of theweakestlinksin Shakespeare'splay: Edgar gets
the idea for the Poor Tom impersonationfroma dementedbeggarhe
meets.The hovelsceneis also transformed by populatingit withhomeless
down-and-outs sheltering fromthe storm.
Perhapsthisis a sociologicalviewofLear; perhapsit is a Russianview.
'Everynation has its own Shakespeareand I thinkmine is a Russian
Shakespeare,a Russianunderstanding of Shakespeare.He's thebeginning
of the greatfiguresof 19thcenturyRussian literaturesuch as Pushkin
and Dostoevsky.Some whileago I readan AmericanreviewofmyHamlet
titledThe BrotherKaramazovfromElsinore.Perhaps.But I'm also very
influenced by Englishculture.'
There is also, of course,an importantsense in whichit is a personal
view,and SergeiYutkevichhas suggestedthatsomething in thefilmderives
fromtheexperienceKozintsevhad whenhe was fifteen of directingAlexei

This content downloaded from 157.182.150.22 on Mon, 19 Oct 2015 19:18:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 KOZINTSEV15
GRIGORI

Remizov's adaptation of the folk drama Tsar Maximilian , firstin the

sittingroom of his father'sflat and then in the streets.'Here began
Kozintsev'sroad to Eccentrism, to the firstagit films,to Gogol on stage
and screen,and ultimatelyto the revolutionaryromantic,Maxim, to
Cervantes,and finallyto Shakespeare.'
As Kozintsev put it himself,'Interpretation is the biographyof the
director.The beginningof my life,the performances of folkplays in the
streets,the squares during the firstyear of the Revolution - all this
contributesbecause childhood impressionsare very importantto my
understanding of KingLear.' Even the experienceof directing theplay in
thetheatrecontributed to thestockpileof memoriesthatwas to influence
the film. 'Some performances were duringthe blockade of Leningrad.
Therewas bombardmentgoing on outsidethe theatreand it was a very
difficulttimeforthepeople.'
The contributionsthat Pasternakand Shostakovichhave made to
both Kozintsev'sShakespearefilmsmustnot be overlooked."Pasternak
produceda veryRussian versionof Shakespeariantragedy.Only a truly
greatpoet could be so courageous.He translatedShakespeareinto con-
temporary Russian.We have manyschoolsof translation. We also have a
very scientific
translationwith an equivalent line in Russian foreach single
line of Shakespeare.Justas Shakespeareuses ancientsentence-construc-
tions and ancient grammar,our translatorLazinski uses pre-Pushkin
language.But I preferPasternak'smodernRussian.'
"I've been workingwith Shostakovichall my life, and I thinkhis
understanding of thewhole tragicand grotesqueimageryin Shakespeare
is perfect.And in KingLear I didn'tuse just dignifying fanfares and drum-
rolls.Thereis also thevoice ofsuffering.I love thepipemusiche composed
fortheFool. I thinkthisis a realvoiceofShakespeareand I'm verygrateful
to Shostakovich.When I hear Shostakovich'smusic I thinkI've heard
Shakespeare'sverse.It is possibleto cut some of theverseifyou have his
score to substitute,and I did actuallymake cuts speciallybecause of
musiche wroteand in manyplaces in myscript,beforeI begin to shoot,
I knowthatI willbe usingnothumanvoicesbutthevoiceofShostokovich's
music.In the stormscene,forinstance,the main voice is the music.It's
a victoryof evil,of thewholepowerof theevil of cruelty.'

This content downloaded from 157.182.150.22 on Mon, 19 Oct 2015 19:18:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions