The King Review: It is clear that Shakespeare does not receive screen credits as a source material for David Michôd’s The King. Although the film also immerses itself in recorded history, it simplifies the language and dramatically changes the outcome of a key character. The first tetralogy of works known as Henriad certainly constitutes its vibrant nucleus. Perhaps the producers feared that the announcement of the literary pedigree gave them the impression of being a duty? It would be a rude representation of a moving, lucid drama that balances its muscular and contemplative sides with infallible judgment, taking advantage of discretely dominant performances to reflect on the wicked madness of power and the “sad weight of war in the King”
In this age of theatrical productions in theaters, Shakespeare’s adaptations on the big screen have become less frequent, but television and radio platforms are emerging. In recent years, the nomination of The Hollow Crown, star and multi-part of the BBC and PBS, was presented in its first season, a more faithful presentation of Henri IV, Parts 1 and 2 and Henri V, as well as of Richard II, the work that precedes them. ; and the ripping and modern king of Amazon King Lear, led by Anthony Hopkins, exceptionally good. Netflix continues this wave of highly observable Shakespeare accounts with The King, which is both a reinterpretation and a synthesis of the intelligent scenario of Michôd and one of his stars, Joel Edgerton.
The visual scheme of the attenuated, almost desaturated color palette, and the meticulously measured photographic work of filmmaker Adam Arkapaw, as well as the costume and production designs of Fiona Crombie and Jane Petrie, provide authenticity from the early fifteenth century with minimal of fuss in the King. The exquisite use of natural light in many interior scenes and the light and dark shades directly from Caravaggio for night interludes by candlelight are particularly interesting.