The works of Sherbet, Lear and his kingdom, cast in lead and antimony.

Rade Šerbedžija’s production of King Lear, staged with lead actors found in lead and antimony, has concluded in a time when he entered the real years of Lear, and when Croatia, with personal poisons and county kisses, with cups of water and leaden garments, became identical to his kingdom. This final act came during a period marked by profound internal conflict and external pressures, mirroring the tragic downfall of the titular character. The performance ended with nothing left behind, neither legacy nor hope. The narrative explores the story of a father and three daughters, and of a ruler who embodied both sin and justice, depending on perspective. Unlike other rulers of his era, who fell heroically in battle or perished in crusades, court intrigues, or betrayal by friends, King Lear remained until the very end. His demise was twofold: the collapse of his mind and spirit coincided with the disintegration of his realm. In this sense, great empires end not through external forces but through the erosion of their inner foundations, echoing the fate of their rulers. In the world without God, under the empty sky of the northern Mediterranean, at the end of one poisoned summer, the play of King Lear and the crumbling kingdom it portrays offer neither wisdom nor comfort. The text, both in theme and execution, stands as one of Shakespeare’s most contemporary works. It is difficult to imagine what thoughts and emotions filled the audience at the Globe Theatre during some of the earliest performances of the seventeenth century. And how did they continue living after such a haunting experience? The production, which featured lead actors whose bodies were found in lead and antimony, drew attention not only for its dramatic content but also for the physical conditions of the performers. These materials, often associated with toxicity and decay, symbolized the internal and external corruption that plagued the kingdom. The choice of such elements reflected a deliberate attempt to mirror the psychological and physical deterioration depicted in the play. The director, known for his innovative approach to classical texts, faced considerable challenges in bringing Shakespeare’s tragedy to life in a modern context. Critics noted that while the staging was visually striking, the emotional depth of the performance varied. Some praised the raw intensity of the acting, particularly in scenes involving Lear’s descent into madness, while others questioned the effectiveness of certain visual metaphors used to represent the kingdom's decline. Public reaction to the production was mixed. While many appreciated the bold artistic choices, others felt that the heavy reliance on symbolic props detracted from the subtleties of the dialogue. Despite these criticisms, the show attracted large audiences, drawing comparisons to classic theatrical experiences. The use of lead and antimony in the costumes and set design sparked discussions among theater scholars, who debated whether such choices enhanced or obscured the core themes of the play. As the curtain fell on this production, questions remain about the future of such experimental approaches in classical theatre. Will audiences continue to embrace productions that challenge traditional interpretations, or will there be a shift back toward more conventional staging? For now, the stage remains silent, save for the echoes of a performance that sought to capture the essence of a timeless tragedy.