Perhaps I was forever spoilt by Trevor Nunn’s exploration of the heart of religious and sexual darkness that lie in the belly of this play, in his 1999 production at the National Theatre. Perhaps I have missed the point completely, an answer I would prefer to the question: what caused the R.S.C. to facilitate this bland, confused, and pointless production? Why would such a renowned director as Tim Carroll give us a Merchant of Venice with the heart already removed? Please tell me political correctness has not infected the R.S.C.’s reading of Shakespeare; this play has much to teach us about intolerance and fear, justice and mercy, revenge and forgiveness, and the true nature of love, but you’ve got to have a little faith in its intrinsic humanity: ‘to do a great right, do a little wrong’.
In repertory at the Royal Shakespeare Company.
Article comments
1 - Polemicscat
Good essay. As you suggest, Shylock's being required to convert to Christianity is at odds with modern sensibilities. In order to accept that as a satisfactory solution, we have to remember that the sixteenth-century audience would have believed that Shylock was eternally blessed by conversion.