Like many of you, I studied Shakespeare in high school and college, but The Merchant of Venice was a play I’d never read or seen. I’d heard that it raised the issue of anti-semitism, but assumed it made a case against it. In the relatively short amount of time that I have been reviewing films I’ve more or less adopted the personal wisdom that a red flag should emerge when I feel that I ought to like something. After seeing Michael Radford’s film, however, I tried to ignore my own best advice. I kept thinking about the sequence of events in The Merchant of Venice, looking at them one way and another, I even considered the possibility that Shakespeare was trying to incense the audience. Provoke a sense of moral outrage. But then why did he keep “telling” us that Shylock (Al Pacino), the Jewish money-lender, had brought this all on himself? Why did Shakespeare hold him up to a higher code of conduct than his oppressors? That's one of the oldest dodges around.
Still I lacked the courage of my convictions. So I decided to Google it, and sure enough, there are numerous scholars and critics (including Roger Ebert) who are convinced that Merchant’s depiction of the Jews is cruel and distorted. Despite the fact that Shylock is abused and degraded repeatedly by Antonio (Jeremy Irons), he has the gall to ask for a loan. Shylock’s own daughter steals his money to elope with a Gentile, his humiliation and diminishment is either ignored or completely missed in the courts (worst of all, by Antonio), and he is summarily punished for even seeking propitiation, draconian though it may be. Despite the fact that Shylock’s heart is broken over and over, he is treated with undeniable contempt and hubris by the principal characters and by Shakespeare. Now, of course, the fact that I was able to find concurring opinions doesn’t necessarily vindicate me. And there are folks who disagree. There is much more to Radford’s film than “Shylock: Whipping Boy for Ignorant Gentiles.” It’s just the most salient feature.
The premise of The Merchant of Venice is pretty simple. Bassanio (Joseph Fiennes) goes to his close friend Antonio to borrow money so he can make a good showing when he proposes to his beloved Portia (Lynn Collins). Bassanio’s assets are tied up, so he must ask Shylock, whom he has spat upon and reviled on numerous occasions. So deep is Antonio’s affection for Bassanio that he agrees to part with the notorious “one pound of flesh” should the loan default in ninety days, which he assumes, of course, will never come to pass. The rest of the film concerns itself with the folly of “knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing,” the demands of romantic love, the meaning of loyalty, and the rewards of persecuting infidels. Shakespeare uses devices like female to male cross-dressing to explore the underlying nature of love between men. Shakespeare’s men have always been forthright about their devotion and appreciation for each other, so it takes awhile before you realise that he's playing with the flagrantly ignorant notion that we must choose between spouses and friends. That jealousy and intensity are inextricable.
Article comments
1 - shag her harder
yo this woz such a shit film o my dayz and this shit don't even tell u any info this shit and fuck shakespeare wot a nob head he can't even make a proper film dipshit
2 - Dayton
[shag her harder's comment proves there is no moderator for this blog. Then, it is merely impossible to moderate utter ignorance.]
Rating ***** 5 Stars. Excellent
Radford's work in Merchant is completely brilliant. The anti-semitism is qualified in the opening progrom describing the ill treatment of Jews in the 16th century. In fact, I believe the entire work by Wm. Shakespeare is an effort to illustrate the starkness between Jews and Gentiles of the time; not to condone or justfy it. The question "would a neo-nazi or klansman get it?" is legitimate in that it may very well have been the author's goal to let the audience demonstrate their own prejudices and predilictions while in attendance. Perhaps the bard watched the watchers in amazement that they could not see the forest for the trees. That they did not know he was mocking them; Jew and Gentile alike.
Even so, I don't see Merchant as an indictment of Jews entirely. Notice in the audience of the court there were Jews (red hats) who were clearly not on Shylock's side. In fact, as he departed Shylock was scorned by a fellow Jew.
Instead, I believe the greater message lies in the perils of using the law as an instrument of revenge. No one is so righteous to demand the exact letter of the law -- without temperance of the frailties of humanity -- no matter how just one's cause may seem prima facia. Shylock, more pointedly, his Jewishness, is a vehicle to illustrate the axiom "be careful what you ask for, you just might get it".
Granted, Christians are represented as more righteous, but such was the way of the time in Venice according to the script, if not history itself.
The direction, language, sets, lighting and casting are flawless. Lynn Collins graduates to greatness in assuming the role of Portia. Al Pacino reaffirms his greatness as Shylock. Joseph Fiennes captures the melodrama of Shakespearean monologue as well as Kenneth Branaugh.
***** An excellent view for any lover of a classic
3 - Christopher Soden
It seems to me that we must at least entertain the idea that MERCHANT OF VENICE might be anti-Semitic (though nothing would please me more than to KNOW otherwise) and ask ourselves if we can concede the point that we still have something to learn from a brilliant writer, even if we don't agree with every notion they seek to advance. There are a number of artists who fit this description for me (John Simon, David Mamet, Alfred Hitchcock) so yes, anti-Semitic or not, I would not dismiss the whole of Shakespeare's oeuvre over this conflict, though I find anti-Semitism contemptible. I am in complete agreement with you that the quality of the production was impeccable (or nearly so). And I suppose I'm conflicted when it comes to deciding whether the "messages" implied by the text are germane to the overall value of a piece. I have to say though, considering that I really didn't WANT to believe that Shakespeare hated Jews, after watching nearly two hours of Shylock being reviled, abused, admonished, betrayed and summarily squashed with no hint of irony other than what an audience member might bring to it, I simply felt it couldn't be ignored.
[Dayton, write me sometime, eh?]
4 - Christopher Soden
For months now someone or perhaps numerous individuals have been responding to my piece on MERCHANT OF VENICE with gibberish or otherwise trivial reactions. It's a shame to see how completely the scourge of in-breeding and lobotomy has reduced even their most fundamental capacity for reason and articulation.
5 - Christopher Soden
I suppose this, too, will fall on deaf ears, but if you have a problem with my review, why don't you be a mensch and tell me exactly what it is, instead of launching these imbecilic spitwads? Are you just completely pre-verbal?
6 - english student
doing an article on 'value' and how our own historical knowledge and background colours our interpretations of what we read. found this review insightful and articulate.
7 - james
[DELETED] the movie blew [DELETED]