As you’ve probably guessed by now, I can’t decide whether to recommend The Merchant of Venice or warn you off. It is nearly flawless in its production, and makes accessible two of the hardest sells in the movie trade: a costume drama, and Elizabethan English. Period pieces with this clarity and aptitude are rare. The costumes are witty, sumptuous, effective, and, like the performers, not overly concerned with glamour or presence. The actors are subtle, intelligent and convey meaning without getting overcome by textual lyricism. They’ve even managed to reign in Pacino, who is quite good, even if they may have discouraged some of his better instincts.
If we are in a generous frame of mind, we could assume Michael Radford was aiming for provocation. He couldn’t have believed Merchant was going to fly as an equation for Jews and villainy (though that’s what it is) so perhaps like To Kill a Mockingbird and Imitation of Life, he was attempting to provide a mirror or wake-up call. But if so, why is the treatment so inappropriately slanted? The “If you prick us...” speech is sabotaged and “The quality of mercy...“ affected and condescending, like The Grand Dragon chastising Eldredge Cleaver. For the most part, it was really sickening. And maybe that was the point. But what if a Neo-Nazi or Klansman were in the audience? Would they get it?
I was on Shylock's side. A bunch of shallow, sanctimonious goys robbing him of his self-esteem, restitution, assets, daughter, then chastising him in the bargain? Talk about chutzpah.
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]