View the 2004 movie, starring Al Pacino and Jeremy Irons, directed by Michael Radford
(This movie should be available at most video stores or through Netflix.com)
Read one essay or review about the play
Read one essay or review about the movie
Write a 500-word report discussing the following:
Cite three or four ways in which the movie differs from Shakespeare's original play. Which ones improve on it and which do not, in your opinion? What, in your opinion, is this play really about? What did the reviewers have to say that you found most interesting? Please cite your sources completely, so we can all find them if we wish. And remember, just citing a Web address is not a citation. That's like giving us the address of the New York Times when you quote from an article instead of telling us the name of the publication.
Post your report to this blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
The Merchant of Venice Review
By: Tim Norton
The movie “The Merchant of Venice” was not what I was expecting. When I first heard of this assignment I had heard of this play, but didn’t know what it was about. The plot was very intriguing and had some twists I did not expect which kept me engaged. You bounce from it seems two different. On one hand you have the drama with Shylock and the loan he granted to Antonio; you can assume to eventually get revenge for the injustices he has faced his whole life by claming a pound of flesh if loan is defaulted rather than charge interest which Christians could not do. Then you go to Bassanio who, as it seems, just needs money to pay back Antonio for past-due debts but ends up courting Portia and falling in love, who also brings along his Lorenzo (a Christian) who ‘steals’ Shylocks daughter (a Jew) and they fall in love. There are it seems a lot of smaller story lines, but the one big idea that is constant through the movie/play, is the anti-Semitic feelings from the Christians towards the Jewish population. I really didn’t see any differences between the movie and the play, but that is probably because of my lack of knowledge in this play and Shakespeare in general. Roger Ebert points out, “A written prologue informs us of the conditions of Jewish life in Venice in 1586; Jews were forced to live in a confined area that gave the word ghetto to the world, were forbidden to move through the city after dark (although they seem to do a lot of that in the film), and were tolerated because Christians were forbidden to lend money at interest, and somebody had to.” During the pre-trip workshop we got some Shakespeare lessons by Pat Carrier, which I learned a few things, but when I tried to read the play version, it was very hard to follow even given the tips during the workshop. The movie on the other hand, was obviously visually engaging where as a script version is not, and Al Pacino did an amazing acting job especially during Shylock’s famous lines, “Hath not a Jew eyes?” Even with all the storylines going on, but main story line in the play/movie is Shylock’s loan that he lends to Antonio, and the details in the loan. Shylock demands a pound of flesh, instead of charging interest, which I assumed is to get revenge back at not just Antonio but at all the treatment he has received from Christians for being Jewish. What gets Shylock in the end is the fact that in the loan he states, “A pound of flesh, without shedding a drop of blood”. So even with the feel good story of Shylock getting revenge on all the injustices he has endured through time, in the end Shylock gets ousted which makes the movie/play’s anti-Semitic feelings that much stronger. One thing that I found interesting is something that Roger Ebert said, “It’s possible that Shakespeare never actually met a Jew (to be a Catholic was a hanging offense in England), but then never visited Venice, either – or France, Denmark, and the seacoast of Bohemia.” How Shakespeare wrote about the times so in depth is beyond me without ever experiencing it. Much of his ideas of the time that he didn’t experience must have come from hear-say or some other source. The movie was really good and I would recommend it to anyone, and I’m looking forward to the performance we are going to see which in Europe.
The Merchant of Venice
Let me start off by saying that both the movie and the play were very hard to follow at times. I think that this is due to what we learned in the workshop about Shakespeare's style of writing.
The fact that he would take a paragraph, sometimes two, to say what could have been said in one sentence. The reasoning for this, if you all remember, was so that the audience in the time of Shakespeare could pull their attention away for a few moments and then return to the story line without missing anything.
I found that this happened to me quite often while trying to watch the movie. The extra dialogue would make me lose interest and I would start ot wander from the story line, although when i would snap back to reality, I could for the mostpart pick up the story line. For this, I guess that Shakespeare's motive is justified. I also think that our society and custom has grown to expect results in a timely manner, so this tyupe of story telling is very hard for our generation to follow.
As for the differences I think that Tim Horton said it best. I didn't see a lot of differences, and maybe it was due to the fact that the script version is not very engaging. It was easier to follow the movie version. I thought that maybe the movie version would modernize the play a little bit more than it did. But from what I could tell they tried to follow the script as closely as they could, even using the "thee's and art though's". I thought the movie also did a very good job of showing the anti-seminism towrds the Jews to the point of the Christiains haucking loogies on them. Which by the way doesn't seem the like the Christain thing to do. It also had its tense moments, its comedic relief, and a love story. Two to be exact.
I loved Pacino's passion, I think he really got into this role. One thing that bothered me about this though was how if Bassinio was so in love with Portia, how could he not tell that it was her during the trial. I have a wife and I could care less how she was dressed, I would know it was my wife.
In conclusion, I will say that from what I have learned about this play in our workshop, from what I somewaht gathered out of trying to read the play and from what I saw in the movie, I hope that once I see it live at the Royal Shakespearean Company, it will all finally make a lot more sense to me.
merchant of venice review
by:Matt Johnson
Written sometime between 1596 and 1598, The Merchant of Venice is classified as both an early Shakespearean comedy (more specifically, as a "Christian comedy") and as one of the Bard's problem plays; it is a work in which good triumphs over evil, but serious themes are examined and some issues remain unresolved.
In Merchant, Shakespeare wove together two ancient folk tales, one involving a vengeful, greedy creditor trying to exact a pound of flesh, the other involving a marriage suitor's choice among three chests and thereby winning his (or her) mate. Shakespeare's treatment of the first standard plot scheme centers around the villain of Merchant, the Jewish moneylender Shylock, who seeks a literal pound of flesh from his Christian opposite, the generous, faithful Antonio. Shakespeare's version of the chest-choosing device revolves around the play's Christian heroine Portia, who steers her lover Bassanio toward the correct humble casket and then successfully defends his bosom friend Antonio from Shylock's horrid legal suit.
In the modern, post-Holocaust readings of Merchant, the problem of anti-Semitism in the play has loomed large. A close reading of the text must acknowledge that Shylock is a stereotypical caricature of a cruel, money-obsessed medieval Jew, but it also suggests that Shakespeare's intentions in Merchant were not primarily anti-Semitic. Indeed, the dominant thematic complex in The Merchant of Venice is much more universal than specific religious or racial hatred; it spins around the polarity between the surface attractiveness of gold and the Christian qualities of mercy and compassion that lie beneath the flesh.
Theme Analysis
Prejudice: The Merchant of Venice has been labeled an anti-Semetic play by some critics, but this is far from the only way to look at it. The character of Shylock seems, outwardly, to be the villain of the play. He sets up a plan to exact a pound of flesh from Antonio, who, outwardly, seems like a good Christian. The story, however, is much deeper than this. Shakespeare gives reasons for Shylock's actions-if they are acts of hatred, it is not unfounded hatred. Instead, it is clear that the Antonio has given Shylock ample reason to seek revenge. Further, many of the Christian characters exhibit the same behaviors which they persecute Shylock for. Upon examination of Shylock's motives and the actions of the Christians in the play, it is not Shylock's Jewishness which is being criticized, but the hypocrisy shown by the Christian characters. The normal first reaction to Shylock's character is that he is cruel and evil because of his un-Christian hatred for Antonio. However, it is actually Antonio who shows an unfounded hatred. As Anne Barton points out in the introduction, "Treated as something inhuman, a 'dog' or a 'cur,' Shylock not unnaturally responds...with tooth and claw" (The Riverside Shakespeare, page285). Shylock does admit to hating Antonio for being a Christian, but he adds that his hatred really stems from reasons other than religion. Antonio drives down the interest rates in town by lending money without interest-he knowingly takes away the only livelihood which Shylock is permitted (1.3.42).Antonio spits and kicks Shylock whenever he comes in contact with him. He gives no reason for this, beyond the fact that Shylock is not a Gentile. Antonio, who, along with other Christians, later criticizes Shylock for his hatred, proves a hypocrite because he hates Shylock without reason, and in doing so, gives Shylock reason to return this hatred. Shylock is portrayed as a greedy character in the play, another un-Christian attribute. Yet, the Christians in the play are in no position to judge him in this respect. Lorenzo seems every bit as concerned with Shylock's ducats as he is with Jessica herself. He explains the plan to Gratiano: "She hath directed/ me how I shall take her from her father's house/ What gold and jewels she is furnish'd with" (2.4.30). Though Antonio seems generous, lending his money to close friends, other Christian characters are not. Bassanio admits in the first act that he is in debt because he lives off of loans from others. His greed is of an even grosser nature than Shylock's because he satisfies it throught irresponsible means-borrowing without repaying. Even his love interest in Portia seems strongly tied to her wealth. His first argument to Antonio as to why he should attempt to win Portia is based on money. He says, "In Belmont is a lady richly left..." (1.1.161). He then goes on to discuss her other virtues, but it is her wealth which has obviously caught his attention. The audience, therefore, cannot accuse Shylock of being guilty of greed without also pointing out the same guilt in these Christian characters.It's interesting that Shylock is aware of the hypocricy of the Christians throughout the play. When Salerio questions Shylock's desire for revenge, Shylock points out that he is not at all unlike a "good Christian" in his endeavors. He points out to them:If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrongA Jew, what should his sufferance be by Chris-tian example? Why revenge. The villainy you teachme, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I willbetter the instruction.(3.1.68) This is an interesting statement, especially since it immediately follows Shylock's argument that Jews bleed, laugh, and die in the same manner as Christians. It is an extension of this argument to say that it is also a common human trait to seek revenge on those who have done one wrong. Bassanio challenges this assertion in act five when they are trying to talk Shylock out of demanding the pound of flesh. Bassanio asks, "Do all men kill the things they do not love?" (5.1.66). The implication is that this is the unmerciful thinking of a Jew; an accusation to which Shylock responds: "Hates any man the thing he would not kill?" (4.1.67). His statement suggests that revenge is a human trait, not a Jewish one. Shylock goes one step farther in arguing that the Christians are hypocrites for criticizing his act of revenge. He compares his right to the pound of Antonio's flesh to the Christian practice of keeping slaves. He says, rightly, that if he were to request the Christians to release their slaves and show them mercy, they would reply that they own them. Likewise, he explains, "The pound of flesh which I demand of him/ Is dearly bought as mine, and I will have it" (4.1.94). Shakespeare incorporates a plot twist which further illustrates the hypocricy which Shylock is talking about. Lorenzo steals Shylock's daughter, Jessica, from him. This is more than just a disrespectful act in the context of the play. When Shylock speaks of the act, he exclaims, "My own flesh and blood to rebel/...I say, my daughter is my flesh and my/ blood" (3.1.34). In this sense, Lorenzo, a Christian, has taken flesh from Shylock. Yet his act is not backed by legal contract, it is an illegal and subversive act done behind Shylock's back. If Shylock's legal claim to a pound of flesh is seen as terrible, then this illegal extraction of Shylock's "flesh" by a Christian is something much worse.The hypocricy of the Christians manifests itself most strongly in the trial scene. At first, the Duke tells Shylock that everyone expects him to forego the pound of flesh at the last minute, and furthermore, they wish for him to show further mercy on Antonio. They ask that Shylock, "Forgive a moi'ty of the principal/ Glancing an eye of pity on his losses" (4.1.25). Shylock, of course, refuses. Later, when Shylock is undone by Portia's interpretations of the law, the Christians present withhold from Shylock the same mercy which they scolded him for not showing to Antonio earlier. None of them "Glance and eye of pity" on the losses suffered by Shylock. Antonio's losses were only monetary, while Shylock has lost riches and a daughter-his own flesh. So it would seem that the Christian's have exacted the same revenge on Shylock which he had attempted to exact on Antonio.The difference lies in the fact that their only reasoning for punishing him so harshly seems to be that he is a Jew. Antonio had no other reason to hate him before now; in fact, he freely agreed to the contract which Portia snuck him out of. Antonio here seems to be the most merciless of all of them. On top of the loss of all of his fortune and his daughter, Antonio adds two more punishments to the heap. He first requests that Shylock become a Christian-thereby taking from Shylock the one thing that he might still cling to, his religious beliefs. Secondly, Antonio makes him will all of his remaining wealth to his Jessica and Lorenzo. This request, in essence, means that he must give his blessing to a marriage which took place behind his back, against his will, and through acts of disloyalty on his daughter's part. This is what the Christians call mercy-forcing Shylock to pay a penalty which is arguably worse than what he had wished to take out on Antonio. The sentence delivered to Shylock is also significant because it makes the audience feel natural sympathy for Shylock. He has lost everything he has from his daughter, to his wealth, to his religion. He is last seen in the play as a character who has had everything taken from him by the Christians. Shakespeare obviously intended the audience to pity Shylock after such a harsh fate befell him, which suggests that the play is not intended to be anti-Semetic. A play which was anti-Semetic in nature would not end the play with the audience pitying the main Jewish character. Instead, it seems that this play uses Shylock's character to reveal the true hypocritical nature of the Christian characters in the play. They perform the same acts which Shylock does, often to a more base extent, and call them Christian acts and merciful acts. However, when Shylock attempts to do the same things, he is persecuted. The play doesn't portray Shylock as a cruel, merciless Jew. Instead, it instills in his character tendencies and desires which are no different from Christian beliefs and desires. In going so, Shakespeare reveals the hypocritical nature of the Christian's actionsLoyalty: The theme of loyalty in the play comes out through the interactions of several sets of characters. First, there is Bassanio, who is close friends with Antonio-their friendship survives stressful situations in the play. Next, there is the relationship between Bassanio and his wife, Portia. The third major character interaction which deals with the theme of loyalty is Jessica's relationship to her father, Shylock when she runs away to marry a Christian, Lorenzo.The loyalty between Bassanio and Antonio becomes evident in the first act of the play when Antonio loans Bassanio a large sum of money and takes him on his word that he will repay it. From Bassanio's words, we realize that this has taken place before, "I owe you much, and like a willful youth/ That which I owe is lost, but if you please/ To shoot another arrow that self way/ Which you did shoot the first, I do not doubt/ As I will watch the aim, or to find both/ Or bring your latter hazard back again/ And thankfully rest debtor for the first." (I.i.146). From this quote, it seems Bassanio has borrowed money to Antonio before and hasn't repayed the debts, and yet Antonio still loans to him again out of sheer loyalty to friends.This loyalty is returned to Antonio by Bassanio towards the end of the play when Bassanio races home from his Belmont to save Antonio from his debt to Shylock. Bassanio actually puts a quantitative value on his loyalty, "But life itself, my wife, and all the world/ Are not with me esteem'd above thy life./ I would lose all, ay, sacrafice them all/ Here to this devil, to deliver you." (IV.i.284). Bassanio actually offers to give over his own life and all of his loved posessions to save Antonio-his loyalty is greater than the repayment of the financial debt he owes to Antonio. In the end, he makes the sacrafice of giving the "judge" (Portia in disguise) the ring which his wife gave to him and told him never to remove if he loved her. This sacrafice of a symbol of love for his wife is the ultimate symbol of loyalty to his friend.Ironically, this act of loyalty towards one character in the play is a blatant act of disloyalty towards Portia, his wife. Bassanio pledges his loyalty to Portia upon winning the riddle and again upon leaving to help Antonio, "...but till I come again/ No bed shall e'er be guilty of my stay/ Nor rest be interposer 'twixt us twain." (III.ii.325). Though his vow is correct in that he does not cheat on her, he does go back on his promise by giving away the ring he gave her to thank the judge. This would seem to be a blatant act of disloyalty and clash with his otherwise noble actions of loyalty. However, in light of the fact that it was Portia who disguised herself as the judge in order to test her husband, and he was therefore forced into the act by underhanded measures, his disloyalty here must be taken with a grain of salt.The final character interaction to be considered in discussing the theme of loyalty is the relationship between Jessica and her father, Shylock. Her love for a Christian is one of the side-stories in the play, but it is central to the theme. When she runs away with Lorenzo, she steals ducats from her father in addition to her disloyalty to her decision to disobey him in marrying a Christian. She expresses uncertainty about her decision when she dresses as a boy to run away. She says, "...I am much ashamed for my exchange. (II.v.36)" By this she means that she is ashamed to be dressed as a boy, but the second meaning of the quote is that she is ashamed to have exchanged her love and loyalty to her father for the love of a Christian. Her reaction to music in the final act shows her further remorse for disloyalty. Shylock doesn't allow music in his house and when Jessica hears the music in Belmont at the close of the play she says, "I am never merry when I hear sweet music. (V.i.69)" This statement suggests that the music has made her think of her father and reflect upon her own actions. She is unhappy at the end of the play, and some stage productions even suggest that Shylock has died of grief and that she is saddened for causing him such pain.
Before the pre-trip seminar I didn't know anything about the Merchant of Venice, even though my high school English teacher quoted Shakespeare everyday. So after reading and hearing about the play I came to some conclusions and ideas of what it meant and how people responded back then and now. Right away I didn't think highly of Shylock, not because he was aJew but because they portrayed him to be an ugly person. After viewing the movie, my portraits had been repainted. I found myself feeling sorry for Shylock, maybe because Mr. Pacino did such a wonderful job or because how we view anti-semitism in the 21st century compared to the 16th. This is one of only a couple differences I found between the play and the movie, the way I felt. I too had trouble understanding the literature of both at times, but knew what was going on from my readings.
In a review I read about the movie on imdb.com the author James Hitchcock of England suggests that maybe people would understand the movie more easily if it were not shot in traditional times but in modern, such as the 1996 version of Romeo and Juliet starring Leonardo DiCaprio. But then you don't get the full Shakespeare experience some wish to go through and the sense of what Venice looked and felt like back then vanishes.
In an essay about the play, I thought it was very interesting that there were no Jews in England at the time Shakespeare wrote the play, they were actually expelled. Before this however, they lived amongst other citizens, not in ghettos. Also, the author states that the evil characters of plays before and during Shakespeares time were Jews because that's what people wanted. It was the in thing and people loved to hate the Jew. Sad but true.
At the beginning of the movie there is some script about how society treated and felt about Jews. I thought this was interesting and added feelings to the movie. Throughout the movie and play I thought some parts were boring and others powerful. I found Shylocks daughter not very interesting until the end when it seems she has doubted her decisions. But whenever Shylock came into scene (especially the movie) my senses would heighten. Especially the scene with Shylock stating that Jews are people too, Pacino had a scene for the ages. Many props to Shakespeare and the great writing he did for this part. This is when I felt that Shakespeare knew what he was talking about although he didn't experience this for himself. I thought Shakespeare wrote this play through the eyes of all civilians and about every aspect of life. He wrote the posotives and negatives of each culture and group through his characters.
But I find this play very complex and can never be justified unless you ask Shakespeare himself. Many ideologies have come about and new unfold yet to this day. I see the play has anti-semitism, love, anger, justice, hatred, friendship, and history. To me, the overall theme would be the different lifestyles Jews and others had then. Jews were hated as they have been hated forever. People would push Jews to the point where they would want a pound of flesh for being mistreated. And because of this, they're evil and get spit on. Yet, as James Hitchcock points out, the Venice economy would not have been anything without Jews or people like Shylock. With this, I find myself saying we live in a very mixed up strange world and Shakespeare did his best to mirror society the way it was.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379889/#comment
Author: James Hitchcock
"An Intelligent and Visually Attractive Look at a Complex Play"
16 December 2004
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/merchant/ei_shylock.html
Author: Jami Rogers
"Shylock and History"
The film adaption of William Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice” definitely captured the spirit of original play. There were a few deviations from the play, like many of modern day adaption of the classics.
What I believed that the newest rendition of “The Merchant of Venice” lacked was the presence of Jessica throughout the play. Jessica seemed to be completely vacant from the film, except the crucial parts. Her spontaneous marriage to Lorenzo was awkward, but not as much so as her reappearing at Portia’s estate. Act 3, scene V I believe, unless it’s just my lack of understanding of either the play or the movie, but was left entirely out of the film. While reading the play I thought that this scene revealed a lot of Jessica’s character and how she is interwoven with the other character’s stories.
Act 3, scene IV let out the planning of Nerissa and Portia there escape to Venice to masquerade as the doctor and clerk. I believe that in the attempt to make the movie shorter and more appealing many of the little interludes between characters were lost; case in point Act 3, scene IV. I personally liked this discourse between Portia and Nerissa. It gives the women of the play more depth and builds the suspense for the following scenes. The women of Shakespeare’s plays are very cunning and full of spunk, especially in this play. The film, in my opinion does not bring this out as much as the play does. The film loses some of that strong famine attitude, which the play has set up nicely in the said scene. The filmmaker made Portia into a love-struck girl, who only in the end could redeem herself in the courtroom.
I thought that the language of the movie was a little odd. For me it was a little schizophrenic at time. It couldn’t decide whether it was doing Shakespeare justice or trying to update him for the modern viewer. I believe that it was trying to do both, and in doing so weakened the film. If the filmmakers would have kept true to the original Shakespeare it would have been more effective. I personally think that through the language that Shakespeare used enhanced the mood, atmosphere and tempo. It creates a lack luster in the language and pace of the film. It’s true that the old English is hard to understand, but Shakespeare was meant to be seen and interpreted through actors.
I believe that this play is really about friendship at any cost and the strong bond and love for a friend. What Antonio did for his friend Bassanio was truly heart-warming, he wanted the best for his friend in life and was willing to give up his very own flesh and life for Bassanio’s happiness. The whole play originated from Antonio’s worries for his beloved friend. Bassanio’s woes worried him so much it was affecting his attitude and life. He wanted to help so baldy that he put his very own body on the line. It is too bad that more friendships are not like this one. Through their relationship Shakespeare tried to highlight “the struggle between heterosexual and homosexual love” and "romantic love versus male friendship" (“The Merchant of Venice”). Shakespeare deals with these themes many times over in his plays, but never so much as this play. However, I believe that this play deals with the male friendship side rather than the love interest between the two characters. The love that Antonio and Bassanio share for each other is truly an ever lasting one. What each character gives to the other throughout the course of the play/ film is unconditional love and friendship for one another, which everyone in Shakespeare’s time and our time strive to have.
The majority of the reviewers, of the film, enjoyed and gave praise to the enormous undertaking by Pacino and Michael Radford (the director). The critiques range from “Absolutely Amazing”, “Great Movie” and (my personal favorite) “Pacino doing Shakespeare…I’m there” (OttowaXpress).
My overall impression of the film was that it was rather bland. It was another 'update' or remake of an old classic. The actors did a fine job, but none of them surprised me. I think that the reason so many people are having a hard time trying to read the play and follow the movie (and the reason that I feel it it so bland) is because Shakespeare was meant to be seen in the theater. I am not a fan of Shakespeare and I have little knowledge of how he should be interpreted, but I do know that the only way to really appreciate Shakespeare is in the theater. So, give the show a chance and after you see it IN ENGLAND, try not to write it off completely. That is why I am holding off my judgment of the play until I see professional Shakespearian actors perform the show.
For some reason it is not allowing me to post my references for the movie reviews and such so if you need them i can email you the whole document.
The Merchant of Venice
Bretanne Ostberg
There are a few differences between the 2004 Merchant of Venice movie and the original Shakespearian Merchant of Venice play, big surprise, I know. First, and again, not surprisingly so, the movie cuts out a lot of the Shakespearean banter that does not contribute to the main plot line. Many paragraphs of Willy’s original text are minimized to just the first sentence, which is plenty of information for the viewer to understand the situation. This choice to keep some things short and sweet was a good one. It didn’t cut out information, and it avoided long-windedness. Secondly, in the movie we are able to see Shylocks immediate reaction to the realization that his daughter has left him, and in a way, betrayed him. While reading the play, the reader is informed that Jessica has left her father and that Shylock is angry. I think that the movie does a good job of reminding us that Shylock really does care for his daughter and values her company. Al Pacino’s reaction helps us to see the anger as well as the sadness of the situation, which I think can be easily forgotten by just reading the play. Shakespeare can be boring, but it’s far from boring when you get to witness raw emotion like that. Another difference from the play to the movie is that the movie reveals at the end that Jessica has not traded her mother’s ring for a monkey. We see her standing by the water, looking down at her ring. I think it’s too bad that this actually wasn’t in the original play. It was nice to be reassured that Jessica did love and value her father and that she would never part with such a valuable family heirloom.
It is hard to say what this play is really about. Should we answer that question with the answer we think that Shakespeare would give or do we give the more modern answer of persecution and discrimination? I think that Mr. Shakes was telling a story about love, envy and vengeance. I think that to Shakespeare, Shylock truly is a villain who does not deserve our pity and only deserves to be laughed at. I believe that the aforementioned three adjectives are all that Shakespeare wanted to communicate. In modern terms, this play is about love, envy, vengeance, discrimination and ignorance. In today’s day and age, making someone renounce their religion and convert to another is hardly a happy ending.
The most interesting thing I read in my movie review was that the Merchant of Venice is so popular because of its many universal themes. Love, greed, envy, vengeance and sadly, discrimination are all relevant today. No one can watch this movie and not emotionally connect to it in some way. Not only does this movie have universal themes, but it also has humor. If that’s not a recipe for popularity, then I don’t know what is.
The most interesting thing I read in my play review was that the reviewer referred to the play as a “schizophrenic play”. It jumps around from emotion to emotion so much, it can’t seem to decide which one to focus on. The reviewer also commented on the director’s decision to make Shylock the beginning middle and end of the play. Its interesting how this play can be spun to emphasize the tribulations of Shylock, so that we empathize with him, or brand him as a greedy villain.
Sources:
Karten, Harvey (2002). The Merchant of Venice. Retrieved 5 March 2008 from celebritywonder.com: http://www.celebritywonder.com/movie/2004_The_Merchant_of_Venice2.html
Sommer, Elyse (1997). A Curtain Up Berkshires Review: The Merchant of Venice. Retrieved 5 March 2008 from Curtain Up: http://www.curtainup.com/b-merch.html
Merchant of Venice Essay
Whitney Stuckey
I watched the movie Merchant of Venice having only a small amount of background on the play, and I must say that I did enjoy the movie. After watching the movie it was clear that the director decided to take a more modern approached with Shylock making him more of a victim of persecution rather than an evil tyrant. This is how we view the play today, but in Shakespeare’s day Shylock really may have been intended as a humorous, but also pained villain.
The biggest difference between the play and the movie is that much of the language was cut out of the movie. The movie definitely was easier to watch due to the fact that they left out some unnecessary words that would have made the movie much more confusing and a whole lot longer. A second difference was the order of certain scenes. There were several scenes in the movie that were shown out of order from that of the play. I think that it did work for the movie, although I am not certain why it was necessary. Third, the beginning of the movie started out differently that the play. To make the movie work with the directors decision to make Shylock more of a victim, the movie started out with a background on how the Jews of the time practiced usury because they weren’t allowed to do other things, and that they were required to wear red hats when out in public. It then showed Antonio meeting Shylock on the street and spitting on him. The play starts with a monologue of Antonio’s, which is definitely a different opening than the movie. Fourth, the ending of the movie was also very different from that of the play, which ends with Gratiano. At the end of the movie it shows Jessica with the ring her father gave her that we had previously thought she had given away. This moment was not in the play. They also show Shylock being denied his place of worship at the end of the movie, which is not in the play, but I think it was a good decision.
After reading a review of the movie, one thing I thought was particularly interesting was “Irons [Antonio], too, has a psychological burden to carry as his merchant's decision to indebt himself to Shylock is a result of his unspoken homosexual lust for Joseph Fiennes' fortune-hunting playboy Bassanio” (Smith). I thought this was interesting because as I was watching the movie it seemed that Antonio did feel more than a fatherly love for Bassanio. To me, the play only slightly hinted at a sexual love.
In the theater review I read of Merchant, it stated that “Will LeBow's Shylock, while greedy and revengeful, is also a sharp and intelligent survivor who realizes that to assimilate he needs to play along with the Gentile's preconceptions of what a moneylending Jew is like. He does so with humor and distance, never giving up his integrity” (Olveczky). I thought this way an interesting way to portray Shylock, and different than the melancholy way Shylock was portrayed in the movie.
Sources
Olveczky, Bence (1999). Theatre Review: The Merchant of Venice. Retrieved 3 March 2008 from The Tech: http://www-tech.mit.edu/V118/N67/merchant.67a.html
Smith, Neil (2004). William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice (2004). Retrieved 3 March 2008 from BBC Online: http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2004/11/29/the_merchant_of_venice_2004_review.shtml
Carissa Chase
Merchant of Venice Review
In our modern world of globalization, interconnecting technology, mass media, and political pursuit, there is perhaps one topic which holds the greatest importance to our world’s citizens: diversity. In our contemporary societies, there is not one single aspect of an individual’s life which is not in some way affected by diversity. From the cuisine one eats, to the clothing one wears, the language a person speaks, the moral values one possesses- every aspect of a person’s life is in some way affected by the heavy handed influence of diversity.
In his play The Merchant of Venice, William Shakespeare addresses a multitude of issues. This well renowned English comedy touches upon numerous topics of tremendous consequence, including romance, religious dispute, class, family, death, and envy just to name a few. But from my own interpretation, the theme which rings through most clearly from the philosophical classic text of The Merchant of Venice is a theme of diversity.
One of the first ways in which diversity is addressed in this piece of Shakespeare literature is through the lens of religion. Both a large component of The Merchant of Venice’s plot and the connection of the play’s title relate to the basis of religious discrimination during Shakespeare’s time. As the plot of Merchant reveals, during the time which Shakespeare wrote this play, it was unethical for Christians to loan money while charging interest. Due to this Biblical restraint, it was often Jewish citizens who served as money lenders during this point in time. Society’s solution to this conflict of morality was to bestow the lucrative business of loaning money to Jewish citizens. One may find proof of this historical avoidance of sin in The Merchant of Venice as the Venetian man Bassanio seeks out financial help from the Jewish moneylender Shylock. Religious bigotry, however, reenters the picture again as Bassanio’ss good friend Antonio agrees to vouch for Bassanio’s loan from Shylock, serving in essence as a “co-signer”, if you will. The plot thickens here, as begrudged Shylock reminds Antonio and Bassanio of the hellish way which they have regarded his religion in the past.
“Shylock: ‘Signior Antonio, many a time and oft
In the Rialto you have rated me
About my moneys and my usances:
Still have I borne it with a patient shrug,
For sufferance is in the badge of all our tribe.
You call me a misbeliever, cut-throat dog,
And spit upon my Jewish gabardine,
And all for use of that which is mine own.’ –Act 1, Scene III”
Seeking vengeance for the pain which he and other Jews have experienced due to the lack of religious tolerance during Shakespeare’s time, Shylock agrees to grant Antonio his lump of money but only upon one very stringent requirement: should he not be able to repay the loan of money, Antonio must agree to allow Shylock to shave pounds of his flesh away.
Though cryptic and crude to the modern eye, what I interpreted most from this, and many other, instances of The Merchant of Venice was that a tolerance for difference was not as valuable to the people of Shakespeare’s time as it is to those of today. Shylock’s resentment for all Christians is proof of how deep rooted this intolerance for difference rested within the hearts of individuals from this time.
When comparing Shakespeare’s original play version of The Merchant of Venice to the 2004 movie version, I found many similarities. I was pleased to see that the 2004 movie depiction of this classic Shakespeare piece stayed close to the language of the original. What I came away with most significantly from the movie version of Merchant was a mere reinforcement of that which I had previously read. College students of modern time are most definitely members of a visual generation. Growing up around in the age of high definition television and high speed internet, members of my generation are much more acclimated to the practice of learning through images. Watching the movie version of Merchant in addition to reading the tradition script version of the play helped to stabilize my interpretation of the story.
After both reading the play and viewing the 2004 movie depiction of The Merchant of Venice, I examined reviews of both mediums. Throughout my findings, most all of the reviews which I encountered enjoyed their experience with Merchant. Book reviews of the story told of how any Shakespeare enthusiast “must” read this particular piece of dramatic comedy. Movie reviewers were highly impressed by Al Pacino’s transformation into the complex character of Shylock.
I enjoyed this bit of research into The Merchant of Venice. As an English major, I have an incredible amount of fanatical respect for the great William Shakespeare. Though heavy and seemingly foreign language is always a present challenge when taking on a piece of Shakespeare, I was happy to complete this assignment.
*Sources:
-http://www.splicedonline.com/04reviews/merchant.html
-http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/merchant_of_venice/
-http://www.movies.yahoo.com/movies/1808598822/info
-http://offoff.com/theater/2003/merchantofvenice.php
I think both the movie, "The Merchant of Venice"(2004) and the play do a good job in pointing out that the Shylock is a versatile character. Some interpret the merchant as being a protective father, a revenge seeking greedy creditor, or a stereotypical creation of anti-Semitism and intolerance.
The movie's plot is similar to the play. Shylock lends money to Antonio and then demands a pound of flesh in return for non-payment. While the harassing from Shylock continues, we find out that Antonio's friend, Bassanio, is spending the money on Portia, interpreted in the play as the Christian heroine, so there is nothing to pay back. Also, during all of this, Shylock's daughter is eloping with a Christian which will result in her father losing money.
The movie is directed by Michael Radford who does his best to decrease the accusations of anti-Semitism which many critics seem to feel is the theme of the play. However, the movie does still show the prejudices of the medieval times. One scene which was added to the movie shows Shylock being ridiculed and spat on in the street by Venetians.
Al Pacino, does a good job in duplicating the Shylock character of Shakespeare's play. He acts as the villain and the victim at the same time. Themes that the movie may touch more than the play are: terrorism and revenge as a response to being terrorized, intolerance, and the fine line between being a villain and becoming a victim. Also, the movie does not show Antonio having an attraction towards Bassanio outside of friendship, which many interpret from the play.
I find it interesting and appropriate that the movie includes the themes it does considering it is post-Holocaust and a vulnerable time to address a character, Shylock, that originally was claimed to be the workings of intolerance. All personal interpretations aside, the plot ends with Antonio's life being spared by a clause in the Venetian law and Shylock being forced into Christianity. I recommend the play if you want the raw original plot, but the movie, especially the acting, does do the play some justice.
Movie review by: Jamie Russell
http://www.channel14.com/film/review/film.jsp?rd=139190
accessed: March 7,2008
Play review by: Bence Olveczky, Staff reporter for "The Tech"
The Tech Online Edition.Volume 118.Issue 67.20 Jan, 1999.1881-2008 http://www.tech.mit.edu/v118/n67/merchant.67a.html
accessed: March 7, 2008
Might I start out by saying that words are beautiful… unless you have no freaking idea what this jumble of letters in front of you are trying to say to you! The script for The Merchant of Venice really confused me, and the movie only brought that confusion to life. On the other hand, the movie was able to make some of the beauty of Shakespeare’s words come to life in ways it never has before.
I liked the movie a lot better for one reason, and one reason only: the mobilization of the scenes and characters. The Merchant of Venice has only been done on stage before, and this creates some difficulties for a director. The play is written to take place in several different settings, and on a stage it is somewhat difficult to create those different atmospheres, but on the screen you are able to mobilize the setting, and create an appropriate atmosphere for the setting of the scene. This is the one difference I saw as beneficial to the movie over the play.
As most of you have stated, there weren’t that many differences in the movie compared to the script. There were, however some very minor differences I picked out (with the help of some of the critics I found). One major difference was the use of women in the movie. Males would only have acted out the play, and some of the parts were specifically humorous because they were written for that purpose, such as Portia and Nerissa.
Another difference I found between the two was the director of the movie took some of the thoughts that would have been read by a narrator, and put them into the actors mouths, such as some of the agonizing things said by Shylock at the end of the movie, which were originally only his thoughts.
One last difference I found was in the play the humor is found in Shylock, and all empathy went towards Antonio, Bassanio, and the Christians. The movie is very empathetic towards both sides, and shows the humor, regret, good and bad sides to every character.
I never found a single bad critique of the movie or the play, so I would have to conclude that Willy did his job with getting his message across with The Merchant of Venice. I’m very excited to see this show done on a stage, and to see the difference being on a stage is with this show.
Sources:
http://www.bookrags.com/notes/mov/SUM.html
http://www.bookrags.com/The_Merchant_of_Venice
http://splicedwire.com/04reviews/merchant.html
I, much like my fellow classmates, do not have a talent for William Shakespeare. While I did listen and take notes when Pat Carrier came to talk to us, I felt what he taught us was more why Shakespeare wrote the way he did and how it helped his actors to remember their lines, and less how to really understand what was being presented to us. Nonetheless I did plug my way through the play as well as the movie and very much look forward to seeing the performance.
First off, let me say the major difference I saw between my minds vision of the play and the actual movie was all of the nudity. Honestly I was rather appalled by the senselessness of it. I could understand it somewhat if it were in a few spots to convey the setting and the times better but not everywhere in the movie. There were at least a half of a dozen instances where women would just be walking down the street and experiencing a “costume malfunction” in which there nipples were somehow not in the bodice of their dress. Not to mention the dress styles they wore would have corsets underneath and the “girls” would hardly be bouncing out all over. I do not think Shakespeare had this in mind, nor would it have been in his plays considering they were performed by all men, and they wouldn’t have the proper equipment to carry it off. Furthermore, I have a hard time seeing Venice in 1500 as having random topless women walking around and hanging out of second story balconies. Another difference was that some lines were cut out of the movie I would assume merely for the sake of time and confusion.
A more specific example of where the movie and the play differed was in the scene where Portia meets the Prince of Morocco and they are speaking of the caskets and in the movie she says he must win her “by the terms of which I told you” where as in the play it isn’t mentioned that way at all. Also in the same scene in the play Portia says:
“You must take your chance,
And either not attempt to choose at all,
Or swear before you choose, if you choose wrong,
Never to speak to a lady afterward
In way of marriage; therefore be advis’d.”
In the movie it is not mentioned at all that if the Prince chooses wrong he can never propose to marry another woman. It means more to me the way the play lays it out that he is putting all bets of marriage, children, and etcetera. of choosing the right casket and he fails.
Another interesting deviation between the movie and the play was in the scene where Launcelot and Gobbo have come to Bassanio’s home to attempt to get Launcelot a job in service to Bassanio and in the play the lines are as follows:
Gobbo: Here’s my son, sir, a poor boy-
Launcelot: Not a poor boy, sir, but a rich Jew’s man, that would, sir, -as my father shall specify-
Gobbo: He hath a great infection, sir, as one would say, to serve-
Launcelot: Indeed the short and long is, I serve the Jew, and have a desire, as my father shall specify-
Gobbo: His master and he, saying your worship’s reverence, are scarce cater-cousins-
Launcelot: To be brief, the very truth is that the Jew, having done me wrong, doth cause me, -as my father, being I hope and old man, shall fruity unto you-
~The Gobbo offers Bassanio the tray of doves and the play continues…
In the movie the lines are the same except the line where Gobbo says, “His master and he, saying your worship’s reverence, are scares cater-cousins” is completely cut out, as I would imagine because it is confusing and your average person has never heard of “cater-cousins” and instead the blind, old, father Gobbo is sort of played off as a fool and you chuckle at Launcelot saying, “As my father shall specify-…” And trailing off with no response from the father (except a confused look) and then picking up and continuing, “To be brief…” I actually did like this deviation from the play because I found it humorous and it lightened the gloom of the movie, which I feel was important to aid in trying to make the movie less focused on the dominant anti-Semitism.
One last difference I noted, and approved of, between the movie and the play was when Jessica is escaping to marry Lorenzo and convert to Christianity and she calls down to him to identify himself and then says:
“Here, catch this casket; it is worth the pains.”
Then she continues on with her self-reflection. In the movie she is going to throw down a rather large chest of ducats and says, “Here catch this casket” and they guys scream “NO!” and she says, “It is worth the pains.” This scene comes off as even more funny because Lorenzo climbs down with the first chest and Jessica runs to get even more ducats and again is going to toss it down to the screams of “NO!” One other thing about the scene was that Lorenzo tells Jessica “Descend, for you must be my torch bearer.” To which Jessica responds, “What! Must I hold a candle to my shames?” whereas in the movie she says nothing.
I did feel that the play was really about the current feelings towards Jews and Anti-Semitism however, even though it is considered a comedy in the end when Shylock loses everything and is forced to convert to Christianity I felt that Shakespeare also did a good job making Shylock appear human in a time when I don’t think general opinion of Jews was that they were human, also he forced us to answer the question, “If you prick us do we not bleed” with the powerful monolog delivered by Shylock. Shakespeare really did a good job working some controversial thoughts into his play whether they are the foundation of anti-Semitism or homosexuality, in a way that is enjoyable.
The two quotes I would like to share that I found in my reviews that really meant something to me were Roger Ebert saying:
“Although Shylock embodies anti-Semitic stereotypes widely held in Shakespeare's time, he is not a one-dimensional creature like Marlowe's "The Jew of Malta," but embodies, like all of Shakespeare's great creations, a humanity that transcends the sport of his making.”
And from the play review Dalapo saying:
“William Shakespeare has always held a fascination for me and one could wonder how easily he could twist and twirl the flow of human lives in his characters.”
Movie Review:
By Roger Ebert
Sun Times Review of the Merchant of Venice
Published January 21, 2005
Accessed online 03-06-08
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050120/REVIEWS/50103003/1023
Play Review:
Accessed online 03-06-08
http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/merchant
When we got this assignment I was really looking forward to learning about the play before we get to see it live. The only real experience with Shakespeare I had ever had was when my 12th grade English teacher read us Macbeth. This was more for entertainment. She did an excellent job of reading a passage or two then telling us in her own words what they were talking about. This did nothing to help us read his plays though. It may have if I would have payed more attention maybe, but I listened to more of what she was telling us rather than what was on the paper in front of me. Once I watched this movie it was not quite what I was expecting. I was quite shocked with the twists and turns. This is nothing like the other Shakespeare plays I have read before. There were not really any bloody fights or lovers fighting to the end. This one was filled with fights between religions, something that in this day in age we never really think about. Although there was a bit of blood to be shed if he did not repay his loan and also there was Portia a love interest to many men.
I think that the major difference between the play and the movie is the movie does not follow the play! They have changed words, changed places that the scenes are taking place in. I know I had read the play and watched the movie both on my own and I thought that it would be a good idea to sit down and go through the book with the play and it was almost impossible. They skip words (and even shorten monologues). They take a lot of the repeating out of the play. They even take out people in the play. They changed around scenes. It was very confusing. Hollywood really took their own thoughts and ideas into this play. I really think that this ruins the play; it may be a lot better if they would have followed the original play more closely. You are ruining Shakespeare’s original work!
In my opinion this play is about religion. That seems to play a major part in the whole play. In the end they take Shylock’s religion. This really surprised me. I could not believe that they would take another mad religion away from him as his punishment. Also it had a lot to do with money. The Jewish people seemed to have it and they borrowed it to the Christians.
I was looking at the site http://www.contactmusic.com/new/film.nsf/reviews/merchant and I really had to agree with a lot of what they said. They picked a great leading role. Pacino really played into the character really well. He took it to the level it needed to be to make a great impression. You can really tell that Pacino really took this character seriously. He really wanted to get it right.
If you want to look at this play in today’s world we may not have all of the religion problems in our country but you can look at it as a prejudice. We are not always fair to everyone and even in some area’s we may not even be open to other religions. We are all flawed people, and we need to understand that. This play shows us that we all have room to change and we need to accept people as they are.
The Merchant of Venice Review
By: Anthony Hietalati
This movie was really one of my first experiences with Shakespeare. It was honestly a lot better than I thought it would be. It differed from the original play in a few aspects, first of all in language, and it being a movie changed the visual aspect of it, it also brought to life some of the things only talked about in the play.
First off the language is going to be different. This taking a world famous sixteenth century Shakespeare play and turning it into a twenty-first full length film, the language is going to have to change somewhat. This I think is both a good thing and a bad thing. I think it is a really good thing in the way that it made it a lot easier for someone like me with no experience in Shakespeare to understand what was going on and follow it a lot better. Having never seen the play it is really hard for me to say how well they did stick with the original dialogue, but from what little I have seen it seemed the most important dialogues, such as Shylock’s “Hath not a Jew eyes?” were upheld really well. Although by changing thing language does take away from the play a bit. You’re not hearing it as it was meant to be heard or as it was written.
Another way it is different from the original play is the visual aspect of it. I think that this is actually a very good change. By having it as a movie they are not restricted to a theater and can make it more real to life. You get a better visual of everything from the town of Venice, where it was filmed in, to Portia’s palace. It really left little to the imagination as far as sets are concerned, this I felt made it more “real”.
This play in my opinion is a story of the times. It really kind of reflects the anti-Semitism of the times and really shows a lot of double standards of the time. It shows how much Christians hated the Jews and how they were treated differently than everyone else. It also shows a lot of double standards. It shows the double standard of Christians and usury. It was wrong and a sin but it also needed to be done so as long as the Jews did it they could borrow money. They needed it in order for the economy to work. I feel it also shows the double standards of women. Portia has to dress up as a man in order for the people of the court to take her word seriously. When in all honesty the information is valid regardless of who gives it.
Something that Roger Ebert said in his review of the film I found really interesting. He talks about how the film opens with Antonio spitting in Shylocks face. This is only dialogue in the play and I feel that it really kind of sets the mood between the two which is really important throughout the play. All in all I really enjoyed the movie and am looking forward to seeing the play.
Film review: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050120/REVIEWS/50103003/1023
Play review:
http://theater2.nytimes.com/2007/02/05/theater/reviews/05merc.html
The Merchant of Venice Assignment
By: Toni Hinsz
Even though I am not a huge Shakespeare fan I thought the plot to this play was rather exciting. It had many twists in it that kept you wondering what was going to happen next. In the case of the movie and the original play there are a few differences which include changes in making the movie appeal more to the modern audience. With this you see some lines cut which seems to work because you only need a couple of lines to get the drift of what is going on, and without all the extra mumble jumble that is in the original version you don’t have quite so many moments that you feel lost and don’t understand what is going on. Also the language was more modern making it easier for me to follow what was going on. Even though it is changing Shakespeare’s original work I think it works and actually helps you understand what is going on. Otherwise besides the more modern views there wasn’t a real big change of the plot of the movie from the original play. I thought that the movie did a real good job of portraying what the play was really about. I also thought the movie was helpful in showing the emotions of the actors which you really don’t get when you read the play.
I thought that the play was about showing a story of love between a young man and women and also a very strong friendship between two men that would go to any lengths to help one another out. Antonio who knows that if Shylock isn’t repaid that he will have a pound of flesh taken from him, but this doesn’t deter Antonio and he still helps Bassanio get the money. Also the movie really showed the relationships that occurred during this time era between the Jews and the Christians. The fact that many Christians did not respect the Jews, but yet they turned to them when they needed to borrow money. Shylock who was first portrayed as a guy just trying to make a living then after his daughter leaves him you felt sad for him. This part you realize that he is a normal human and has feelings just like the rest of us, but you loose this feeling once he tries to take revenge on Antonio and take the pound of flesh from him instead of being repaid.
The one thing that I think really surprised me when I read a review of the movie that didn’t actually occur to me when I was watching the movie was that Antonio may be in love with Bassanio. This proves that Shakespeare threw many twists into his plays that may or may not be obvious at first. Also the in the Review Roger Ebert wrote ‘It’s possible that Shakespeare never actually met a Jew…’ I thought this was interesting and thought it proved the discrimination that the Jewish people had to deal with.
I would have to say the movie was a lot better than what I was expecting it to be, but am really looking forward to seeing the play.
MOV Review
Matt Kirchoff
I personally have always held
differing opinions about Shakespeare and his volumes of work. One being that he is a brilliant author who created some of the most memorable stories, characters and underlying themes in society; While the other being that he is just too hard to understand and had the plays not been modernized or made into a film I would have no clue what he was actually getting at. I can definitely say that had I not watched the movie I would have missed some key elements of the original work.
I really don’t feel it’s necessary to discuss the entire synopsis of the play considering some of us went well into it, but I did notice some things that my classmates brought to the forefront and some they did not. One of the first differences I noticed was in the dialogue. In the original work, as was discussed in class, the words were, do I dare say overkill, but really though paragraphs were written to try to get across one main point or even one sentence. I noticed in the movie that they would sometimes just use the first or the last sentence, but the director did do a good job of carrying the theme of the paragraph and portraying it in film.
One thing the film does is that it shows the emotion of the characters. While reading the original it is hard to get a visual or a feel for the emotion of the characters because I was busy trying to figure out what the heck they were talking about and would loose the sense of character emotion. I liked the fact that the movie was shot ‘in the past,’ and it wasn’t modernized. I was reading one review that said if the movie was modernized maybe it would be easier to understand. That may be true but I think it would loose a lot, specifically the anti-Semitism. There were no Jew’s in Shakespeare’s neck of the woods so much of the foundation for which Shylock was based on was based on rumor and typical belief of the time. How would it look in today’s world? Would they public understand? I don’t know but it is something to think about.
Another difference I saw in the film was that the character Jessica didn’t play as big of a part in the movie as she did or as I believe she did in the original work. The other glaring difference is in the end of the film where Shylock is being denied worship and Jessica still has the ring that was previously thought to been given away.
One major principle topic that at the time of me writing this no one had mentioned was economics. Economics plays a huge role in this Shakespearian ‘comedy.’ There is the noticeable clash between smart business practices and religious beliefs. I guess I really didn’t notice this theme while reading the play but once I watched the movie that it hit me that economics plays a vital role in the film.
Basically all the reviews I read about the film gave it outstanding reviews. I tried to find some reviews that came from differing perspectives. One review I read was written by a devout Christian, Ron Reed of Christianity today. He just loves it and has nothing negative to say about it. He even goes as far as saying Pacino is better as Shylock than as Michael Corleone in the Godfather. I care to disagree, nothing beats the Godfather. I did find one that wasn’t too kind written by John Anderson of Newsday. “Like most filmmakers taking Shakespeare to the screen, however, Radford insists on helping the greatest playwright in the English language and justifies his own existence by downplaying the staginess of what is, unavoidably, a play.”
"William Shakespears The Merchant of Venice Review."
John Anderson, Newsday.com Dec 29 2004 http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/nyc-merchant,0,6321710.story?coll=nyc-movies-now-playing
Merchant of Venice Review
Ron Reed 1/14/2005 Christianity Today http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/reviews/merchantofvenice.html
Although The Merchant of Venice is considered one of Shakespeare’s comedies, I would consider it a very depressing play/movie. The movie differs greatly from the play, just as each movie made from a book does. The biggest difference I found between the movie and the book was the overall emotion of the story being told. The play starts out with Antonio, automatically making him the main character and the character that the reader will always relate back to. The movie differs greatly; starting out with words grazing the screen educating the movie watcher about all of the discrimination towards Jews that was present at the time and how their freedom, power, and growth were extremely limited.
Next comes the image that sticks in my mind whenever I watch this movie, which is Antonio spitting on Shylock simply for being a Jew. This is important because it focuses on the extreme disrespect Shylock gets and does presumably nothing to deserve. Another example of the emotional dissonance between the play and the movie is the reaction of Shylock to his daughter, Jessica leaving. This may be just because in written plays all you have to go on is your imagination. In my imagination, I pictured Shylock as only being very angry with finding his daughter gone. In the movie I saw the hurt in Shylock’s face and the pain and betrayal he was feeling.
In the days of Shakespeare, Jewish people were not accepted. Perhaps that is why today a viewer would not at all consider the movie or play to be one of Shakespeare’s funniest works. The growth of knowledge and civility in our world has hopefully taught most of us that discrimination and hate toward people are both unnecessary and ignorant. However in this time period, it was acceptable to treat Jewish people in this way. The movie differs in this way as it sympathizes with the Shylock and the discrimination facing all Jews. I have mixed feelings on the interpretation the movie gives emotionally because I am a fan of staying true to storylines that original writers have in mind—yet to just dismiss the way Jewish people were mistreated would be awful. All in all I would have to say that I prefer the movie because of the amazing job that Al Pacino did of playing the Shylock—his acting was spot on for the emotion of the movie.
One other huge difference in the movie was the elimination of much of the dialogue (thank goodness, this movie was long enough!) Whoever made the deciding cuts in the play did the right things. Many of the paragraphs in the play were converted into one main sentence in the movie. This was enough to get the main idea of what was going on without saying the same things over again and going into tedious details. It also helped the movie move faster and it grasped the viewer’s attention. I really enjoyed this aspect of the movie and enjoyed it much more than reading the play just because of the repetition that was going on.
Another difference as far as plot goes from the play to the movie is the last scene with Jessica down by the river. In the play there is no closure as to what Jessica does with her father’s ring/mother’s heirloom, it is just assumed that she traded it for a monkey like Shylock was told but in the movie it is shown that the ring was still in her possession. I don’t think this changes much as far as how the viewer feels about Jessica; she betrayed her father by leaving, but slapped him in the face by robbing him when she left. I don’t think this scene made much of a difference as far as feelings or respect towards Jessica goes. It does let the viewer know that Jessica feels something for her father still, but personally I think it was a joke to include it in the movie because you just don’t leave and rob the people you love.
Sources:
"Novel Analysis: The Merchant of Venice"
http://www.novelguide.com/merchantofvenice/novelsummary.html
"The Merchant of Venice" RogerEbert.com
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050120/REVIEWS/50103003/1023
The key difference between the movie and script of the Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare is the interpretation of the relationship between Jews and Christians in the late 16th century. While Elizabethan audiences would have shrugged off the persecution of Jews by Christians as a fact of life, considering Jews were heathens and were due the hatred they were given, audiences of the modern age would sympathize more with Shylock and his Jewish brethren because they were treated so poorly. That is, in the 16th century, a mixed society, such as that of Venice, would have been undesirable, while 21st century Americans, who have been raised valuing diversity in a greater manner would not understand so much why Christians would treat Jews in such a way. I feel that this is a necessary change in today's society, for it is not easy for modern audiences to laugh at Shylock's misfortunates at the hands of his enemies.
As a result of the movie's focus being on the hatred between Jews and Christians, a large bit of the comedy is lost as modern audiences feel that all the traditional protagonists of the play, Antonio, Bassanio, and even Portia, are partly to blame for creating the “monster” that is Shylock. Indeed, in the opening minutes of the movie, the deplorable situation in which Jews live in Venice are revealed, as well as a scene showing Antonio spitting upon Shylock, thus ensuring their later entanglement. The diminished comedic aspect of the movie makes the few places in which the audience gets comedic relief (the first two suitors for Portia, the final scene in which Portia and Nerissa reveal their deceptions to their husbands, etc.) seem few and far between and I feel that is a loss.
The last change I see between the play and the movie is how Shylock's character is defined. He seems to be shaped by his own actions and words as we see and hear them while watching the movie. In the play, he was shaped as much by other people's words as by his own. Shakespeare balanced Shylock's unfavorable actions by several tempering words by the other cast members. In the movie, Shylock's character is explained as we see more of how he and other members of his religion are persecuted by Christians.
The central theme of the Merchant of Venice as Shakespeare intended still exists. That is, the cyclical nature of revenge still shines through. As well, the importance of valuing love over material wealth is still shown, although we are left to wonder where Shylock's heart truly lies in both the movie and play. In addition, and I don't think this was Shakespeare's intention, we are left with a feeling of guilt for the persecution that Jews received in Shakespeare's age. At the time that the play was written, this was a fact of life, but no longer.
I think that Shylock is one of Shakespeare’s most intriguing characters and he is portrayed very well in both the movie and the book, yet differently, to say the least.
One of the huge differences that I found between the book and the movie is interactions and the relationships that are ongoing between the Jews and the Christians. I feel as though there was more emotion and sympathy given to Shylock and the Jews in the movie because of the time period that it was actually made in, where as a play cannot be changed when delivered on stage. In the Elizabethan times, the poor treatment of Jews was accepted and a natural order of things, so it is a bit difficult to read in a play and still think of the said play as a comedy.
However, Hollywood these days likes to change things to make audiences feel more comfortable with what they are seeing, so they give more respect and sympathy to Shylock and his Jewish clan, so as to make the audience feel more at ease. As much as it pains me to say, I don’t like the way that they changed the attitude towards the Jews in the movie. I think it was a crucial part of the play and that they should keep it authentic to Shakespeare’s original work so that the audience can get a real understanding of the time period it is set in and how society was at that point in the world. It’s kind of like making a movie about slavery but not having any black people treated poorly. It is more real and authentic to show the original work as how it was written for that time period.
Another huge difference that I found was how much of the lines were cut from the original play. I feel as though that is really insulting to Shakespeare and is one of the main reasons that I don’t like to see plays turned into movies, especially Shakespeare’s plays. I think that plays were written for a reason, and if someone can sit through one of them and watch the entire thing being acted out on stage, then we can certainly watch the exact same production on a movie screen without it having to be edited for time. Often time script adapters take out some of the best lines for no particular reasons. This paragraph doesn’t really have a lot to do with the assignment; it’s just something that pisses me off. Shakespeare put all of his details in his plays for a reason, so we should honor him and friggin’ watch them all!
I also think that Jessica is a much more important character in the play than what is shown in the movie. It seems like she is only on screen for her most vital scenes as to keep the story going. However, in the play, she is much more embedded in the storyline and with the other characters than the movie gives her credit for.
I think the play is mostly about the bonds of friendship through whatever struggles and obstacles that life entails. Bassanio is struggling throughout the whole play and his friend Antonio is there for him in order for Bassanio to achieve his happiness. He even selflessly put his life on the line for Bassanio because he was so worried about him. Many historians and critics are quick to state that Shakespeare was gay and gives us little clues with friendships like these, as well as others like Romeo and Mercutio’s, or Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. These relationships border the line between male friendship and homosexual love. All in all, Shakespeare shows how truly devoted friends can be to each other and how those bonds can triumph over any struggle that life has to offer.
http://family.go.com/entertainment/article-csm-82615-review--william-shakespeare-s-the-merchant-of-venice-t/?CMP=KNC-YahSSPFamily
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/merchant/ei_shylock.html
Shylock and History
by Jami Rogers
The Merchant of Venice Review
By: Emily Wallin
To first start off, a Shakespearean play is something else. The way he brings the words together is just like a song that could sing you into a Trans. I must admit that it was difficult for me to understand the play while I was reading it, Shakespeare writes in such a way that you must read a sentence over five times before grasping the whole concept he has brought forth. The only other real Shakespearean play I have seen is Romeo and Juliet. The Merchant of Venice is very different compared to Romeo and Juliet, which took me some time to get used to. The Merchant of Venice wasn’t exactly what I was expecting, but after reading it a few times I love the plot to this play because of the action and drama it is filled with.
While I was searching through many different reviews of the movie, I found many different mixed feelings on this play. A lot of people were confused to why this play was sought to be a comedy, when there were no real funny scenes. But it is considered a comedy because it ended happily for the most part, where a Shakespeare’s tragedies usually end in death. This whole concept of Shakespeare’s comedy is not to have the audience rolling in the aisles, but to have them be satisfied when the play ends with a happy ever after ending.
There were a few differences between the movie and the play:
To start off I noticed that there were a few lines cut here and there from the movie that were originally in the play. The reason why some of these cuts may have occurred though was probably to help focus more on the main characters. By omitting some of the lines a richer flow to the movie was able to take place. Also I noted from one of the reviews I had looked at that some of the remarks made in the play were taken out of the play because they could be seen as racist today. These revisions that were found in the movie, I saw as improvements. After watching the movie of the Merchant of Venice I was able to understand what was going on and who was who. Also I was so glad to get to see the movie because while I was reading the play I was so concentrated on understanding the reading that I didn’t really pick up on what was really happening. Times have changed a lot since Shakespeare’s time and I’m so very glad to have a movie of his play because everyone should be able to hear the magnificent work of this wonderful writer.
Secondly, I noted that the opening to the movie was very different from the opening of the play. The movie opens with a scene of the Jewish people having to wear red hats among the rowdy crowd of Christians. Where, as the play opens right into the scene of Antonio complaining to his friends Salerio and Solanio about the sadness that has overtaken him. Beyond the opening scene the plot to the movie and the play stay the same.
The play in my mind after reading it and watching the movie is about self-interest versus love. One of the main differences between the Christian characters and shylock is that the Christians value more relationships over business and shylock favors business over relationships. Antonio lends money free of interest and puts himself at risk for the ones he loves, where as, Shylock cares only about his needs and desires. But in some scenes, especially Act III Shylock is seen to be hurt by his daughter who has sold a ring of his dead wife’s and is sad of the loss of the rings monetary value. This explanation of what I believe the play is truly about doesn’t exactly cover every emotion felt in the play. But overall the play shows in the end the unconditional love and friendship that truly makes this play a Shakespearean comedy.
The IMDb-The Internet Movie Database:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379889/
Jamie Russell(2002)The Merchant of Venice(2004)Reviewed on 9 March, 2008: http://www.channel4.com/film/reviews/film.jsp?id=139190
I’ve always been a fan of Shakespeare’s comedies, especially Twelfth Night and A Midsummer Night’s Dream. I knew certain lines from the Merchant of Venice, but I didn’t have any real desire to read it until it was assigned. Although this play is more tragic then technically funny, it does have a happy ending. When reading this play it was a little hard for me to get over the Anti-Semitism part, especially when it came to the relationship between Antonio and Shylock. Unfortunately a lot of the comedy in this play had to do with discriminating Jews, and is probably why I couldn’t find the play or the movie as funny as others might have. I did enjoy the Portia dressing up as a male lawyer to save Antonio’s life. I’ve noticed that Shakespeare has his women characters dress up as men to either display their true feelings to someone (Twelfth Night and As You Like It) or to become a lawyer in court (Merchant of Venice) since women had little rights during this period. I loved how Portia was the hero, so to speak, and was the only person smart enough to find the lope hole in Shylock’s agreement, by stating he could have one pound of flesh, without a single drop of blood. Of course this turned out to be impossible and Antonio was able to live. Overall the play was fairly interesting and had a few memorable lines. I must admit that the play was a little hard to get into at first, but like all Shakespeare plays once I got past the repetition it did get a little easier. However, I did enjoy the happy ending since that turned out to be the only really happy part of the play.
Watching the 1994 version of the Merchant of Venice made Shakespeare’s plays come to life. I always like watching the movie version of certain plays. It’s easier to understand what characters are trying to say when you are able to see their facial expressions and hear their tone of voice. Plus it makes the play a lot more interesting because you see what’s happening instead of imagining it. It’s also fascinating to see how people try to adapt a play. Some differences I noticed, was Shylock’s nose and Pacino’s interpretation of the character. They made Shylock’s nose, a little large, but natural. Some critics’ liked the fact that Michael Radford decided to keep the nose normal looking instead of cartoon big. Shakespeare, on the other hand, had used Shylock’s nose for part of the comedy and other adaptations have done the same. I personally liked the fact that they kept the nose smaller since it made the character more lifelike and if the nose would have been bigger it would have distracted me from the character as a whole. Also in the movie, Shylock was a larger character and certainly more tragic than the original. When Pacino starts the memorable line, “If you prick us, do we not bleed,” you start feeling for the character, no matter how greedy and ruthless he seemed in the beginning. People also tend to root for Shylock in the movie since he is more of a believable character instead of just a mockery. I do think Al Pacino delivery was deeper and more commanding than the play and I related to the character a lot more. Viewers felt that Pacino’s interpretation was a little too dramatic and focused more on his accent then anything. I know it must have been difficult to change one’s accent especially a strong Brooklyn one, but I honestly didn’t notice or really pay attention to his accent since Pacino gave such feeling that it almost didn’t matter. I also noticed that a few lines weren’t in the movie, but nothing really stood out as missing, and it didn’t change the overall feel of the play. I actually liked it a little better since leaving those few lines out helped with the plays flow.
Out of everything, I liked the cinematography and overall setting. Radford used color to portray the feeling especially during the darker scenes, like the courthouse when Antonio is being sentenced. You can feel the emotions just by looking at the background and camera work. At first, I did think there was a little bit of unnecessary nudity, but in doing some research I found that it was actually accurate. During this time, Venice had a law that required all prostitutes to bare their breasts since Christian authorities were concerned about homosexuality in their city. I guess you learn something new every day.
In general I liked this play and the movie’s adaptation, even though it would be interesting to see how someone might modernize it like other’s have done with Shakespearian plays. I wouldn’t call it one of my favorites, but I honestly love the line “If you prick us, do we not bleed,” and that the meaning can still be held true today.
Sources:
William Arnold.Seattle Post Intelligencer. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/movies/208708_merchant21q.html
Rob Blackwelder.Splicedwire.
http://splicedwire.com/04reviews/merchant.html
Ty Burr.Boston Globe.
http://www.boston.com/movies/display?display=movie&id=7262
Emily Schubert
The Merchant of Venice Assignment
The movie and the play do differ in a couple of ways. The movie does move faster than the play. The words spoken in the movie are much shorter and spoken in a more of a modern way. Another difference is that when reading the play the reader is focused on the words spoken, scenes are not set as in the movie. There is also a stronger relationship between Antonio and Bassanio in the movie than in the play. For example, the bedroom scene as well as many kisses and embraces throughout the movie. The relationship between Lancelot and his father was also greatly cut from the movie.
In my opinion this play is about love and marriage but it is also about money. Money is prevalent throughout the entire play. There is also a distinction of classes portrayed.
The review I read regarding the play was by A.O Scott in the New York Times.
Scott states that for the most part the movie follows the play as much as possible and that the first thing in adapting this play to a modern in movie is to tackle the role of Shylock. The way that Radcliff choose to do this was to contextualize. The beginning of the movie is text explaining the treatment of the Jews at that time. Scott’s last statement about the play seemed to sum up his whole review, “emotionally volatile tableau of cruelty and beauty, much like the rest of Mr. Radford's well-judged interpretation of this impossible play”.
Elyse Sommer wrote a review regarding the Merchant of Venice the play. Sommer begins by saying that it is a schizophrenic sort of play; that this is categorized as a comedy but also a tragedy of not one man but of all outsiders. She also states that this play depends on surprise for its full impact. Sommer felt that the production she reviewed needed to be more filmily establish shylock’s love fore his daughter
Scott A.O. December 29.2004. “Putting a Still Vexed Play in Historical Content”. The New York Times. http://movies.nytimes.com/2004/12/29movies
Sommer. Elyse. “The Merchant of Vencie”. A Curtain Up Berkshires Review. www.curtainup.com/b-merch html..
The Merchant of Venice www.rsc.org.uk
The Merchant of Venice Review
By: Tory Dyck
Shakespeare’s original play The Merchant of Venice and its movie adaptation are fairly similar however there are a few differences. To begin with the movie explains outright the Christians hatred and segregation of the Jews. It even goes as far as to have Antonio spitting on Shylock in the opening scene. Shakespeare never explicitly states the prejudice against the Jews in the opening of his play, but rather it is supposed to be assumed by the audience. Given the time when he wrote the play this would have seemed logical, but for today’s movie audience the film had to give a little background information. It is several minutes into the movie until we hear the actual opening lines of the play also. Some of the language is changed throughout the film to make it more understandable for contemporary viewers as well. The basic dialogue is the same but, it is smoothed out a little bit to make it easier to watch.
I thought the film reinforced the anti-semitic sentiments far more than the original play did. Shylock is dehumanized and called “the Jew” throughout the movie more so than in the play. Overall the movie shows us more things that Shakespeare’s original work does. The play requires you to read more into the story and between the lines whereas the movie spoon feeds you the details which is, I suppose, the beauty of film.
Seeing as we are not familiar with life in Shakespeare’s time I think that the movie does this necessarily and paints a clearer picture for this day and age. Al Pacino is great as Shylock and although he is supposed to be the villain, I came away feeling sorrier for him than feeling like he got what he deserved. I thought the play made it seem more like justice was served and didn’t evoke as much pity for Shylock.
In the end the play seems to be about the perils of greed and bitterness. If Shylock had only taken the ample money offered to him instead of holding onto his relentless grudges he would have come out a richer and less despised man, but his unwillingness to be merciful does him in. The play also speaks to the importance of friendship and love with several characters willing to go the distance for their friend or lover. The strong bond between Antonio and Bassanio as well as Bassanio and Portia prevails in the end.
Most of the reviews I read tended to praise the movie rendition of The Merchant of Venice. Reviewers seem to agree that Pacino does an amazing job portraying the anguish of Shylock as does Jeremy Irons in his role as Antonio.
There were a few differences between the movie and the play. First of all the beginning of the play and the movie are completely different. The play opens with the men talking to each other about why antonio was sad. The movie opens up with a little background on the relationship between the Jewish people and the Christians along with an explination about why the Christians would go to a Jewish man for a loan. This was not needed in the play since it was assumed that the audience knew about the relationship between Jews and Christians.
Another thing that is different is during the first interaction between Shyloc and Bassanio with Shyloc's explination of how he feels about Bassanio. In the movie Shyloc just says his words right to Bassanio's face while in the play all of Shyloc's words are an asside, he does not explain to Bassanio his contempt.
I will not lie to you and tell you that I both read the whole play and watched the whole movie, it was hard to follow in both forms and try as I might I had trouble understanding what it was they were trying to say. Shakespeare and I have been seperated by a common language.
Post a Comment