How Much Anti-Semitism is Too Much? How the audience is supposed to interpret Shakespeare's intent at presenting Shylock as either the stereotypical Jewish moneygrubber or an heroic and sinned against ethnic depends largely on the interplay of three factors: his original intent in writing THE MERCHANT OF VENICE; the then prevailing popular caricature of the Jew demon that Elizabethan audiences expected and demanded in their entertainment; and Shakespeare's propensity to delineate a complex character by combining a series of competing and occasionally puzzling motivations. In the 1973 version, Laurence Olivier plays Shylock as one who stands out from everyone else not only by his wildly varying deeds but also by his equally varying manner of dress.
That generations of audiences have chosen to see multiple layers of allegory is simply a testimony to Shakespeare's dramatic skill, but in this version, Olivier's stellar performance places an entrenched anti-Semitism front and center so that a time-warped Bard's contemporary audience would pay money to see their demon Jew thoroughly humbled. Modern audiences are politically correctly conditioned not to appreciate Olivier's homage to a previous century's viewpoint.
Though Shylock is flawed grievously in many ways, it is less obvious that everyone on stage seems flawed as well, and this flaw is a direct result of anti-Semitism practiced not only by Shylock. And it is here that Shakespeare decides to try what was daring then and still is now. On the one hand, he gives the audience their gloating over the humbled Jew, and on the other, he holds up the play as a mirror against which they could look into their souls to measure the depths of or lack of their common humanity. Despite the cutting of some key scenes, the audience can sense that the entrenched anti-Semitism of the 16th century was so prevalent that it disfigures and reduces the basic decency of both violator and victim. Antonio, an otherwise decent sort, torments Shylock for no other reason than Jew-baiting. Even Portia, (Joan Plowright), who is presented as the near apotheosis of just womanhood indicates her own incipient prejudice as she warns Shylock about not spilling any Christian blood. And what of Shylock? Shakespeare permits him to speak in his own defense, and Olivier comes through in more than one scene, but behind Shylock's inner pain the audience of Shakespeare's day had to be manipulated into overlooking that Shakespeare had to walk a fine line between portraying Shylock as one sinned against but still ensuring that by the close of the play he would emerge as one ground to dust. Olivier manages to walk this delicate balance in a manner better suited to the 16th century than to the 20th.
As Shylock leaves the stage for the last time, Olivier as Shylock leaves the audience with the seeming mixed message that prejudice erodes the humanity of all it touches. This magnificently staged production manages to convince Olivier's audience just as well as Shakespeare's own.
15th Century Morals Play. This tale takes place in Venice in 1596 and is told in the religious aspect of a morally decadent city. We hear early on that their world is "a stage where every man must play his part." The language has the cadence of Shakespeare as they recite the words instead of talking. Al Pacino as moneylender Shylock had an ununsual pronunciation of the word 'pirates.' The language was colorful though a little loquacious at times.
In the 15th century, "a good man has good credit" and could lose an arm or leg if he falters. Antonio, played by Jeremy Irons, foolishly borrowed a large amount of money so that his adored Bassanio can have a chance of winning the favor of the fair lady, Portia, and become a rich man. Many admirers cross the water to the island of Belmont, hoping to be the prospective husband. The estate had beautiful surroundings somewhere out there. One of the losers (chose a sparkling chest), remarked, "With one fool's head, I came to woo; I go away with two." Shakespeare had a way with words. There was a black swan in the water as they approached Belmont, but you can miss it if you blink.
The costumes were authentic, except for the topless some of the "not-so-nice" women sported. Pacino looked the part and his soliloquy about his need for revenge was good acting worthy of some kind of award. Joseph Finnes with expressive eyes as Bassinio was such a smooth talker and chose the right treasure chest. He had to borrow to get there but he won the fortune and the lady. His philosophy was "No man who has no music in him can be trusted."
In the meantime, his patron could not pay the bond and Shylock demands his pound of flesh. The courtroom scene was good, but mob rule put a damper on the mitigating situation which required an "outside" ruling. When it seemed that nothing would (or could) turn up to save Antonio, as the law upholds Shylock's revenge, a "made up" technicality surfaces at the last moment as the tides are turned. His venom is rebuffed, and we see how life has changed since the trial's beginning.
It was a typical Shakespearean ending with the matter of the virtue of a precious ring surrendered under pressing circumstances but finds its owner in strange ways. Bassanio feels he has been "well acquitted." The rest is written.
better production I totally agree with Robert Swinney, the version of this play with Warren Mitchell as Shylock is by far the superior production. What a pity that you don't present more than the one version.
Not the best adaptation, but a great play The reviewers who label this play a "problem" are applying modern day sensitivities to a play written hundreds of years ago when Shylock's part made perfect sense to the English audience. This adaptation does seem to skirt the issues and water down Shakespeare's portrayal of Shylock, as have many theater productions.
But it is important to see this production as a modern work, yielding to modern mores.
Yes, Shakespeare probably was anti semitic, but remember, England had banished the Jews earlier, so he had probably not known a Jewish person. And Shylock's oft quoted speech asking if Jews do not bleed, etc. like Christians actually ends with him calling for revenge, not as touching when taken in full.
This is a play that should be seen, and a movie adaptation that, while problematic and not really true to the play, should also be seen.
Seen with open minds.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz If you are ever having problems with sleeping, i suggest you buy this video. The scenes with Portia, Anthonio, Bassanio and other such characters just left me snoozing in the Lounge chair.
Olivier is superbhe lightens the screen, his performance trul Olivier, original, cretive and inspiring. His performance and that of Jeremy Brett's(playing Bassanio) i thought delightful.
Joan Plowright was awful, her incapability to grasp even the 2 dimesional Portia astounds me, and gives me cause to wonder whether Olivier was Drunk the night there affair began(v.probably), i'm sorry if this causes offence to any of her fans but hey, C'est La vie!
When Olivier does his dance (Hitler in second world war) this is a wonderful bit of creativity from Johnathan Miller. Buy it for Olivier and Brett's marvelous acting skills.
Anything Goes Trivia
Megaton Man
Tailipoe
Trevor
