|
|
Tonight, I caught the film adaptation of The Merchant of Venice. Back in college, I studied Shakespeare for a bit. I have read the play before, but I've never seen it performed -- in any form. My understanding is that this is the first time the play has ever been filmed. I guess that most people shy away from this particular work of Bill because of its anti-Semitism.
The play does have some anti-Semitic aspects to it; there's no doubt of that. It's not one dimensional, though. Shakespeare crafts Shylock to be more than a stereotype. Yes, he demands repayment of his loan with it's onerous terms, but it's the getting there. First off, he makes a very substantial loan to a man of means who should have no trouble repaying the amount, and he makes that loan at no interest. This is not the action of a loan shark. He also makes that loan even after Antonio has spit in his face, working actively against Shylock's interests.
What pushes Shylock over the edge is the loss of his daughter. She elopes with a Christian man, causing Shylock to lose his mind with grief and rage. He views the debt owed to him by the Christian as a stand-in for the man who stole his daughter (at least, in his mind).
Unfortunately, Shylock's character does present a number of stereotypical elements; when learning that his daughter is carousing with her new lover, he seems more distraught that she spent a large sum of money in one sitting than the detail that she was perhaps acting in an inopportune fashion.
And back to the film itself. The movie stars Al Pacino as Shylock, Jeremy Irons as Antonio, Lynn Collins as Portia and Joseph Fiennes (repeating in another Shakespeare flick) as Bassanio. Irons is very understated, and Fiennes is appropriately moonstruck in his pursuit of the winsome Collins. Pacino does his usual thing, chewing up the scenery whenever he gets a chance, but his rendition of the "Hath not a Jew eyes" monologue was quite gripping.
The sets and costumes of the film are up to the usual Merchant/Ivory standard that seems to be required for any period piece these days. For some reason, a number of scenes were either set in a brothel or immediately outside of one. While this allows the movie to show some bare flesh (thereby getting that coveted R rating), I'm not sure if it helps the story very much. It does imply that the Christians in the play were less than morally pure (see, they frequent a whorehouse!), I don't think that it added all that much to Bill's vision.
One of things that has always bothered me about this play is the ending. If it was a movie written for Hollywood, I would suspect that the ending was tacked onto the original story after a test screening where the audience said that Shylock's demise was too much of a downer. But who am I to criticize the Bard, eh?
All in all, not one of the best Shakespearean films I have ever seen (if you want a good one, check out Henry V or Looking For Richard, the latter of which also stars Pacino).
Watch time :57.
Posted by Casper at January 28, 2005 10:11 PM