The Merchant of Venice (2004)

[hengcs]

Pardon me if you happen to like this movie very much.
I do not.
;(

The movie as a whole ...
-- I did the book "The Merchant of Venice" as a literature text in 1986. There were several scenes/acts in the book that gripped me. But, when I watched the movie, there was NO such tension at all. The beginning even felt like a drag. I waited for the famous "court scene", but frankly, it was NOT compelling. I recalled the casket scenes. But, I did not like the comical approach that was done in the movie. Surprisingly, the ONLY scene that I liked was the END when Portia asked Bassanio for the ring that she gave him!

The cast ...
-- The cast is supposedly strong, but I think either the director or cameraman did a poor job (in my very humble opinion). In simple terms, I do NOT feel much for any of the main characters: Shylock, Antonio, Bassanio or Portia.
Noteworthy, I felt that Jeremy Irons (Antonio) did a slightly better job than Al Pacino (Shylock) (pardon me if you are his fan). I really did NOT like the casting nor acting for Bassanio or Portia. The two simply did NOT have chemistry. I would not even comprehend why there are so many suitors for Portia, or why Portia really like Bassanio.

The set and the song ...
-- I really like the song in the beginning and near the end (NOT the song for the end credits).
;)
-- The director was allowed access to some famous landmarks in Venice!


In sum: I would rather read the book! At least I can imagine my own version of Shylock, Antonio, Bassanio, Portia, etc.

[Fan of Kubrick]

You have some good points and I agree with many of them, but I still enjoyed the movie. I thought that the movie had beautiful cinematography and I liked the way the director, Michael Radford did not stage the entire movie, but instead aired it out and gave it a close-up feel that most movies that come from plays don't have. Al Pacino was very good as Shylock in my opinion, as was Lynn Collins, who played Portia.

I'm not sure if it was Radford's intention, but instead of building tension up to a large and famous speech, it was natural and felt as if the speeches were part of what the characters normal dialogue. This made the entire movie feel flat, but it made it a bit more watchable for the non-Shakespeare types (I'm not one of them, I'm just pointing it out.) I have never read the play or seen it on the stage, so I'm not in shoes to compare it to either the written version or a live version, but as for this film version, I enjoyed it. I hope others enjoy it too.

[Chris Knipp]

I liked the movie. I can see how hengcs could find it flat, because it's an odd mixture, in some ways an artifact we don't quite relate to, but I liked that Radford didn't try to "update" it but gave it to us as it is. I read the play a long time ago. This made me see it in a completely fresh light. The play itself is peculiar; some people hate it or have great difficulty with it because of the anti-semitism, the pound of flesh, etc. It seems weird how the romantic comedy elements are interspersed with that, ending in Shylock's grim punishment, and then again the romantic comedy in the teasing of the men. What's it all mean? But that all these elements stood out so clearly is a virtue of Radford's version, and I agree with Fan of Kubrick that the dialogue is wonderfully integrated and the famous speeches become completely organic rather than arias. Everybody's good. Can't agree with hengcs on Portia--I think she's charming and very impressive; you can believe she'd carry off her amazing impersonation. Jeremy Irons stands out, but Pacino is superb. He has been so hammy in the past; here in a hammy role, he's strong and believable. That said, there are other Shakespearean films that are more moving and impressive and grand. This one is subtle. It makes you think, and confront the contradictions of the play.

I may write a longer review but those are my main points.

[Howard Schumann]

THE MERCHANT OF VENICE

Directed by Michael Radford (2004)

William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice is about a Jewish moneylender and his bond to extract a pound of flesh from the wealthy merchant Antonio, the forfeiter of a debt. The Jewish moneylender, of course, is Shylock and he is given such a towering performance by Al Pacino that even outstanding actors like Jeremy Irons, Joseph Fiennes, and Lynne Collins fade into the background. The film is set in 16th century Venice and director Michael Radford relies on setting, mood, and realism to tell its story, rejecting lavish period costumes or a modern setting with rock music to appeal to a wider audience.

Radford slices the play's three-hour length to a manageable two hours and eight minutes and also provides some historical background. In the opening narration, he tells us how Jews came to England, were subject to increasing persecution, and eventually expelled from England. They were forbidden to own property, could make profits only by lending money at interest, and were forced to live in a Venetian "geto", a forerunner of darker events to come. In the film, the merchant Antonio (Jeremy Irons) spits upon Shylock in public, yet feels no shame in going to the usurer to borrow 3000 ducats to help his friend and suggested lover Bassanio (Joseph Fiennes) to properly court Portia (Lynne Collins), a wealthy heiress. Though Shylock has been insulted by Antonio, he agrees to loan the money without interest for three months on the condition that forfeiture of the bond grants him the right to exact a pound of flesh from Antonio's heart.

The play is primarily a drama of hatred and revenge, but like many of Shakespeare's works there are touches of broad comedy as well. Here the comedy involves three pairs of lovers: Bassanio and Portia, Gratiano, Bassanio's friend, and Nerissa, and Lorenzo, another friend of Bassanio, and Jessica, Shylock's daughter. Portia has offered herself to the person who can pick the right treasure from one of three boxes, made of gold, silver, and lead. The Prince of Morocco chooses the one of gold, the Prince of Aragon the one of silver and both are disappointed. Bassanio, however, loves her for herself and opens the leaden casket to find the portrait within. Radford's adaptation conveys a remarkable feeling for time and place. Portia's residence at Belmont suggests one of those splendid summer homes complete with immaculate gardens and art treasures hanging in every room and contrasts well with the grungy look of Shylock's city with its dank alleyways.

When it becomes clear that Antonio cannot repay the debt, Bassanio returns to Venice, leaving Portia behind. When he arrives, the loan is in default and Shylock is demanding his pound of flesh. Even when Bassanio, backed by Portia's wealth, offers many times the amount in repayment, Shylock is intent on revenge not only for the loss of the money but for a lifetime of outsider status. The duke, who sits in judgement, will not intervene as Portia enters in the guise as a lawyer to defend Antonio. It is here that the film reaches its dramatic heights as all parties come to court to achieve a final resolution.

The Merchant of Venice is not only about an unpaid debt but also about the estrangement of Jews from Christian society and their desire for belonging. It has been one of Shakespeare's most controversial plays and analysts have debated for a long time whether it is an anti-Semitic play or simply a play about anti-Semitism that reflects the prevalent view of Christian society in Elizabethan England. Although Shylock is definitely a caricature, he is an ambiguous figure and there are many indications that Shakespeare views his flaws as human failings, not Jewish ones. The Duke recognizes that he is simply a man who has failed to adhere to the compassionate language of the Torah.

In the monologue, "I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? …If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?", Shylock shows a universal humanity, expressing the equality of all men. Though we are horrified at the sentence he wishes to carry out, we can feel his pain accumulated over the years. Pacino's performance brings new vigor to the text and his often over-the-top persona is replaced with a gentler, more understated demeanor that brings understanding to his cause.. During a Toronto International Film Festival interview last September, Radford said about Pacino, "…when you work with a brilliant actor, you have a great machine. It's a bit like driving a powerful car. You have to dare to do it." He has dared and we are the beneficiaries.

GRADE: A

[Chris Knipp]

Well done as always. I love the quote from Radford. I will try to write something of my own but later; don't want to just make it a reply to you, though I have a somewhat different take on the play's themes and structure and on how the film presents them. Nonetheless in many of your general statements I cannot better you or quibble in the least.


Shylock is intent on revenge not only for the loss of the money but for a lifetime of outsider status

Indeed; well put.

[Howard Schumann]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Well done as always. I love the quote from Radford. I will try to write something of my own but later; don't want to just make it a reply to you, though I have a somewhat different take on the play's themes and structure and on how the film presents them. Nonetheless in many of your general statements I cannot better you or quibble in the least. Thanks very much. I'lll be looking forward to seeing what your take is on the film.

[oscar jubis]

I think it's revelant to state I've had no previous exposure to Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice. I think it's a credit to Radford and the actors that the comedic aspects don't seem to detract from the tragic ones and that the lines don't give the impression of being recited. There's evidence here of a degree of effort and skill necessary for the actors to internalize the dialogue. I obviously have no idea whether or not (or to what extent) the Bard's text has been modified.

I find it odd that the play is titled after Antonio. The opening titles (which provide historical context clearly not contained in the play) and the opening scenes give the impression that Shylock is the protagonist and directed my sympathies toward him. I was also a bit perplexed as to why Antonio would accept such bizarre terms ("pound of flesh"). I don't think that arrogant overconfidence regarding his commercial prospects can justify it. It's all about his feelings toward Bassanio. Is it a romantic, carnal love? Is it reciprocated? Are we to assume that Antonio is homosexual? Why does Antonio seem so melancholic from the start? Is the chaste kiss they share meant to answer any of these questions? I was not made to feel the intense feelings Antonio must have for Bassanio in order to justify such sacrifice.

Let me bring up hengcs comments regarding not liking "the casting nor acting for Bassanio or Portia" and his finding the court scene "NOT compelling". My issue is with the casting of Lynn Collins as Portia because she simply cannot pull off a credible gender disguise (which is absolutely crucial during the court scene). Think how much powerful and credible the scene would have been with Portia being played by Tilda Swinton or Cate Blanchett, who had to be replaced with Ms. Collins because of pregnancy.

[Chris Knipp]

your comments are interesting as coming from someone by nature or by choice uninformed about the play...I think the homosexual element and indeed some of the melancholy that puzzle you are Radford interpolations. This remains a puzzling and intractable play for everyone, though. Radford goes a long way toward making sense out of it. True the intro about Jews could mislead, but that too is an interpolation that Radford justifiiably thought necessary for a contemporary uninformed audience (though many of us read this play in high school, and ought to know in general how Jews were treated in Europe in the 16th century--Radford is partly overcompensating to be politically correct about a play that is the ultimate in political incorrectness). I consider your objections to Portia and the previous one ludicrous. Many people think this Portia fabulous; one of the best things in the movie. The girl-posing-as-boy thing in the play is a Shakespearean convention seen numerous other places in his theater that people simply accepted; Tilda Swinton would hardly attract an international crew of wealthy suitors--remember? That's important: she's got to be sexy and young. Remember also that in Shakespeare's time boys played the parts of the women. Hence it becomes complicated, with perhaps double and triple ironies, but also simply a matter of known conventions -- and, of course, a difficulty of modern staging; but surely we too are capable of grasping conventions. In reality no woman would get away with Portia's feat, not even Tilda. The important thing is that Lynn Collins is really cool and I can't grasp why you guys missed out on that.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
The girl-posing-as-boy thing in the play is a Shakespearean convention seen numerous other places in his theater that people simply accepted; Remember also that in Shakespeare's time boys played the parts of the women. Hence it becomes complicated, with perhaps double and triple ironies, but also simply a matter of known conventions -- and, of course, a difficulty of modern staging; but surely we too are capable of grasping conventions.
I'm aware of this. Yet, I'm not watching a new staging of the play but a film adaptation and theatre conventions do not apply. Otherwise why not stage it in a theatre and film it as it's been done countless times (BBC's "Nicholas Nickelby", etc).

In reality no woman would get away with Portia's feat, not even Tilda.
I disagree. At the least, we should get the impression that those present in court could have been fooled. I had no problem with Collins prior to that plot twist. You're right about Swinton being perhaps too old.
Your comments seem to imply this is not one of Shakespeare's best, an opinion I've developed after reading some comments about it.

[Chris Knipp]

You may be quite right about both these things. These are debatable topics. Play into movie--big topic. Shakespeare on film--another big topic. We agree on Swinton vs. Collins now-- good. I think where the movie excels is in making the dialogue seem natural and organic, as you also said. On the staging vs. movie, I don't know--it's still a play with conventions built in, such as the girl-disguised-as-man one, particularly--that a filmic version can't entirely escape from. I believe in Shakes'eare's time staging was rather minimal, and the language did the job of stimulating our imaginations, without 'special effects.' Hence using special effects is kind of un-Shakespearean, but with a classic, there are so many possibilities for new versions. What I did like that is special to the movie is the rich Venetian background and costumes, the beautiful 'look.' Not Shakespeare's best--right, but it's till Shakespeare, and being despite the anti-semitism problem relatively simple, it lends itself to school use, hence it's still used in high schools and kids are still memorizing the "hath not a Jew eyes?" and "the quality of mercy is not strain'd" speeches as I did in high school.