The Merchant of Venice - love, revenge & comedy - plus variations on all three...

I studied ‘The Merchant of Venice’ as part of my junior English cycle at secondary (high) school. At the time, I held Shakespeare as more of a curiosity than something relevant to my life, or even to my educational development. I remember it striking me as strange that the moral concepts Shakespeare so adeptly and intelligently weaves into all his plays, were discussed last – after the words had been struggled through and ‘translated’ to a fourteen year old, and after the scenes and characters had been looked at and analyzed to a tee. Morality was left ‘til last, almost until the point when the play and Shakespeare had been dismissed by many of my young adolescent friends as ‘irrelevant’. Perhaps the proposed moral concepts should be discussed first, and then words put to such concepts to simply elucidate them.

This movie helps bring the moral concepts to the fore – they carry forward even with the diversions of the wildly colorful costumes and the elaborate settings. A sense of morality often evolves as the product of empathy, and it is seen to be easier to evoke such empathy while looking at a ‘real’ character, rather than a black & white sentence on a page.

_____________________________________________________________________


The Basics…

‘The Merchant of Venice’, directed by Michael Radford, is set in 16th century Venice, Italy. A very pronounced divide exists between Jews and Christians. The Jews are confined to the ghetto at night, and can only venture outside during the day, and only while wearing a red hat. Furthermore, the Jews are not allowed own any property and therefore generally make their living lending money. Shylock (Al Pacino) is such a Jew and moneylender. He thinks of little else but his pocket.

Bassanio (Joseph Fiennes) is an idealistic young man, with a passion for life and his exploits. Lately, he has discovered that the fairest woman (Portia – Lynn Collins) he has ever encountered is looking for her future husband. To travel to her, however, he needs money and he asks this of his best friend Antonio (Jeremy Irons). Antonio owns a number of ships, all presently out to see – all or none of which might ever return. Until his ships return, however, even Antonio is not in a position to offer Bassanio the money directly – he must visit the moneylender Shylock.

There is one problem – Antonio has a passionate dislike of Jews. In short, he is prejudiced. Shylock, in a wild attempt at revenge presents a deal – Antonio will either pay back the 3000 duckets in full over the next three months, or Shylock will be entitled to one pound of flesh nearest Antonio’s heart.


The Analysis…

The emotional depth of the characters in this movie took me by surprise. This is not purely a testament to Shakespeare, but also to the quality of the cast and the direction. I clearly remember that when studying the play, I came to understand that while Shylock has a glistening malicious streak, there is also a streak of misery that would make anybody feel sorry for him. Al Pacino steals the show for portraying both of these streaks superbly. He swings from absolute devastation to blind, ignorant self-righteousness. Although always tending to play the villain, there is something very different in the role for Pacino.

Antonio brings a dash of exhaustion to the film. As is demanded of him, he drags scenes down in mood and out in length – he is the broken man, rarely rising from the doldrums to recognize life’s value. That is not to say he does not recognize the value of love for he does, and indeed, the love he holds for Bassanio is what fuels the plot for the entire work. Funny that such love clouds Bassanio’s vision so powerfully that on one occasion, he forgets any other love – something which he may or may not pay for in spades.

The comedy of this movie lies with fair Portia in her palace, and such light comedy lies in stark contrast to the blackness being stoked and allowed to evolve between Antonio and Shylock. The casket scenes (in which one suitor must choose a casket from three, one of which contains Portia’s portrait and her hand in marriage) are more captivating and amusing than many others. The suitors agonize over which of the three caskets to choose, and observing her suitors make such a choice is quite a funny matter. Prince Aragon, the drinking rogue passionate about his appearance, is allowed choose a casket, as is the Prince of Morocco, the over-confident man of darker complexion. Lynn Collins plays out Portia’s sprightly personality to the fore very well indeed, and is perfect for the role. The Portia subplot, which in time will merge with the main plot, keeps a refreshing buoyancy in the tone of the movie.

All plots and subplots reach a climax at some point – and I truly don’t think such climaxes could have been done much better. The tension is metered well, building and waning as is appropriate, and in perfect sequence to hold the viewer’s attention. The movie has an R rating in the States, something that I find very surprising indeed! There is some nudity, but it is not even full nudity or love scenes – the breasts of the females characters are often visible due to the choice of dresses. I wouldn’t give this a passing thought, although I do realize that some just might. I would actually agree that it is ‘unsuitable’ for children in another sense, however – and that is simply that I think the language and subtleties would be lost on many of them. Keep this in the collection for a day when they are mature enough to appreciate what the movie has to offer.

So, what of the morality in this movie? The movie covers a huge number of aspects concerning human relationships – trust and betrayal, support and lack thereof, dependence and independence. It also covers the themes of revenge and justice, as well as the ill-defined dividing veil between them.

So, is it better to first read the play or see this movie of the play? In this case – see the movie. Always remember that it is never in the nature of a play to be enjoyed from a book – a book is merely the ‘skeleton’ of a living stage performance. Imagine that I studied this play as part of a three-year English course; yet this is the very first time visuals have been there to breathe life into, and add further meaning to, the words. One aspect of my education to frown on, I dare say. In the absence of a local stage performance of this play (I have never seen this on stage), by all means rent/buy this movie – it certainly lives up to the potential of the pages.