last night: william shakespeare’s “the merchant of venice”
this is a handsome production which will likely finally be remembered only for pacino’s against all odds, restrained performance as shylock, giving us a hint of what might have become of him had scarface never happened. the film, of course, has a higher ambition than that and that is to take the play and make it about anti-semitism rather than a play shot through with the racism of its time from which only its poetry somewhat ambivalently rescues it (which is how i read it when i read it last). this sort of shift of emphasis in production is, i suppose, par for the course in the theater and i don’t really have a huge objection to it. but there are specific things that happen at the very beginning of the film that are not in the play, and which, while not huge, make me question if this is william shakespeare’s the merchant of venice. (and there are larger problems too–of which, more below.)
the film begins with a series of captions that contextualize the treatment of jews in late 16th century venice, their practice of usury, and their second-class citizenship. the film, unlike the play, then begins with a scene in which shylock and other jews are standing on the rialto, being harried and threatened by christians while a firebrand preacher denounces jews from a boat below. a jew is thrown off the bridge, others are roughed up–in the middle of the fray shylock spies antonio and seems to begin to appeal to him for help only for antonio (jeremy irons in a wonderful performance) to rear back and hawk a prodigious amount of spit at him. the camera pulls back and only then does the play as written begin in the film. i almost expected shylock to turn around and say, “see, what else do you expect me to do after this?” in other words, the film “explains” shylock (and this continues, especially in the scenes before and after his daughter jessica takes off with a goy). now, there’s nothing wrong with this per se, and i think there’s a great film to be made which returns to the story and re-writes it completely, but this isn’t shakespeare’s play–in the play shylock has his speeches, his moments that give glimpses of the long simmering anger behind his actions but these cannot be separated from everything else in the play that is shot through with anti-semitic imagery and language. in other words, it is fine to mount a production of the merchant of venice that makes it a critical examination of anti-semitism but not to in the process try to absolve shakespeare of it or to make it seem like this is what he was doing all along.
the film does this partly through specific cinematic elements: the point of view shifting as the camera pulls back and moves around in the space between and during speeches–the most effective instance is at the end of the courtroom scene when portia (as balthasar) looks on critically at the treatment of shylock by the citizenry of venice–he is again shoved and spat on as he tries to exit. portia seems to be the representative of the modern, enlightened viewer in this scene–but the film doesn’t register the contradiction with the fact that she has in fact (in her own words and actions) just cheated shylock out of his justice, and gone much further to dispossess and completely humiliate him. portia is the character in the play that we likely identify with, its intelligent center, but this identification implicates us–shakespeare’s portia is not innocent of the racism of her time or of the play. the film, however, lets its audience off the hook by overlaying another, more modern portia over this. this becomes clearer when we look at the film’s other departures from shakespeare on the question of race, which also center around portia. portia’s famous dismissal of the prince of morocco after he chooses wrongly, “may all of his complexion choose me so,” is gone. also gone is the incidental racism in bassanio’s soliloquy at the moment of his choice, as he scorns the “outward show” of the gold and silver caskets, comparing them to a beautiful scarf “veiling an indian beauty”. ( i don’t mean to suggest that i know all of shakespeare in my head–i read the merchant of venice in the 1oth grade and haven’t yet gotten over it.)
then there’s the film’s depiction of the prince of morocco. in the play he is essentially two speeches, the floweriness and superficiality of which pre-figures his choice of the gold casket, but still (at least to my 10th grade eyes) an impressive figure. in the film morocco is played as a ridiculous fool (now for all i know this is par for the course in merchant productions,) with a thick accent and a retinue of other ridiculous fools–all in all he seems like a figure out of a minstrel show. the film’s addition of this characterization while excising portia’s own racist dismissal of him is troubling. yes, the prince of aragon is likewise caricatured but it has a different valence in a film that is filled with other white characters but only has the one speaking black man.
what we’re left with, to be repetitious, is a film that contextualizes the anti-semitism of the merchant of venice for modern viewers but drains it of those troubling elements which might make those modern viewers somewhat uncomfortable with themselves. in other words, the film doesn’t just absolve shakespeare (by calling itself william shakespeare’s “the merchant of venice”) it also absolves the contemporary viewer. we watch and say to ourselves, “what fools these venetians be” (oooooh reference to different play!).
rather than end on a clever line let me, to be fair, also mention the things i liked about the film: the set design and costumes are excellent, the performances uniformly good (among the minor characters i especially liked gareth out of “the office” as launcelot gobbo,) and i liked the way in which it brings out the fact that antonio and bassanio are completely hot for each other (again this may be a chestnut in “merchant” productions–i’ve never seen one). i also liked the way in which dialogue is handled–this is the rare shakespeare production which uses his verse but has actors who don’t speak them as though they’re on stage. but these things don’t, to my mind anyway, make up for the shortcomings listed above.
thoughts?