Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 21 of 21

Thread: the merchant of venice

  1. #16
    This literature work is considered a comedy because the protagonist lives (Antonio lives). :P (I asked my English teacher.)

  2. #17
    Registered User Gritt*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    7
    Angie, you can say that Merchant of Venice is, as you said, JOKE...that you don't like it...to say why....to say what would you do to make it better...but you can't say Shakespeare is a JOKE, it's too...rude. In my opinion, MOV is great piece, I personally like it very much, it's maybe a bit problematic or satiric in some parts, but it's great, without longer discussion.

  3. #18
    Of Subatomic Importance Quark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,368
    Quote Originally Posted by StudentialKevin View Post
    This literature work is considered a comedy because the protagonist lives (Antonio lives). :P (I asked my English teacher.)
    Yes, the literary definition is slightly different from the usual first definition today. Normally, when we say comedy, we're thinking of a goofy movie where Ben Stiller gets hit the crotch by a flying object for the amusement of the crowd, or a dopey love story between two clumsy, awkward people that have a series of mishaps before getting engaged. This isn't really what's meant when we refer to Shakespeare plays. A comedy in the literary sense is just a story where the protagonist somehow succeeds, and the story ends on an emotion high point. Whether this is comical or not isn't really relevant.
    "Par instants je suis le Pauvre Navire
    [...] Par instants je meurs la mort du Pecheur
    [...] O mais! par instants"

    --"Birds in the Night" by Paul Verlaine (1844-1896). Join the discussion here: http://www.online-literature.com/for...5&goto=newpost

  4. #19
    Registered User Gritt*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    7
    Yes, completely true.

  5. #20
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1

    It is not a "comedy about racism" it is anti-semitism

    Quote Originally Posted by Marie View Post
    Perhaps this is not a racist comedy, but a comedy about racism. Only when we allow ourselves to look at the world with some humility and humor are we prepared to make the changes necessary to make it a better place. I don't think Shakespeare is anti-Semitic, I think he is writing a play about anti-Semetism. <br>Also, look at it in the context of the day.

    As the great critic Harold Bloom has declared, "One would have to be blind, deaf and dumb not to recognise that Shakespeare's grand, equivocal comedy The Merchant of Venice is nevertheless a profoundly anti-semitic work."

    The debate is so old it should have its own place in the Shakespearean canon. Is Shylock, the Jewish moneylender who demands a "pound of flesh" from a debtor, a villain or a victim? Every time The Merchant of Venice is staged, the debate is restaged along with it. Does Shakespeare's play merely depict anti-semitism, or does it reek of it? Is the Bard describing, even condemning, the prevalent anti-Jewish attitudes of his time - or gleefully giving them an outlet? The papers of a million A-level students are marked forever with such questions.

    Yet now they have a new force. Because the Merchant is playing in a new medium, making its debut as a full-length, big-budget feature film - complete with a top-drawer Hollywood star, Al Pacino, in the de facto lead.

    The film declares its own intentions early. The pre-credit sequence, complete with Star Wars-style scrolling text, seeks to contextualise. The opening image is of a crucifix, rapidly juxtaposed with the sight of Hebrew texts put to the flame. The words on the screen tell us that "intolerance of the Jews was a fact of 16th-century life". To prove it we see a mini-pogrom, with a Jew hurled from the Rialto Bridge.

    It's clear that director Michael Radford does not want to make an anti-semitic film. But he has big two problems. The first is the play. The second is the medium.

    Start with the play. We may want it to be a handy, sixth-form-friendly text exposing the horrors of racism, but Shakespeare refuses to play along.

    There is no getting away from it: Shylock is the villain, bent on disproportionate vengeance. Crucially, his villainy is not shown as a quirk of his own, individual personality, but is rooted overtly in his Jewishness.

    Thus, he is shown as obsessed by money, a man who dreams of moneybags, whose very opening words are "three thousand ducats". When his daughter betrays him and flees with a Christian lover, it is her theft of his money which is said to trouble him as much as the loss of a child. "As the dog Jew did utter in the streets/'My daughter! O my ducats! O my daughter!' "

    Since the laws that barred Jews from almost all activity besides finance had led to the stereotype of the avaricious Jew, Shakespeare is dealing here not with a specific trait of Shylock the man but an anti-semitic caricature.

    So it is with his demand for revenge, playing on the ancient notion of the Jews as a vengeful people ("An eye for an eye ... "). The same is true of the very forfeit Shylock demands from Antonio. A Jew seeking Christian flesh is surely meant to stir memories of the perennial anti-semitic charge, known as the blood libel, that Jews use Christian blood for religious ritual. Above all, it evokes the accusation that fuelled two millennia of European anti-semitism - that the Jews killed Christ.

    Radford can dress his film up as prettily as he likes - and the costumes, Rembrandt lighting and Venetian locations certainly ensure that his Merchant is lovely to look at. But he can't dodge this hard, stubborn fact. Shylock's villainy is depicted as a specifically Jewish villainy. "And by our holy Sabbath have I sworn/To have the due and forfeit of my bond." Macbeth's murderousness is not a Scottish trait, nor is Hamlet's indecision a Danish one. But Shylock's wickedness is Jewish.

    Doubtless, like the play's other defenders, Radford would cite the bad behaviour of the Christian characters and Shylock's legendary, humanising "Hath not a Jew eyes ... " speech. But these defences don't really work. If Antonio, Bassanio and the rest act badly, the play's assumption is that they have failed fully to honour their fine and noble faith, Christianity. They are being bad Christians. When Shylock acts badly, Shakespeare suggests he is fully in accordance with Jewish tradition. Shylock plots Antonio's downfall with his friend Tubal, promising to continue their dark talk "at our synagogue".

    As for Shylock's renowned apologia, it brings only little sympathy. For it turns out to be an "over-clever" defence by Shylock of his own bloodlust - an argument that, since Jews are the same as Christians, he is entitled to exact the same revenge they would.

    So the film-maker has a problem with the play he has chosen. But - and this may be the bigger surprise - he has deepened his trouble by making a film.

    For the very nature of the medium aggravates the traditional dilemmas of staging The Merchant of Venice. We may want to dismiss Portia and friends as ghastly airheads, in contrast with weighty Shylock, but that's tricky when they are played by beautiful A-list film stars, in gorgeous locations accompanied by delightful music. How can we do anything but sympathise with Antonio, when he's played by Jeremy Irons - exposing his chest to Shyock's knife in an almost Christlike pose?

    Film is an emotive medium, uniquely able to manipulate through lighting and music as well as words. Shylock's daughter lives in a dank, dark hellhole when she is still a Jew; once she betrays Shylock and converts to Christianity, she is shown in the flush of youthful love and only in the most sumptuous of locations. Even if she gives the odd rueful stare into middle distance, hinting at loss, the visual language of the film is that joy, laughter and sex live on the Christian side of the ghetto wall. Among the Jews there is only brooding sorrow and malice.

    More importantly, Shakespeare is simply experienced differently on stage. Even when it's not at the Globe theatre, we understand when we see a Shakespeare play that we are seeing a historical artifact, written several centuries ago. Instantly that provides some context: these were the attitudes of the time. That sense is diminished in the most modern of forums, the cinema. To hear the words "dog Jew" shouted on Dolby Surround speakers; to see a Jew fall to his knees and forced to convert to Christianity on a wide screen, cannot fail to have a different, and greater power.

    That doesn't mean that such scenes should never be shown on film. On the contrary, there should be films that take on anti-semitism. But Michael Radford is not in that game. Amazingly, he told last week's Jewish Chronicle, "I was never worried about the anti-semitism of the play."

    Many, though not all, of the critics have shared his insouciance. I suspect this is because they believe modern audiences have been so sensitised by the Holocaust that they are all but inoculated against anti-semitism. The result is that stories of anti-Jewish hatred take on an almost allegorical quality - as if they are not about Jews at all, but are, instead, parables for racism or intolerance in general. (Radford has hinted that his film should be understood in the light of the current collision between Islam and the west.)

    This might work if Shylock was, say, an Inca, or a Minoan - if, in other words, the Jews were no longer around. But Jews are still around - and so, unfortunately, is anti-semitism.


    Long live Israel.

  6. #21
    Registered User prendrelemick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorkshire
    Posts
    4,871
    Blog Entries
    29
    It is a play, more than any other, that allows you to interpret it in the light your own opinions and prejudices. A person who signs off "long live Israel" will see things, and is probably looking for things, that confirm his already formed opinions and experiences of anti-semitism.

    As a wishy-washy-left wing-liberal-pragmatist I watched a different film. I too, amazingly, was not worried about the anti-semitism of a 16th Century play, these are issues that don't impinge on my life, whilst there are other issues in the work that do. I watched it for the prowess of the actors, their interpretation of those familiar words, their manipulation of our emotions.

    Shakespere is for us a bit of a blank canvas, in his life and his works, we can paint on whatever we like, I think that is just one of the many reasons he is so great.
    Last edited by prendrelemick; 04-18-2011 at 08:15 AM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. A quiz
    By Taliesin in forum General Chat
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 01-21-2015, 04:29 PM
  2. Merchant of Venice
    By Rich in forum Merchant of Venice
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-04-2008, 10:44 PM
  3. Some questions for 'The merchant of Venice'
    By icon in forum Merchant of Venice
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-06-2007, 04:00 PM
  4. merchant of venice
    By jack mc jackerton in forum Merchant of Venice
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-24-2005, 06:07 PM
  5. The Merchant of Venice. Characters.
    By rex_yuan in forum Merchant of Venice
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-13-2004, 03:30 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •