the merchant of venice

[Marie]

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.

[Jess]

I can understand why you question the play as a comedy as we know it. However, the definition of a comedy in Shakespeare's time was different. Maybe you should look this up? Also, the question of racism is much more complicated in the play. Shylock is a usurer first and a Jew second. Of course the play deals with Racism, but Shylock is hated more for his job, as money was more important in Venetian society. I suggest you read lots of published critics on the play so that you can understand the complicated issues which are presented in the play. Finally, I believe Shakespeare intended Shylock to provoke sympathy in the audience (which is what you seem to feel) so that he is not just the evil Jew the Christians view him as.

[Claire]

a comedy in shakespearan times was a play that ended happily e.g antonio didn't lose the pound of flesh? a tradegy e.g romeo & Juilet where the ending is not so happY! R u self taught?

[Paula]

You have to realize the time this was written in, and not assign modern day morality to it.

[averil]

hey gid just like to say u are really really right and i think and respect u , u have really mad me realise how cruel and inhumane racism is, have u seen cruel intentions, that was a really good comedy, and there is some really mean racism in it! i was shocked. but all in all this play was good and i understand your point of view, and i respect you for saying it like it is.

[J.M.]

Like some of Shakespeare's other plays, Merchant of Venice is open to interpretation. A lot of people think that Shakespeare was making an effort to show people that Jews were people too. Even so, it just so happens that Shylock was a bad person, and as such, he does not get a good ending. But he gives a speech that would have actually made people in Shakespeare's audience think, where he points out that he's human to-"If you prick us, do we not bleed?..."etc. And Shakespeare was most certainly not a joke. I think it's sad if you really think that. Maybe you should go to the trouble of reading more of his plays and trying harder to understand them. He was a brilliant playwright who really understood human nature. I don't like that Shylock was made to change his religion, you can't make someone become a Christian, because it's about having a relationship with Jesus. But all the same, that was how people were back then, and just because we don't like history doesn't mean we can ignore the bad parts of history and just change them.

[MattyGabe]

Listen, I understand that racism is bad, and I don't support it in any way, but I mean come on. You know yourself that the world isn't sugar-coated. If it's not sugar-coated now what makes you think it was back then? Racism is unfortunately going to be here in the future, hopefully even less prevalent that now (though I believe many make it seem more so than it truly is), so stating that this play should not be read in classrooms is a disgrace.<br>And I also believe that the statement said above, about how "...this is not a racist comedy, but a comedy about racism..." That really puts it in the correct frame of mind. How must we overcome something if we cannot laugh and joke about it? I understand some racist jokes are out of line, but in this play it is very, very obvious where they are and what lines are drawn by the racism, it becomes so silly that it must be a comedy to be laughed at. I highly doubt William intended any psychological harm to any group of people when it was written, I mean after all it was written for entertainment purposes. This was, in a sense, their form of a modern movie or television sitcom.<br><br>In closing, I think people like yourself must lighten up, and actually embrace something that doesn't quite rub you the right way for once. The world is not sugar-coated, stop acting like it should be.

[Unregistered]

A play that is classified as a comedy means it ends in a happy ending. Not a happy haha joke.

[Lauren]

Firstly, in Shakespeare's time, a comedy was pretty much considered a play in which no one was killed. Also, when Shylock is called a Jew negatively, I think that Shakespeare is trying to portray certain characteristics and traits of common people in his day. To him, a Jew was notoriously greedy, stingy, and selfish. However, this does not apply to all Jews in his time and certaintly does not apply to all Jews today. Lastly, if you're saying that Shakespeare is the only author who has ever written racist remarks, that is totally untrue and many modern authors are racist. It is unfortunately a common trait that is present in many authors and therefore is present in their literature.

[Unregistered]

Comedy doesn't mean it's funny!!!!!! Most comedies include humor, as does this at several points, but that is not its function! Comedy does not mean it's supposed to be funny!!!<br>

[Jess]

Okay, so maybe it wasn't the funniest thing in the world, but there were some sarcastic moments and what not. You also have to remember that in Shakespearean times, a play assigned the title of a "comedy" was just a play that ended well. I too found myself wondering why it was called a comedy when it wasn't funny. Until I asked my english teacher, then I understood! So in answer to your question, it doesn't have to be funny to be considered a comedy.

[David]

A Comedy in Shakespears time is a play with a good or happy ending but i think that this can not be a happy ending as the endding is anti-Semetic

[Unregistered]

<br>I agree with Paula's comment (April 16th 2003). Back in Shakespeare's time racism, prejudice against different religion's and other issues dealt with in The Merchant of Venice were all acceptable. Back then, 'racism and cruelty' was considered a comedy, so get with the times lady!!<br><br>P.S. the world is full of people who are against all sorts of things and no matter how hard you try, nothing is really going to change. thats the sad reality, so accept it!

[Amy]

I agree with most of the people who have responded already, Shadespeare isnt trying to be mean to Jews, although he may have had some prejudices against them because that is the time he grew up in. But he is a brilliant author who can portray aspects of the human condition and get you thinking about them without you even realizing it! Thats why Shakespeare is a genious, and thats why you need to really study his plays instead of make quick judgments about them.

[angie]

this is supposed to be a comedy! whats so funny about rascism and cruelty? whats funny about making someone change there religion? shakespeare is a joke!!

[StudentialKevin]

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

[Gritt*]

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.

[Quark]

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.

[Gritt*]

Yes, completely true. ;)

[israel]

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.

[prendrelemick]

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.