Printable View
I agree with nphearts on this issue, every single aspect mentioned is an integral part of the play. The "redundant" or "fluffy" act five is necessary in a way because it concludes what happens when people take risk on finance and other fancies. The fact that the play ends in an uncertain tone makes it so that Shakespeare doesn't explicity say whether you should take risks or not, he merely exposes the issue
Everyone seems to be focusing on Shylock and other characters as the main focus of the play, but we need to consider that Shakespeare named the play The Merchant of Venice, referring to Antonio, and he did so for a reason.
My personal opinion is that the play starts with Antonio, and then several storylines branch out from him (Bassanio's, Portia's, Jessica's, Shylock's, etc.). These storylines then continue pretty much without Antonio's presence (except that little scene 3 we did our essay on). When the storylines all converge, it is when Antonio is in trouble at the trial. He also is present, though not a major player, in the resolution scene. He seems to me to be the Nick Carraway of the play (The Great Gatsby), where a lot of stuff happens around him, but he is not the most important or most interesting character in the events. Also, just like Nick, his character seems to determine the course of events and have an indirect influence on most of the play.
Oh, but this play was entirely a comedy, Shaush! The difference between tragedy and comedy is very, very thin, especially when you bring dark humour into the picture. While Shylock's ultimate fate of being rejected by all is tragic, it is, in a sense, cruelly comedic. It's an excellent juxtaposition of his state earlier in the play, when he was confident, angry, and powerful, comedic in the sense that it is, indeed, cruel. Sadly, cruelty is an important quality of humour -- where else would we get slapstick from, and the typical insulting style of stand-up that remains prevalent in these days?
When the audience of this play is considered, I think we have to see this play as a comedy. This play would have been performed in front of tired workers looking for some entertainment after work. The fact that the play is set in Venice and Belmont creates a huge feeling of detachment from the daily life in London. The people in the play are talking about more money than the average Londoner would make in a lifetime, so why would a Londoner worry if the rich merchant died? I don't think the average Englishman would care if something bad happened to Shylock or Antonio, so they would probably be more inclinded to laugh at their problems than sympathize with their problems.
i agree with selena in that this play is a very dark comedy. shylock's fate is undoubtedly tragic - but in a very ironic and slightly comical way. not in a 'haha stupid jew way' that shakespeare might have written is as but more so 'haha selfish old man' way.
I think this play is a comedy within a tragedy. The tragedy is the general backdrop of Venice at the time portrayed very clearly through Anti-Semitism and the nervous tension of a society obsessed with money. The tension and problems that arise between Antonio and Shylock are representative of the general conflicts occuring over money, class, and religion at the time. The issue of Jessica leaving her father and abandoning her religion in pursuit of love of a Christian is also a great tragedy. Amidst the tragedy playing out in Venice, a comedy folds out in Belmont as Portia attempts to secure the right suitor. Although comedic, her story also has a sense of doom in it as she deals with the possibility of being stuck with a bad suitor for life. The comedy and tragedy tie in when Antonio is forced to risk his flesh for the sake of Bassanio and Portia living happily ever after. In the end, the tragic state of Venice that the play began with is worsened for Shylock, but for the others all immediate tragedies are resolved when Portia wins the case for Antonio, making everything right for the weddings in Belmont.
Very dark comedy...I think Trajedy fits in this category. In my opinion, Shylock is the protagonist of this play as well as the trajic hero. And in the end, he loses everything he has, his wealth, his daughter, his religion. I guess you could say its dark comedy since it is ironic.....Quote:
Originally Posted by ggjj
I think you are basing your interpretation way too much on the interpretation of whoever created the movie(s). Actually, I don't think you have ANY interpretation of your own. All of this aside, I think warf does have somewhat of a point. As zdiggy pointed out earlier, for the people that this was written for, this would have been considered expected and probably somewhat comedic. The flim interpretations bring about a much more modern, non-anti-semetic approach to the apply, which was not what Shakespeare intended for his play. This is definitely a Shakesperian comedy, although it may not necessairily be what we consider today a comedy.Quote:
Originally Posted by sidwarf223
I still cant seem to grasp the comedy
I mean if for whatever reason an audience did find this comedic, I'd see it as tradgic that they thought so because it says a lot about the society in which they live and can just laugh at such serious matters of love and religion and a loss of both.
Also, the fact that comic relief, as in the Duke of Aragon and his random Spanish-y dancing in the movie, hits on the idea that the play is serious and needs bouts og humor to make up for it.
Exactly, FengShui. Although...tragic heroes usually come out on top in the end, don't they? They die, or are at least spiritually broken, yet they win against evil in the end. Hardly the case in Merchant.
I do think that dark humor is sometimes the best kind, but I really didn’t see this play as strictly a comedy. Sure, there were several aspects of this play that were amusing and a great deal more that were ironic, but the whole affair with Shylock seemed much more tragic than comedic. I guess I feel this way for several reasons, one being the fact that Shylock was antagonized before he became an antagonist. If one is serving a punishment for a crime that one did not commit, what is to stop one from going ahead and committing the crime? Why should he continue to passively put up with the punishments he is receiving simply for being a Jew? The other aspect that makes me feel that this play defiantly has a strong tragic flare is the dealing with Jessica. Without the betrayal Shylock feels after his daughter (& his ducats) have suddenly fled – he would be the antagonistic, bloodthirsty, cruel Jew. But he has lost something very precious to him. He loved his daughter and she has run away with the enemy – his persecutors – a Christian! His reaction of an intense bitterness is natural and saddening. On top of all this – he is left with absolutely nothing. Deprived of his daughter, his wealth, and most importantly – his religion and culture.
I’m not arguing that this play does not have comedic elements to it. But the light-heartedness going on at Belmont doesn’t lesson the tragic events occurring in Venice
I think svitta hits upon a lot of the problem in determining whether it's comedy or tragedy in that a lot depends on the interpretation. When we viewed the two different film versions, we got a totally different view of the characters and whether it seemed to be a comedy or tragedy. Shakespeare leaves enough open to interpretation to allow it to fall either way.
For example, depending on how Shylock is acted, he can either be completely filled with sorrow and break down in tears, or he could just act in a tragic way that is more reminescient of slapstick.
Who is this play really about?
I dont think this play is about any one character in particular because all the characters seems to be equally important in facilitating the plot of the play. They all somehow influence the main story. So, this play seems to focus more on the theme of religious conflict. It seems like Shakespeare built the characters and their personalities around the theme of this play instead of coming up with a certain fixed number of characters and then building the play around them.
i think the story didn't have a main character. it wasn't really about a character but about the events surrounding those characters. the characters and the plot change too often for that to be determined accurately
I thought it was really interesting how the two movies portrayed the play in very different ways. This shows how Shakespeare plays can be open to many interpretations..But how did he really want the play to be portrayed and which movie seems to be more accurate in portraying the characters, themes etc in this play?