The Merchant of Venice Review
by Mark R. Leeper (markrleeper AT yahoo DOT com)December 30th, 2004
THE MERCHANT OF VENICE
(a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: A valiant attempt to do this Shakespeare
play while undercutting the story's prejudice, but
Al Pacino's acting style is all wrong for the 16th
century. Michael Radford tries valiantly but only
semi-successfully to subvert and redirect
Shakespeare's intent. Visually the film is quite
impressive. Rating: +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10
Michael Radford adapts the controversial Shakespeare play THE MERCHANT OF VENICE, perhaps the hardest of the Bard's plays to do today. The issue inevitably arises as to the story's apparent anti-Jewish nature. Radford's adaptation tries boldly to minimize its anti-Jewishness. He shows Venetian society of the late 16th century to be far more vicious toward Jews than the Jews were in return. Short of not adapting the play at all--and nobody is advocating dropping the play from the Shakespeare repertoire-- there is little that can be done to eliminate the negativity toward Jews altogether. It would be a pleasant fantasy that William Shakespeare did not intend THE MERCHANT OF VENICE to be anti-Jewish and intentionally left ambiguity in the play so that it could be interpreted positively. In my opinion a reading of the play does not give that as the intention of the playwright. However, great actors have, from time to time, tried to take the role of Shylock and distort it sufficiently to make him seem honorable and upstanding. The simple fact is that Shakespeare was a man of his time and possessed attributes that today would be interpreted as faults. In spite of Shylock's protestations earlier in the play, in the courtroom scene it is very difficult to interpret him as having any decency. The best an actor can do is put as much emphasis as possible into the "Hath not a Jew..." speech and then underplay the courtroom scene.
Al Pacino, however, cannot underplay any scene. In the courtroom scene he is as detestable as Shakespeare would have wanted. Pacino has a very forceful presence. And though he is a good actor in a 20th century role, in my opinion he is much less appropriate for historical roles. Radford disproves the syllogism "Shylock requires a good actor. Pacino is a good actor. Therefore Pacino would be a good Shylock." He can possibly look right, but his voice style is all wrong.
Radford beautifully recreates Venice of 1586 with its somber chambers and its bare-breasted prostitutes. But the mood of light frivolity that Shakespeare intended for this "comedy" would be impossible for any director to achieve in the modern world.
The attempt to use modern diction is only partially successful. Listening seems more effort than it was in MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING, which is my standard for making Shakespeare accessible. Also, perhaps Portia should have been cast as someone who could be a little more masculine-seeming. Lynn Collins is much too feminine to convincingly be taken for a male. I have said little about Jeremy Irons. His role curiously is not that pivotal. The only scene in which he does something noteworthy is when he spits on Al Pacino's Shylock. The part calls for someone who can spit on a Jew and still retain audience sympathy. Few could do it and the usually urbane Irons seems wrong. It is hard to think of Irons as anything but an elegant gentleman far above spitting on other people. Perhaps he carries with him too much dignity from previous roles. It is like seeing Laurence Olivier in a nude scene.
In spite of all Radford's attempts, this play reminds us that Shakespeare had bigoted opinions and while Radford does not, the play still has some of the original nastiness. I rate this adaptation +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10.
Mark R. Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2004 Mark R. Leeper
More on 'The Merchant of Venice'...
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
