Like many of you I studied Shakespeare in high school and college, but The Merchant of Venice was a play I’d never read or seen. I’d heard that it raised the issue of Anti-Semitism, but assumed it made a case against it. In the short time that I have been reviewing films I’ve more or less adopted the personal wisdom that a red flag should emerge when I feel that I ought to like something. After seeing Michael Radford’s film, however, I chose to ignore my own best advice. I kept thinking about the sequence of events in Merchant of Venice, looking at them one way and another, I even considered the possibility that Shakespeare was trying to incense the audience. Provoke a sense of moral outrage. But then why did he keep “telling” us that Shylock (Al Pacino) the Jewish money-lender, had brought this all on himself? Why did it hold him up to a higher code of conduct than his oppressors? (One of the oldest dodges around.)
Still I lacked the courage of my convictions. So I decided to Google it, and sure enough, discovered there are numerous scholars and critics (including Roger Ebert) who are convinced of Merchant’s cruel and distorted depiction of the Jews. Despite the fact that Shylock is abused and degraded repeatedly by Antonio (Jeremy Irons) he has the gall to ask for a loan. Shylock’s own daughter steals his money to elope with a Gentile, the point of his insistence is either ignored or completely missed in the courts (and worst of all, by Antonio) and he is summarily punished for even seeking propitiation, Draconian though it may be. Despite the fact that Shylock’s heart is broken over and over, he is treated with undeniable contempt and hubris by the principal characters and Shakespeare. Now, the fact that I was able to find concurring opinions doesn’t necessarily vindicate me. And there are folks who disagree. There is much more to Radford’s film than “Shylock: Whipping Boy for Ignorant Gentiles”. It’s just the most salient feature.
The premise of Merchant is pretty simple. Bassanio (Joseph Fiennes) goes to his close friend Antonio to borrow money so he can make a good showing when he proposes to his beloved Portia (Lynn Collins). Bassanio’s assets are tied up, so he must ask Shylock, whom he has spat upon and reviled on numerous occasions. So deep is Antonio’s affection for Bassanio that he agrees to part with the notorious “one pound of flesh” should the loan default in 90 days; which he assumes, of course, will never come to pass. The rest of the film concerns itself with the folly of “knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing”, the demands of romantic love, the meaning of loyalty and the rewards of persecuting infidels. Shakespeare does intriguing machinations with devices like female to male cross-dressing to explicate the underlying nature of love between men. Shakespeare’s men have always been forthright about their devotion and appreciation for each other, so it takes awhile before you realise that they’re playing with the flagrantly ignorant notion that we must choose between spouses and friends. That jealousy and intensity are inextricable.
As you’ve probably guessed by now, I can’t decide whether to recommend Merchant of Venice or warn you off. It is nearly flawless in its production, and makes accessible two of the hardest sells in the movie trade: a costume drama in Elizabethan English. Period pieces with this clarity and aptitude are rare. The costumes are witty, sumptuous, effective and like the performers, not overly concerned with glamour or presence. The actors are subtle, intelligent and convey meaning without getting overcome by textual lyricism. They’ve even managed to reign in Pacino, who is quite good, even if they may have discouraged some of his better instincts.
We have to assume Michael Radford was aiming for debate. He couldn’t have believed Merchant was going to fly as an equation for Jews and villainy (though that’s what it is) so perhaps like To Kill a Mockingbird and Imitation of Life, he was attempting to provide a mirror or wake-up call. But if so, why is the treatment so inappropriately slanted? The “If you prick us...” speech is sabotaged and “The quality of mercy....“ affected and condescending, like The Grand Dragon chastising Eldredge Cleaver. For the most part, it was really sickening. And maybe that was the point. But what if a Neo-Nazi or Klansman were in the audience? Would they get it? I was on Shylock's side. A bunch of shallow, sanctimonious goys robbing him of his self-esteem, restitution, assets, daughter, then chastising him in the bargain? Talk about chutzpah.