Customer Reviews

William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice

5 star:		(52)
4 star:		(41)
3 star:		(16)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(11)

 

 

I approached this movie with some trepidation, mainly owing to the presence of Al Pacino as Shylock. The only Shakespeare I had seen him attempt was his lead in Richard III. I was less than impressed by his acting in that one. I'm also always a little queasy about seeing screen attempts at encapsulating a three hour Shakespeare play in a two hour movie.

While I wasn't exactly delighted at the outcome of this attempt, there is a lot to recommend, thanks to some sure handed British directing and acting. And Pacino underplays a role for a change (for the most part) and he handled his line readings with aplomb.

The problem with the script (and it is, along with MEASURE FOR MEASURE and THE WINTERS TALE, one of Shakespeare's "problem" plays to begin with, in that it is morally ambiguous) is the obvious anti-semitism surrounding the moneylender Shylock. The film actually opens with a kind of disclaimer reminding the audience that Renaissance attitudes towards Jews were not exactly politically correct. Shakespeare's script certainly bears this out, which is one reason it still attracts negative criticism on many college campuses.

The director (Michael Radford, who also wrote the adaptation) and cast handle this delicate issue rather adroitly. Pacino manages to elicit more sympathy than derision for Shylock. The only quibble I have with interpretation occurs in the trial scene, in which Shylock's insistence on Antonio's (Jeremy Irons) repayment of his debt (the famous pound of flesh) is rendered much more menacingly and realistically than I've ever seen it portrayed. It really does appear to be imminently possible that Shylock is going to happily flay Antonio alive before Portia or any other contravening authority, such as the the the Duke (acting as judge) can stop him. This is generally downplayed in stage productions, but on screen it comes across as all too real. It works as far as dramatic tension is concerned, but approaches "over the top" as far as aesthetic distancing goes(which is another of the underlying problems of transferring a text from stage to screen).

As far as characterizations are concerned, I was disappointed in only one director's choice. He cut the servant, Launcelot Gobbo's famous "Devil or Angel" monologue, which is one of the few truly humorous bits in the play. The scene with the younger and elder Gobbo almost made up for it, however, as Ron Cook serves up a marvellous comic turn as Old Gobbo.

The acting is generally excellent, in fact. Irons is solid, if not entirely convincing as Antonio. Joseph Fiennes does yeoman work as Anonio's bosom buddy, Bassanio. Lynn Collins as Portia is a positive revelation. Her transformation to young male lawyer is dead on. She plays a full range of emotions with utter ease. Hers is the one truly award worthy performance in the movie. Pacino does an outstanding job of remaining in character. The usual Pacino vocal and physical tics are nowhere in evidence. He obviously studied hard for the role and most of his choices are good ones. The cinematography, consisting mainly of shots of Venice in all its resplendance, is extraordinary.

Radford & Company certainly perform no disservice to the bard in this production, which is saying a lot, actually. I'd include it among some of the better recent attempts at bringing Shakespeare to the screen, along with Fishburn's OTHELLO and Branaugh's MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING. It's worth at the very least a rental when it comes out on DVD, but if you get a chance to see it in a theater first, I recommend you avail yourself of the chance, if only to fully appreciate the cinematography.

BEK

After the high school English Lit experience, I've never been a Shakespeare fan, so I've rarely seen any of those of his works that've been put on film. Mired in the bliss of almost total ignorance, I'll yet foolishly suggest that this Big Screen THE MERCHANT OF VENICE is perhaps the most sumptuous cinematic adaptation of any of the Bard's plays to date.

If you're completely without Cultcha and you don't know the plot, it's late 16th century Venice and the import-export merchant Antonio (Jeremy Irons) borrows 3,000 gold ducats from the Jewish moneylender Shylock (Al Pacino). The money goes to Antonio's chum Bassanio (Joseph Fiennes), who'll use it to impress and win the hand of the Babe of his dreams, the orphaned heiress Portia (Lynn Collins). But, Antonio suffers ruinous business setbacks and can't repay. So Shylock, remembering the public contempt shown to him by Antonio in the past and recently humiliated by the desertion of his only daughter to a Christian lover, insists that Antonio pay the penalty stipulated in the terms of the loan agreement, i.e. a pound of his own flesh, literally. And Shylock is prepared to go to the Duke's court to argue the legality of his case under existing Venetian statutes. Things look bleak and potentially painful for Antonio.

Filmed in Luxembourg and the decaying glory of Venice, THE MERCHANT OF VENICE is an extraordinarily lavish feast for the eyes. At times, as I found myself losing the thread of Shakespeare's flowery dialog, I found immense satisfaction in the production's glorious costuming and sets.

Pacino, who, in the past decade, has played cops, the Devil, a pro football coach, and a blind lecher, steals the show with an Oscar-worthy performance. He's perfect as the world-weary, embittered, vengeful loan shark literally and figuratively spat upon by the city's Christian majority. Indeed, the film's creators have done a superb job depicting a Jewish usurer's anachronistic social position in that time and place, i.e. both needed and despised at the same time. And Collins is a revelation as the clever and beautiful Portia, the one character in the piece with any brains compared to the hormone-driven and doltish males around her.

Besides the obvious lessons of the story, which are don't co-sign a loan with your best friend, don't play loose with your wedding ring, and always go for the cheaply wrapped gift box, I was left pondering the evident anti-Semitism of the plot. Indeed, had the play not been written by Shakespeare, and thus considered a "classic", but rather something churned out by a Tinseltown hack and put on celluloid, the Political Correct, regardless of the historical facts, would be howling about stereotyping to a degree that would perhaps dwarf the outcry over Mel Gibson's PASSION. The joyful prospect of witnessing the PC's discomfiture makes this a film worth seeing.

Shakespeare's plays are full of the stuff of Humanity and Life: Love, Hate, Revenge, Death, Jealousy, etc. But very few of his plays have all of these. "The Merchant of Venice" (Il Mercante di Venezia) is one. And Michael Radford's film of "TMOV" is bubbling over, roiling and rocking with the Stuff of Life: though considered one of Shakespeare's comedies, this version is a very somber and dark reading of the play: a very, very dark comedy.
Anyone filming or staging a Shakespeare play is faced with a dilemma: What do I do about the Language? Radford has directed his actors to speak in a natural and conversational manner yet they do not forget to savor the beauty or ignore the eloquence of the Shakespearean verse.
Portia's "The Quality of Mercy" and Shylock's "Pound of Flesh" soliloquies and Lynn Collins' and Pacino's readings of them are breathtaking in their eloquence, delicate phrasing and common sense rationality: they continue to have real power...the power to move us.
Venice in the 1600's is ripe for drama what with the Jewish population locked up at night and forced to wear red caps when amongst the general population, so as to be recognized and of course, ridiculed. But Jews were allowed to lend money and though not allowed to, charged interest on this money. And out of this ugly, discriminatory milieu comes Shylock (Al Pacino), who lends 3,000 ducats to Antonio (Jeremy Irons) so that Antonio can lend them to Bassanio (Joseph Fiennes), in essence so that Bassanio can marry the wealthy Portia (Lynn Collins).
Shakespeare characters are fully rounded individuals, neither all good or all bad: Antonio, though the essence of civility and nobility is also a slave profiteer and a bigot, Bassanio, though appearing to be a close friend of Antonio's thinks nothing of allowing his friend to enter into a dangerous loan agreement with Shylock and Shylock, though a third class citizen in Venice shows a great intellect and an all-consuming love of his daughter but ultimately loses sight of reason and mercy that makes him appear foolish and leads to his downfall. Shylock, as the oppressed is expected to exhibit nobility during the final scene that neither the court nor his oppressors would ever ask of one another. Shylock foolishly, though bravely expects justice from those who would segregate, taunt and revile him. This is strong, potent, dramatically viable stuff.
Shakespeare/Radford's "The Merchant of Venice" is a stunningly gorgeous and profound film made all the more important because it is so contemporary in feel, thought and more to the point, ambiguity. It is to Shakespeare and Radford's credit that a play written over 400 years ago can still have the unmitigated nerve to stick in our craw in a way few contemporary dramas can.

This is a good version of the play, but since I am a school teacher - let me give you a big heads up - there are a lot of bare-chested women in this that does nothing to further the plot. It's my husband's opinion that they are there so that men will watch the movie. The other problem is that this version is trying so hard to be politically correct that it bends Shakespeare's meaning to suit a twenty-first century audience. I feel this is done in such a way as to cause problems with the basic plot.

In 1596 in Venice, the decadent center of European culture, a young nobleman named Bassanio (Joseph Fiennes) has a plan to pay off his debts and find happiness in love at the same time. He wishes to marry wealthy young Portia (Lynn Collins), whose deceased father has dictated the method by which she will find a husband. There is to be a contest. Potential suitors must choose between three caskets: a gold, a silver, and a lead box, each inscribed with a riddle. The man who chooses correctly will have Portia's hand in marriage. Bassanio asks his friend and mentor, the wealthy merchant Antonio (Jeremy Irons), for a loan to finance his trip to Portia. But Antonio has no cash on hand, so he offers to guarantee a loan for his friend from a Jewish usurer named Shylock. Embittered by his ill-treatment at the hands of gentiles, Shylock (Al Pacino) agrees to the loan -on the condition that Antonio guarantee it with a pound of his own flesh if the 3,000 ducats are not paid in three months.

"The Merchant of Venice" is two stories loosely bound into one by some common characters and themes. There is the tragedy of Shylock and the romantic comedy of Bassanio and Portia. Characters cross between the two, but it is difficult to bridge the stories to the extent that they seem to be one. In a sense, Shylock's story demonstrates what happens when people hang onto their hatred, while Portia's story shows what happens when they don't. But that is, I think, as close as anyone is going to come to overcoming the binary nature of this play. Widely held opinion seems to be that "The Merchant of Venice" is difficult to adapt in this day and age on account of its unflattering Renaissance stereotype of Jews in the form of Shylock. I think the difficulty is found in the other story: Portia's motives are barely comprehensible and never clear. Bassanio and Portia's story is amusing enough, but it is a bit of a muddle at times. Lynn Collins does a wonderful job with Portia, though.

The idea that "The Merchant of Venice" is anti-Jewish apparently comes from Shakespeare's exploitation a Jewish stereotype for dramatic purposes, not from the substance of the play. "The Merchant of Venice" is an indictment of religious and ethnic persecution that portrays gentiles as self-indulgent hypocrites. But where the play is sympathetic to Jews and minorities in general, it is not sympathetic to Shylock in particular. Some people will disagree with me on that point. But Shylock is one of Shakespeare's great tragic characters, and, as such, he is more a victim of his own flaws than of external forces. He is a flawed man living in a flawed society that amplifies his imperfection. "The villainy you teach me, I will execute," Shylock says. And in doing so, he brings everyone's faults to light. To say that Shylock is merely reacting to a lifetime of mistreatment would do Shakespeare and Shylock a disservice, though. If he were not fully in control of his actions, the play would have no point.

This film's great strength is the courtroom scene in which Shylock and Antonio appear before the Duke to find out if he will enforce the bond that requires Antonio to sacrifice a pound of his person. Kudos to director Michael Radford for not copping out in this scene. I have sometimes seen it staged like an intellectual exercise instead of the clash of passions that it is. Radford plays the potential for violence for all it's worth, and it works brilliantly. Even viewers who know the outcome will wonder if Antonio is going to be eviscerated before our eyes. Al Pacino plays this scene perfectly straight and sober. I would give "The Merchant of Venice" five stars based on the courtroom scene alone.

"The Merchant of Venice" had something for everyone 5 centuries ago, and it's a testament to Shakespeare's talent that it still does. There is love, a beautiful young woman, and an undeniably funny challenge for her suitors. And there are hatred, bigotry, and one of Shakespeare's most complex and affecting characters. Director Michael Radford, a terrific cast and Benoit Delhomme's lovely cinematography bring it to life.

The DVD (Columbia/Tristar 2005 release): Bonus features include a documentary, a DVD-ROM, and an audio commentary. "The Merchant of Venice: Shakespeare through the Lens" (30 minutes) consists mostly of interviews with director Michael Radford and the cast in which they discuss characters, themes, and compare the media of theater and film. The DVD-ROM provides a web link to a Teacher's Guide. The audio commentary features director Michael Radford and actress Lynn Collins, who discuss shooting the film in Venice and Luxembourg. Radford talks about historical details, locations, characters, story, and his decisions. Collins talks about her experiences while filming and her reaction to seeing the film. The commentary has very few lulls, and is pretty interesting if you want to find out more about this interpretation of the play. Subtitles are available for the film in French.

Though I love Shakespeare, I am not a student of his work. So, any movie based on his work has to telegraph visually what I cannot pick up verbally. "Merchant of Venice" is admirable on this level. My Elizabethan ear occasionally failed me, but I missed very little of the thrust of the play.

The entire cast was absolutely wonderful. Al Pacino was masterful as Shylock, the outraged Jewish moneylender who took his one shot for revenge at a lifetime of slights.
Jeremy Irons' portrayal of Antonio was low-key, anguished and subtle. The rest of the cast was superb, especially Joseph Fiennes and Lynn Collins as the lovers Bassanio and Portia. The film deals delicately with the themes of revenge, anti-Semitism and honor. Director Michael Radford went to lengths to show Shylock as a man humiliated by injustices and slights. Shylock's twisted malice was portrayed not as a necessary consequence of his religion, but to a lifetime of swallowed pride, threats and abuse at the hands of the Christian majority. The play's denouement, probably satisfying to 16th-century audiences, was positively painful in the 21st. Still, that Shakespeare bothered to raise the issues of anti-Jewish feelings so long ago, and managed to criticize his peers in a successful play, was no mean feat.

"Merchant of Venice" is a master interpretation, true to its original, contrasting pageantry, sweet music and soaring beauty with forced religious conversion, arranged marriages and ethnic hatred. The film will have you pondering the characters' motives and logic long after the screen goes dark.

First of all, I love Shakespeare, so I may be partial to his material. That said, I am not always happy with the Shakespeare
adaptations out there. They have to be very well made, respectful with the original material and very well acted for me to
enjoy them. Michael Radford's "The Merchant of Venice" certainly fulfills this criteria.

Having recently seen it, I must say it is indeed excellent. Director Michael Radford ("Il Postino") does a
commendable job of adapting and directing a very tricky play in his first Shakespeare adaptation. While his direction is confident, it is also sensitive. From the exceptional cast to the production values, this is a wonderful piece of filmmaking from beginning to end.

Al Pacino, who wasn't convincing as Richard III in his documentary "Looking for Richard", now turns in a terrific
performance as the Jewish moneylender Shylock in his quest for a pound of Antonio's flesh. While he gets to rave in certain bits, his performance shows admirable restraint and is powerful without being over the top. He gives life to one of the most famous Shakespearean characters in what could be considered a career best.

Jeremy Irons, always an amazing actor at playing angst, now graces the screen as the tortured merchant Antonio with
astonishing command of the material and of his voice.

Joseph Fiennes, who played Shakespeare himself in "Shakespeare in Love", is nothing short of excellent as the Venetian nobleman Bassanio, the young man who attempts to win the hand of a wealthy heiress. Once again his classic training pays off in a wonderful way.

Finally, American newcomer Lynn Collins shines in the role of Portia, in a strong, solid performance of Belmont's wealthy
heiress, who is also one of the most interesting female characters written by The Bard.

This is a lavish production, set in 16th century Venice. The costumes are wonderful, and the production design is amazing.

The cinematography is breathtaking, with exquisite textures, and the score is beautiful and effective without being obtrusive. The movie was shot partly in the incredibly beautiful Venice itself, which is quite a treat. Other parts were shot in Luxembourg, and yet the transitions look totally seamless.

Yes, Michael Radford does take a few liberties here and there, and many speeches had to be edited in order to keep the
running time at 138 minutes. He also adds his own personal touch in a few places. These liberties, however, are perfectly respectful to the original material. For example, the suggestion of a homoerotic relationship between Antonio and Bassanio is there, but it is a very plausible way to interpret the original text, it is presented with taste and it is still a suggestion, not an affirmation -- it still depends on what you take from it as a viewer. I also liked the use of close-ups as an effective way of expressing what is not said.

On the subject of the play's anti-semitism, it has to be said that most of the characters are indeed anti-semitic. The film,
however, is not, since we are given the exact context in which the story takes place by the introduction of a prologue.

It has to be mentioned that a good part of the comedy has been sacrificed in favour of the more "dramatic" bits, but there is still a great deal of humour in the film, even in parts of the tragedy.

It is a beautiful production: drama, comedy, romance, the themes of forgiveness, justice, revenge, friendship, love, loyalty, are all presented with feeling and a lot of taste. All in all, I cannot recommend this movie enough.

I eagerly attended a showing of this film, curious to see how Pacino would handle the role of Shylock the Jew. Having read the Shakespeare play several times in college, I was familiar with the story and was pleased to see that this adaptation of Merchant didn't "dumb down" the Shakespearian language. As for Pacino, I thought he did a great job bringing Shylock to life on screen, even if he did lose his accent a few times, which I found somewhat distracting. Fans of Shakespearian literature will find this an agreeable film.

There are so few truly timeless stories, but Shakespeare's THE MERCHANT OF VENICE is certainly one of them. So much of what came out of this play still resonates in our society today as to boggle the mind. Words like "Shylock" are still representative of money lenders (see GET SHORTY), and the themes of vengeance, religion, and forgiveness still live on. "If you prick me do I not bleed" is probably the most memorable line in literature, and here we get to see, feel and experience it firsthand in screenwriter and director Michael Radford's excellent adaptation.

For those who've lived under a stone for the past 400 years, The Merchant of Venice is the story of Shylock (Al Pacino, TWO FOR THE MONEY), Antonio (Jeremy Irons, CASANOVA) and Bassanio (Joseph Fiennes, SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE), three men who will be tied together by a bond (i.e., financial agreement). Antonio and Bassanio are great friends who live in Venice during religiously tumultuous times. Both are Christians, but Antonio is man of means, while Bassanio is one who's flittered away his family's wealth. Bassanio, now in love with the beautiful heiress Portia (Lynn Collins, THE LAKE HOUSE), must find a way to travel the distant oceans and wed her. Lacking funds, he approaches Antonio, who happens to have all of his moneys tied to ships that remain out to sea but due back with plenty of loot/merchandise, but agrees to extend his own credit so that Bassanio might travel to his true-love's home. They approach Shylock. He agrees to loan Antonio/Bassanio the funds, but only if Antonio signs a bond that, should he fail to pay it pack in three months, will result in Shylock cleaving "a pound of flesh from nearest Antonio's heart."

Needless to say, Antonio's ships never return, thus placing him in dire financial straits and owing his flesh to Shylock. At the forefront of all this are the religious aspects. Jews live in the low-rent areas of Venice and are forced to wear red hats (identifying them as Jews to everyone) whenever out in the general population during the day. At night, they are shut in and not allowed to leave the ghetto. They are often spit upon by Christians, and even Antonio does this, something Shylock does not easily forget. And, to add anger to angst, Shylock's daughter has run-off with a Christian boy and turned her back on Judaism. So when Antonio fails to pay good on his debt in three months, Shylock demands his just dessert: the flesh.

That this play was written so long ago yet remains at the center of what we continue to fight about really shows Shakespeare's grasp on humanity.

Radford's adaptation is beautifully filmed (mostly in Venice itself) using the many cobbled streets and porticos to great advantage. The language is also straight from Shakespeare and not modernized in any way (some may find this difficult to follow but it really gives a sense of the times). For English Lit students, this might make a great cliff notes film to watch.

Al Pacino's performance shines as Shylock, the vengeful and ultimately pitiable Jewish money lender who's own unforgiving attitude spells his demise. His commanding presence forces viewers to pay very close attention to every word he speaks. And he speaks them in awesome tones.

It'd be hard to find another Shakespeare adaptation that could stand up to this one. The only one that comes to mind is Shakespeare in Love, but it's not of the same ilk as this flick. Shakespeare in Love is one of my favorite films. The Merchant of Venice is, too,but for entirely different reasons.

THere's much to be said for the production of this Shakespeare play, not least of which is Al Pacino's brilliant performance as Shylock, who's really the soul of this play. In fact, the title ambiguously refers to both (or either) him and/or Antonio, a "real" merchant. The term "real" is in quotes because Shylock is Jewish and in Renaissance Venice--we are told in a scrolling text prologue to the film--Jews were treated as second-class citizens, thus one of the few ways they had to make a living was by usury or money lending at interest.

Shylock is one such money lender, and Antonio turns to him for help--actually to help his friend Bassanio who wishes to woo a fair maiden and needs the funds to do so. Antonio, nobly acquitted by Jeremy Irons, is a man who on one hand spits on Shylock (near the beginning of the film) and on the other is more than generous to his friend, Bassanio. The latter, played by Joseph Fiennes--and quite well, too--is a bit pompous, but not overly so. Near the end we see how true his heart really is when he does everything he can to save Antonio.

Interestingly enough the entire cast is British except for Pacino and he is the one who gives this great piece of cinema its spirit, its energy, its momentum. It's really tough to think of the last time he put in as smashing a performance as he does here. This is not a role in which he spouts bombasically as he unfortunately has been given to do in a number of roles. It's one in which he has adopted an interesting speech pattern and uses it so nimbly that it is an integral part of his entire persona. When he roars, or cries, or hurls invective, we are riveted to the screen. He carries this film as he has no other in a long, long time.

The only weak spot, unfortunately, is Lynn Collins who plays Portia, the fair maiden whom Bassanio woos. When she delivers the justly famous "The quality of mercy" soliloquy, it is as though we can hardly feel the speech, as though the raindrops alluded to in the soliloquy itself are invisible ones that leave no trace. She looks right for the part, no question. But her acting is just not up to the role.

Pacino, Fiennes, and Irons are the pillars of the film, and, I would say, in that order. Fiennes has never been better than he is here and in Irons one can sense his weakness--spitting in Shylock's face--and at the same time, paradoxically, his strength of character.

The production and set designs are a marvel to behold. The director, Michael Radford, has taken great and wonderful pains to insure that the look of the film is truly redolent of Renaissance Italy--and it most certainly is. This is, as many have said, sumptuous indeed.

The supporting cast does a fine job in the roles of Lorenzo (Jessica's lover), Jessica (Shylock's daughter), Nerissa (Portia's maid), and several others.

The only reason this is not a five star review is because of Lynn Collins. Had her acting been more substantial, a five star rating would have been a no-brainer. The reason to see the film is the spectacular set design, Pacino's terrific performance, and the intelligent interpretation of the play by the director Michael Radford who makes no bones about the anti-Semitism that was part of the culture, but still manages to fuse this powerful theme with a love story and with a story of revenge and its consequences.

Definitely recommended, in spite of the Lynn Collins performance.