William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice (2004)
There's such a strong possibility
that viewers might find Michael Radford's interpretation
of "Williams Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice"
so antisemitic that the beginning of the film is jammed
full of title cards that explain how Jews were treated
in 15th and 16th century Europe. The idea they are
trying desperately to promote here is that the film
isn't trying to be antisemitic. It's simply trying
to give context to the play's vehement mistreatment
of its Jewish antagonist. It's quite sad that we live
in a world where political corrected dogma has become
so prevalent that someone at some point in the making
and releasing of this film decided that its audience
would be too ignorant to realize that this film was
based on a 400 year old play and that, perhaps, things
were different then. Still, since many viewers are
not historical scholars, there is some important information
included in these notations. I'll be quite honest
and admit that I didn't realize that such a heavy
level of antisemitism existed in Shakespeare's time.
Much of the information imparted in the title cards
help us, the historically ignorant, to understand
what is happening in the film.
By the same token then, it is somewhat
dismaying that the film doesn't include subtitles
throughout as the dialogue is delivered in the Shakespearian
style, reworked somewhat by director Radford. Shakespeare
is like a foreign language and so much time must be
spent watching the film is deciphering the poetic
prose of the author that it is almost impossible to
notice the costumes, sets, locations and other visuals,
so engaged are we in translating the text into our
own modern vernacular.
There's really only a couple reasons
for a film version of this play to be remade for modern
audiences. One, of course, is that it is classic Shakespeare
and many modern cliches, such as the meaningful "pound
of flesh," have their origins in this work. There
are three of four familiar passages that pop up in
the work allowing us to notice that the play was the
origin from whence they sprang.
The other reason to have the play
reworked for modern audiences is that it is one of
the most important courtroom dramas in the history
of theater. This certainly must be David E. Kelly's
favorite Shakespeare work. There is a lot of silly
story that bookends the climactic courtroom drama
seen here but this one sequence is so important to
cultural history and to theatrical archives that it
is quite necessary for it to be reintroduced every
few years for a new generation of cultural scholars
to be reminded of its value.
It's too bad that the rest of the
play is so ludicrous. Shakespeare, like Oscar Wilde
a couple of centuries later, relies heavily on misunderstanding
and misdirection to act as humor and levity here.
The play has cross-dressing characters become important
to its plot (there is a strong homoerotic undercurrent
to the film) and there is an entire epilogue about...
well, I don't really know what it is about. Perhaps
in Shakespeare's day, plays had to end on some sort
of silly, optimistic and romantic note. I'm not sure.
If that's true, it certainly wasn't in the opening
explanatory title cards.
For many, of course, the real reason
to see this film will be to witness Al Pacino in a
Shakespeare work. He is quite admirable as Shylock,
the money-lending Jew who insists on his pound of
flesh. I am not the biggest Pacino fan but certainly
his work here and in this year's epic cable miniseries
"Angels in America" have given me much more respect
for his skill as an actor. While he is still Pacino
The Great here, his bombastic persona often eclipsing
his ability to create a character, the role here,
much like his role of Roy Cohn in "Angels," requires
just such a persona to make it work.
While Radford is a celebrated and
unique vision in films, some of his work requires
an interest in the subject matter to begin with. This
is certainly so of his interpretation of George Orwell's
"1984" and it is also so here. A deep interest in
Shakespeare is probably the best requirement for deciding
on whether or not you will fall in love with this
film. I for one found it historically interested and
certainly well-made but found little that intrigued
me deeply except for what must have, at the time,
seemed an incredibly clever courtroom scene, one that
surely must have influenced Sir Arthur Conan Doyle,
Agatha Christie, and Earl Hammer as much as it most
assuredly has TV's Kelly.
Note:
Also with Jeremy Irons, Joseph Fiennes,
and Mackenzie Crook.
The uninspired score is by Jocelyn
Pook.
Filmed in Venice and Luxembourg.
Radford is himself of Jewish descent.
This is at least the 16th filmed
version of the play according to the Internet Movie
Database.
The film debuted at Telluride in
September 2004 and began a U.S. arthouse run on December
29th, just in the nick of time to make it eligible
for the Academy Awards.
Viewed at a press sneak at the Dobie
Theater in December 2004.
