The Merchant of Venice

[scarlettina]

The movie
Went to see the Warren Report preview of "The Merchant of Venice" tonight, starring Al Pacino, Jeremy Irons, Joseph Fiennes and Lynn Collins. It's a gorgeous production, sumptuous to look at and very finely acted. I highly recommend it. Pay full price to see it; it's worth every dime. I didn't expect Pacino to be anything but brilliant and he is, in every frame. Irons, too, is wonderful. The courtroom scene is worth the price of admission.

The adaptation does take some small but very respectful liberties with the play, setting up Shylock and Antonio's relationship before the scripted action of the play begins. The general treatment of the material presents Shylock in a more sympathetic light, addressing the issue of anti-Semitism head on and justifying Shylock's demands of a pound of flesh. Even written as Shakespeare wrote it, Pacino and the filmmakers ultimately demonstrate that everyone in the courtroom a victim of prejudice because of the choices it pushes each character into. And in the end, by being stripped of his faith, Shylock is injured just as deeply as he might have injured Antonio. Devastating.

There were some lovely details. The one I loved was that Jessica's ring, that which Shylock bemoans the loss of because it belonged to his wife, is a traditional Jewish wedding ring in the shape of a house or temple. Someone did some research.

Of course, the humorous aspects of the play were also beautifully done. Lynn Collins approaches Portia with the right proportion of gravitas and humor, and she's stunningly beautiful, really like something out of a painting. The film, in fact, is full of chiaroscuro effects, creating a period atmosphere that is just luscious.

Pro- and epilogue
When I got seated in the theater, I sat down next to a very animated couple talking about film. When she went for popcorn before the lights went down, he engaged me in a discussion of the philosophical underpinnings of "The Matrix" and "Blade Runner." When she came back, seeing that we had been talking, she kindly offered me some of her popcorn. I declined; I wasn't hungry. Then the movie began.

When the film ended, they started discussing the film immediately. I listened out of half-an-ear while watching the credits roll. They were chatting away about how it's a much more balanced portrayal of the story overall. Then came this exchange:

Him: "Gee, were the Venetians that decadent? Whores hanging out of windows? The Christians really come out looking bad."

Her: "Well, the director was Jewish."

And, before I could put my hand over my mouth, I blurted, "What's that supposed to mean?"

Him: Pause. "Well, different perspectives. Look at what Gibson did with
'Passion of the Christ.'"

The credits kept rolling. The couple eventually got up. She wished me a good evening (I think, by way of saying "No hard feelings") and they left.

I don't know how to feel about this exchange. These two seemed, based on their conversation overall, to be Our Kind of People—smart, savvy filmgoers, articulate, enthusiastic and friendly. Obviously her remark pushed a button in me; it may have been my issue more than her attitude. Perhaps it was impolite of me to challenge her when they'd both been so really very nice to me before the film began. But I found myself honestly wondering what her remark was supposed to mean. That because the director was Jewish (and I don't even know if that's the case), naturally Christians would be portrayed as decadent? And it does make me think back to all the discussion of "Passion of the Christ": Was it a given that because Gibson is Christian the film would be anti-Semitic? It makes my head hurt to think about it but these are necessary discussions to be had. What assumptions do we operate under? How do they sabotage us?

It's all a matter of perspective. We see the world through the filters we are trained into, even when we grind those filters with age, experience and education. Sometimes our knee-jerk reactions catch us. Mine did, for better or worse.

I understand that these are some of the reasons that some of my dearest friends are atheists or agnostics. Prejudice, irrationality, assumptions: They're good reasons. I don't know that I could ever abandon a concept of God or my faith, in whatever haphazard way I may practice it. I also don't think that a concept of God necessarily results in prejudice; in an ideal world, prejudice is anathema to faith. But it takes a pretty sophisticated outlook to get beyond the kind of us-vs.-them mentality that can result (notice I cite here possibility, not certainty), given history.

I don't really know where all this consideration is going except that I found myself needing to do it. Your mileage may vary. But just for a moment, do the mileage. It's an interesting and, I think, important journey.

Comments

[scarletbronte.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen the film, but I might have made a remark like that...any time someone takes the risk to portray Christians in anything less than a completely favorable light, I assume it's because they are not a practicing Christian.

I've said it of Margot Adler, who is Wiccan, that naturally she portrays the pagans in her book Drawing Down the Moon to be practically flawless...she has a vested interest in doing so. Why would she want to make herself look bad by association? Someone who does not won't take such care to whitewash history. It may be that the couple assumed the director to be a Jew simply because he was more honest than they'd come to expect a Christian to be...The Christians scare the shit out of me, personally.

[scarlettina.livejournal.com]

You make some very good points here. Perhaps I'm naive in wanting not to see directorial bias although, as I said, I have no idea whether or not the director, Michael Radford, is Jewish.

I wonder, if this film had been made 30 years ago, whether or not the portrayal of gentile culture and the director's faith would have been one of the first things to be discussed by a viewer as it was here. Interesting times.

Snorf.

[ladyjestocost.livejournal.com]

Personally I lay this one on the ancestor worship inculcated by the average public education, where no one ever has mistresses, the mistresses never influenced public policy, no one had drug addictions or was a drunk, and the good guys are always good and the bad guys are always bad.

If the couple had had a decent education - well, of course, Renaissance Italy could be wonderfully decadent at times. This is the era that gave you the Borgias, the Decameron (wonderful stories, but not for the kiddies), Fra Fillipo Lippi, and all that other good stuff.

I find their theory that it's the result of the director's Jewishness (if he is) icky, not to mention ridiculous. I've never had a Jew trash me because of my religion (this may be because I don't know that many), although I have gotten it from aetheists, pagans, and other Christians. I put that down to inadequate socialization, rather than religion.

Although you know what's driving me crazy today? All day, CNN.com has had as one of its lead articles - Christians Denounce SpongeBob as Gay. I (like many) don't much care to be lumped in with the kind of idiot that a) thinks that a cartoon sponge is gay and b) cares enough to make a national fuss.

[greeneyedkzin.livejournal.com]

Margot Adler's a personal friend. I can't believe she'd be less honest in her spiritual practice than she is in her work and personal life.

DRAWING DOWN THE MOON's first edition, however, was written when she was much younger and more enthusiastic (as are we all!), so that may be what you're picking up.

I urge you to reconsider.

[writersweekend.livejournal.com]

I don't think she's dishonest...at all. But she does seem to go out of her way to mention in at least two places in the book (at least in the first edition and the one she did later, after it was discovered the whole middle of the book was based on a fabrication) that pagans don't do a lot of drugs, etc. Which does not match with the pagan world I've seen. In fact, it makes more sense that pagans do everything in the same proportion as the rest of the population.

Ellen Evert Hopman does the same thing in her book - stresses how noble and good the pagans are...it's bound to happen. It is the reason sociologists tend to discount the research of cult 'members'. It is impossible to be objective.

I don't mean to diss Adler, at all. My remarks are based on conversations I had with J. Gordon Melton (Encyclopedia of World Religions) about academics who keep their religion private so they don't get ridiculed. For some reason, it's acceptable to study Christians if you are a Christian and Jews if you are a Jew, but you are considered biased if you are anything else and study the group you are from.

[greeneyedkzin.livejournal.com]

Nonetheless, you do seem to be insulting someone you don't know and whom I respect greatly.

I don't know why you're doing this, but I'm hearing a certain amount of resentment from you about something I don't quite understand, which is fine, until you insult a friend of mine. I don't know by whom "it was discovered," and I really don't give a damn with whatever authority you had a conversation or plural, but imply that a woman I know, like, and respect is dishonest, and I'll call you on it every time.

IMHO

[kistha.livejournal.com]

I don't think that writersweekend means that she's purposely lying, I think writersweekend means that she's biased.

And perhaps she is only interacting with the population of Pagans, who are 'perfect'. I'm in the pagan community, and believe me we have our share of fanatics, assholes, trouble makers and some pagan religions include drug use as a ceremonial. She's talking about a very widespread group of people, and they can't all be perfect.

But it would be nice if they were, wouldn't it?

Re: IMHO

[greeneyedkzin.livejournal.com]

It would be lovely if everyone were perfect, and I don't pretend to know with what pagans Margot interacts. On the hole, she works with women's spirituality, to the best of my knowledge, although I don't think she's Dianic. I'd be astonished if she were part of the groups that use peyote or similar substances, especially because she's got a teen-aged son. She's pretty savvy, though; she's definitely put her time in in the trenches; and I don't think she's got a sappy or beamish bone in her body.

You're seeing an authority figure who, it feels like, you're trying to cut down to size. I'm seeing a friend. Why are you drawing conclusions about a stranger in this way?

Re: IMHO

[kistha.livejournal.com]

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I wish you could hear tone of voice, it really helps. So imagine me, casual, on the couch speaking in an easy relaxed tone:

I'm not trying to cut her down to size - I'm saying she's positively biased toward the religion she believes in, and that makes her, like the rest of us a person. Good, bad or indifferent. I stand up for my friends, but I also try to be realistic. I have friends that no matter how much I love them, still have feelings, emotions and biases. And we don't always agree either.

She cannot say that 'all' Pagans are good enlightened people - they aren't. I know, I've met more than a few that I wouldn't spend time with because they are repugnant - as people the religion doesn't change that.

Ironically you make the statement that she wouldn't use drugs in a ritualistic sense because she has a teenage son. (once again, this a casual point not a zinger) Which is a judgment statement about Pagans who would use drugs, marking them as less, or 'bad' to do so. Everyone has biases and opinions, it doesn't make us bad or wrong, it makes us people. Pagans who responsibly use drugs in only ritual would do so, regardless of their children. It would be seen as a holy thing, not an addiction, and not a party and would teach their children accordingly. If they have an ounce of sense they wouldn't allow the kids to do any until they had passed certain ages and tests. Of course there are the Pagans that just get stoned every weekend and go on a bender and call it finding God. And all of these multitude of beliefs goes about in the name of Pagan.

I'm drawing conclusions about a person in a community that I live in, and who's book I've read. While I've never personally run into her, I wouldn't call her a total stranger. If I met her, and we talked about this, I'd tell her the exact same things. And we could agree or disagree.

So once again in closing, it's not that she's bad, it's that she's happy with her people, and presents them in the best light. It doesn't mean that it is literally true, I wish it was. I would love it if all Pagans - hell, all people, could get along without any sort of prejudice, in good health spiritually, mentally, and physically.

It just hasn't happened yet.

Re: IMHO

[greeneyedkzin.livejournal.com]

"A judgment statement." I made a "judgement statement." How EVER will I cope with the burden of having made a "judgment statement."

For pity's sake, that "you're making a VALUE JUDGMENT" went out with the 1960s. Of course, people are positively biased toward their own. It took you that long to say that -- and you had to tear at my friend to do it?

I'm sure if she met you, she'd be more tolerant of what you say. You strike me as overly blunt, prolix, and fond of restating the obvious.

If you are correcting an error, it's one thing. But you're pointing out your truism with a good deal of aggressiveness. From where I sit, it sounds like a sugar-coated "gotcha."

Why do you do this?

Re: IMHO

[kistha.livejournal.com]

Of course, people are positively biased toward their own. It took you that long to say that

1. See my first post which said exactly this.

and you had to tear at my friend to do it?

2. I have not said anything derogatory about your friend. All I have said is that she's positively biased, and she can't speak for everyone who's pagan.

3. I'm not continuing this conversation any longer because you don't seem to be listening.

Re: IMHO

[greeneyedkzin.livejournal.com]

I'm sure I will manage to survive the snub. I listened to quite enough to know I wished to hear no more.

[writersweekend.livejournal.com]

My apologies to you and to Ms. Adler. I mean no disrespect. My comments may sound cavalier, but I'm accustomed to talking about this with other folks who don't have quite as close a personal relationship with her as you do. I don't think it's a big secret that she makes pagans sound pretty good.

I don't think there's anything inherently dishonest in presenting one's tribe in a positive light. As I say, I do not mean to suggest Adler's work is dishonest in any way. It is by its very nature a biased report, that's all. It's not a secret that she discovered that one of her informants had exaggerated, if not made up of whole cloth, her 'family trad' background. Adler had no way to know that at the time of her original interview, just as she had no way to know whether her other informants were on their best behavior during her time with them.

The last thing I need is another witch pissed off at me.

[greeneyedkzin.livejournal.com]

Thanks! That was very gracious of you.

The pagans I know tend to be seriously good people. I've known a couple fools, and dodged a couple of wannabes who tried to work black.

But I am not a witch. I am not even a ritual occultist in my own tradition: Cabala and psychotherapy do mix, according to Israel Regardie, but that's a little more energy than this secular Jewish theist wants to take on.

[baron-elric.livejournal.com]

And, of course, the Venetians _were_ that decadent....

Mileage may vary indeed.

[kistha.livejournal.com]

I find that whenever religion raises it's head in any conversation, normalcy and perspective goes right out the window. I have had in my lifetime at least two hundred and fifty conversations about religion. I can remember less than 20 that were rational, thoughtful and didn't deteriorate into offended huffiness or out right screaming matches. The odds do not favor rationality.

I have friends in a fair scattering of religions, and I too have found the tendency to portray "your opposing religion here" in a negative light. Hell, Christians dislike each other. So would a Jew automatically make the Christians look bad, and vice versa? Depends on the person.

And here is where what I call the number game really comes into play. (Pardon the bluntness of the following.)

In any religion you have the Fanatics, the Assholes, the Clueless, and the General Rational/Good ones. Now these will get spread out in the mass population of every religion. So the ones who will be really negatively biased are the Fanatics and the Assholes. One does it for rabid faith and one will do it to be an ass. This is also why more of us non-Christians dislike Christians - It's like I tell my Mother, it's a number game. The bigger portion of the population you have the bigger your proportion for Assholes and Fanatics. Christianity is in the lead here, and so they lead with more Fanatics and Assholes. I have Christian friends, but it took one Good Christian two years to convince me they weren't all rabid Assholes and Fanatics.

Do members of a faith portray themselves as better people? Sure, who wants to be an ass? Or, it's to expunge guilt. I know people who believe that the Native American people were perfect; and some portray Jews that way as well- Why? Because people did some seriously nasty shit to them as a people. The more noble we can make them, now or postmortem, is a way of expunging guilt, or beating themselves with it. Bias is easy to come by and seriously difficult to remove. I catch myself doing it fairly often - "my faith is better because I don't *blank*". It's easy to portray people as villains and saints, but most people are neither. They are PEOPLE, and they come with flaws, merits and most importantly emotions.

I think you are right though, the ultimate goal of growth as a people would be to remove prejudice. And having a faith shouldn't result in prejudice.

Sadly, it often does.

[bedii.livejournal.com]

If he ever sees the portrayal of Venetians in "Dangerous Beauty" he's going to drop dead of heart failure--or join those rabid critics at the IMDB who keep insisting that it was made-up feminism despite being adapted from an academic biography of the protagonist. And she may not be an anti-Semite, but she sounds as if she should be dipped for those ticks ASAP.

Gibson being Christian didn't mean that "The Passion of the Christ" would be anti-Semitic. Gibson being the main financial backer of a small church which specifically rejects the Vatican II reforms, including those de-emphasizing elements of the bible that were traditionally used in the Catholic Church as an excuse to oppress Jews (my Sociology prof at the UW was flown to and testified at Vatican II as a grad student because of research he'd done on how those teachings were being misapplied, and he went over it thoroughly with us) combined with the repeated denials of the Holocaust by Gibson's father made it extremely unlikely that Gibson would produce a film without severe bias.