The Merchant of Venice
Thu, Jan. 20th, 2005 10:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
scarlettinaThe 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: Fri, Jan. 21st, 2005 07:45 am (UTC)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.
Date: Sat, Jan. 22nd, 2005 12:46 am (UTC)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.