The Merchant of Venice

Laurence Olivier's run at the National Theatre included this gem which cast himself as Shylock, with his wife Joan Plowright as Portia. Originally staged in 1970, the cast transferred with ease to this TV version (the only major substitution being Michael Jayston for Derek Jacobi as Gratiano).

It moves along quite well and is definitely buoyed up by its starry lead duo. The rejected suitors have a comic aspect which sits well with the 'pound of flesh' seriousness of the remainder. Glad it was recorded for us all to enjoy.

Shylock is a successful and shrewd moneylender in Venice. He lends a large sum of money to Bassanio, with Antonio, a merchant, as the guarantor. While the interest terms are very generous - no interest at all - Antonio owes Shylock "a pound of flesh" upon default.

The Merchant of Venice is one Shakespeare play I've never really been able to enjoy. The plot is a bit strange and implausible - the pound of flesh contract is plain creepy and weird and the fact that this becomes the centre of proceedings rather than just a darkly amusing sub-plot makes it even worse.

You also don't know who to support: Antonio is a bigot but Shylock is portrayed as being greedy and too commercial, to the detriment of his humanity. At times it appears that Shakespeare wants us to support Antonio, which, considering his racism, is quite jarring.

Throw in the superficial romantic aspect and the "wait, there's more" twists-for-twists' sake court case and the play is difficult to get into.

This film adaptation doesn't help with the enjoyment. Quite faithful to the play, which, in this case, is a bad thing, it's quite dry. Despite being film-like, rather than stage-like, production, it still feels like a play.

If you have to watch an adaptation of The Merchant of Venice one with Laurence Olivier will always feature near the top of the list but that would be the only reason to watch this.

This production of The Merchant of Venice is set in Victorian times, which rather works against the play in some part. The Victorians were far more subtle in their anti-Semitism than the Elizabethans and it just strikes a false note to see it so openly expressed before a Jew by these Victorian gentlemen.

Much of the text is there, which is a relief as so many producers think they know better than Shakespeare how to put a play together, although Miller does omit some lines. For instance we don't hear Shylock loudly lamenting his daughter and his ducats, first with 'O my daughter' then 'O my ducats' and switching between the two with the ducats gradually winning out in this tussle between his losses. It's a marvelous moment and, apart from its comic qualities, is very revealing of the avarice at the heart of Shylock.

I think Miller left it out because he didn't want people laughing at Shylock too much. But this is after all a comedy rather than a tragedy and it is owing to Shakespeare's genius that we can both laugh at and sympathize with Shylock at different moments of the play. In fact Miller inserts himself too much into this play, especially where Jessica, Shylock's daughter, is concerned. With no justification at all he shows her as becoming discontent with her match with Lorenzo, brooding and regretful. This darkens the close of the play unnecessarily.

Miller should have let the play speak for itself without tromping through it in heavy boots to impose a modern sensibility on the actors. It's a shame because those actors are excellent in their roles. This could have been a far better production if Miller had just kept his ego in check a little, but he finds that difficult in most of his productions.

It's worth seeing though, as almost every production of Shakespeare is. His words are there and that is really all that counts at the end of the day. BTW at one point Bassanio says to Portia, "Lady, you have bereft me of all words." I know it's the character speaking but for an instant the idea came to my mind of Shakespeare being bereft of words. It was like thinking of the sun not shining or water not being wet. An impossibility!

If The Merchant of Venice were a tragedy and Shylock its protagonist, this would be a perfect production. Since it is a comedy, and Shylock is the villain, there are problems.

This British National Theatre version cuts Shylock's asides, Jessica's scene in male attire, Old Gobbo, and much of Lancelot Gobbo.

Set in Edwardian England, it adds voice-overs (an off-screen scream after Shylock leaves the court and a Jewish requiem - the "Kaddish" - at the end of the play) and photographs of his beloved wife and daughter to make Shylock seem more sympathetic. As part of this process, Jessica and Lorenzo become unsympathetic characters who do not appear to be in love with each other. The romantic, "in-such-a-night" scene (5.1) is played with the two standing as far apart as possible, with the cold, presumably fortune-hunting Lorenzo smoking a pipe. The production ends with a guilt-stricken Jessica alone.

The cast, though a bit old for the parts, is uniformly and undeniably charming, and Olivier ranges from excellent to superb.

This reinterpretation of the play is by no means unusual or unjustifiable in a post-Holocaust world, and it makes an effective film.

I agree Portia's suitors were a bit over the top, but one has to remember that this is a comedy, and must be taken in context. Elizabethan comedy was a bit more crude than a lot of people today can appreciate, as it focused on baser jokes concerning sexuality and exaggeration. I felt that the suitors were amusing, especially the Prince of Aragon. His portrayal of a feeble old man exemplifies the purpose of these characters being in the play: to contrast Bassanio and show what the other extreme of the spectrum was: how unsuitable a suitor can be. The ridiculosity of the idea of an 80yr old man courting Portia is part of the joke. I esp like "blinking fool" from the silver casket.

If you thought this was over the top, stay well away from the BBC version, as it's Morocco and Aragon are even more flamboyant and obnoxious.