7/10
antisemitic -- NOT!
9 January 2005
am i naive? i don't believe -- nor from the background piece to the film i read by director/scenarist Michael Radford -- that Shakespeare -- whomever he was -- was indeed antisemitic; i believe that if anything, given the breadth & depth of the Bard's canon, his intention was to portray the extent to which the Jew was put-upon in those times; and, furthermore, that appears to be reason enough for resurrecting the play to film now by Radford; in fact -- and, yes, i've read the play, but only once thru -- what i took away from the film mostly was how righteous one may be in this world, but, alas, to no avail, since the world too often rewards the guilty, or, at least, the less than innocent (cf. Albert Camus's "The Fall"); for what really does Shylock in is not that he is wrong, but, rather, his rectitude: he is in the right, howsoever mercilessly so, and he has the oath to prove it -- but he cannot beat the world at its own gamesmanship; think ye anon of thou liege who doth provide thine victuals and how oft thine liege wrongeth thee and yet prove right for, after all, thy liege is thy liege and thus be thy master; in other words, the boss is never wrong even when you know yourself to be 100% right cuz he doth sign thine paychex, fardel.

as for Radford's film itself, i suppose it belongs in a class with Lord Olivier's Shakespearian cinema works & Peter Brook's King Lear, which is to say, it merits viewing & possible re-viewing; Lynn Collins is an able Portia & ranks with Emma Thompson's work as Princess Katherine in then-husband's Kenneth Branagh's "Henry V" for astonishing first work noted by this writer; production design, costume, cinematography are of high standards as they should be.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed