One is tempted to say that Michael Radford's adaptation of Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice" is the best the play is likely to receive. Part of the temptation stems in all likelihood from the fact that is the *only* non-silent film adaptation of the play. Unfortunately, I find myself short of making such a positive pronouncement. Yes, it is true to the text, yes, it is visually brilliantly executed. Jeremy Irons plays Antonio with restraint and sensitivity, Joseph Fiennes is at least decent, and last, but hardly least, Al Pacino explodes on the screen as Shylock. We have a chance here to see a great actor play one of the most difficult characters put to paper.
There is such pain and despair in Pacino's Shylock, you can feel it jab at you off the screen. And that, is precisely the problem. While I can Radford's handling of Shylock's character is complex and fascinating, his casting of Pacino a great directorial choice, my problem delves deeper. I believe, and I understand that this is a difficult claim, that the play is innately problematic. Shakespeare combines high tragedy of racial discrimination and revenge with light romantic comedy and the mix borders on preposterousness.
The play "The Merchant of Venice" has moments of classical, Shakespearean genius - sensitive psychological observation, stunning human conflict and wonderful dialogue. What it lacks is focus. It seems as if Shakespeare was wary of focusing solely on Shylock's tragedy. Jessica, Shylock's daughter, is perhaps the least interesting character, one who is a minor character in the play and film. Yet she could have been made most complex. Shakespeare also seems to have been ambivalent on the question of discrimination against the Jews. Shylock is the Jewish stereotype who, at the same time, makes one of the most famous Shakespearean soliloquies ("If you prick us, do we not bleed?")underlining shared humanity and then, attempts to exact vicious revenge against a Christian, perhaps against all Christians, partly motivated by the betrayal and conversion of his only daughter.
Radford is aware of these paradoxes and he attempts to resolve the ambivalence of the play by providing a historical context for the anti-semitism of the time period. He also uses Pacino to full potential to give Shylock more humanity than any other character in the film.
And the contrast between him and the silly match-making and husband-seeking that pollutes the other half of the film and play is too hard to bear. "The Merchant of Venice" almost plays like two stories at once, which have little to do with each other. Yes, they share characters, but thematically they're farther apart than the views of Shylock and his daughter Jessica.
Radford, whose principal focus is the humanization of Shylock and the contextualization of the period, refuses to deal with this very schizophrenic structure of the play. He goes for "closeness" to the play. I wish he distanced himself from it. I know it's hard to admit that even Shakespeare sometimes wrote plays that were far lower in quality than his masterpieces, but a directorial choice of that magnitude would have indeed made this a fascinating film.
Don't get me wrong - "The Merchant of Venice" is a faithful, relatively beautifully rendered and beautifully acted adaptation of the play. However, by being faithful, it sacrifices clarity and unity in theme, for hopping between stories that, in the end do not really satisfy comedically or dramatically.
The comedy in "The Merchant of Venice" is overshadowed by the tragedy and (I'm surprised to say this) is almost playfully cruel. You can't really laugh because, after all, you are watching a film about a persecuted Jew whose desire for revenge, or what could be considered justice, leaves him with nothing.
The tragedy, on the other hand, is mocked by the story's comedy. I am curious why a story on a theme that could be rendered contemporary with intelligence (and probably ease, since it's so accessible), a story of heavy drama and tragedy, must be interrupted for us to witness the romantic frolicking of a selfish young man and his playful bride, etc.
The problem with the film, "The Merchant of Venice," aside from the fact that it does not simply choose a path, instead remaining faithful to the original play, is that Pacino's painfully beautiful performance makes the comedy of the film all the more unbearable. It's as if the film teases us with wanting to say something, but then it says "Just Kidding." Radford simply does not find a balance in his adaptation that could provide it with a successful dramatic and / or comedic pay off (depending up on his approach).
Shakespeare is tricky. His language is old, but poetic, precise but ambiguous enough that some of his plays could be told in a dozen different ways. Adapting his plays tests the director's intelligence and creativity. I think Julie Taymor succeeded with "Titus" making a great film out of a weak play. I think Polanski made a phenomenal "Macbeth" out of an equally phenomenal play. I think Branagh's adaption of "Hamlet" though literal and long teemed with Branagh's passion for Shakespeare. It carried through. Radford's film has one hell of a performance by Al Pacino. Unfortunately, that is not enough to tell this particularly complex and difficult story.
There is such pain and despair in Pacino's Shylock, you can feel it jab at you off the screen. And that, is precisely the problem. While I can Radford's handling of Shylock's character is complex and fascinating, his casting of Pacino a great directorial choice, my problem delves deeper. I believe, and I understand that this is a difficult claim, that the play is innately problematic. Shakespeare combines high tragedy of racial discrimination and revenge with light romantic comedy and the mix borders on preposterousness.
The play "The Merchant of Venice" has moments of classical, Shakespearean genius - sensitive psychological observation, stunning human conflict and wonderful dialogue. What it lacks is focus. It seems as if Shakespeare was wary of focusing solely on Shylock's tragedy. Jessica, Shylock's daughter, is perhaps the least interesting character, one who is a minor character in the play and film. Yet she could have been made most complex. Shakespeare also seems to have been ambivalent on the question of discrimination against the Jews. Shylock is the Jewish stereotype who, at the same time, makes one of the most famous Shakespearean soliloquies ("If you prick us, do we not bleed?")underlining shared humanity and then, attempts to exact vicious revenge against a Christian, perhaps against all Christians, partly motivated by the betrayal and conversion of his only daughter.
Radford is aware of these paradoxes and he attempts to resolve the ambivalence of the play by providing a historical context for the anti-semitism of the time period. He also uses Pacino to full potential to give Shylock more humanity than any other character in the film.
And the contrast between him and the silly match-making and husband-seeking that pollutes the other half of the film and play is too hard to bear. "The Merchant of Venice" almost plays like two stories at once, which have little to do with each other. Yes, they share characters, but thematically they're farther apart than the views of Shylock and his daughter Jessica.
Radford, whose principal focus is the humanization of Shylock and the contextualization of the period, refuses to deal with this very schizophrenic structure of the play. He goes for "closeness" to the play. I wish he distanced himself from it. I know it's hard to admit that even Shakespeare sometimes wrote plays that were far lower in quality than his masterpieces, but a directorial choice of that magnitude would have indeed made this a fascinating film.
Don't get me wrong - "The Merchant of Venice" is a faithful, relatively beautifully rendered and beautifully acted adaptation of the play. However, by being faithful, it sacrifices clarity and unity in theme, for hopping between stories that, in the end do not really satisfy comedically or dramatically.
The comedy in "The Merchant of Venice" is overshadowed by the tragedy and (I'm surprised to say this) is almost playfully cruel. You can't really laugh because, after all, you are watching a film about a persecuted Jew whose desire for revenge, or what could be considered justice, leaves him with nothing.
The tragedy, on the other hand, is mocked by the story's comedy. I am curious why a story on a theme that could be rendered contemporary with intelligence (and probably ease, since it's so accessible), a story of heavy drama and tragedy, must be interrupted for us to witness the romantic frolicking of a selfish young man and his playful bride, etc.
The problem with the film, "The Merchant of Venice," aside from the fact that it does not simply choose a path, instead remaining faithful to the original play, is that Pacino's painfully beautiful performance makes the comedy of the film all the more unbearable. It's as if the film teases us with wanting to say something, but then it says "Just Kidding." Radford simply does not find a balance in his adaptation that could provide it with a successful dramatic and / or comedic pay off (depending up on his approach).
Shakespeare is tricky. His language is old, but poetic, precise but ambiguous enough that some of his plays could be told in a dozen different ways. Adapting his plays tests the director's intelligence and creativity. I think Julie Taymor succeeded with "Titus" making a great film out of a weak play. I think Polanski made a phenomenal "Macbeth" out of an equally phenomenal play. I think Branagh's adaption of "Hamlet" though literal and long teemed with Branagh's passion for Shakespeare. It carried through. Radford's film has one hell of a performance by Al Pacino. Unfortunately, that is not enough to tell this particularly complex and difficult story.