The cast is brilliant. The settings and cuts are nice. The costumes are great. The music is nice. Still, at the end of the day, this adaptation by Michael Radford reveals a very strange version and understanding of the original story, which is rather disturbing.
If you have seen Luther with Joseph Fiennes, in which he undoubtedly did great, you can about imagine how dark and somber this version of a - supposedly- funny play has turned out.
First of all, Shylock is a very tormented figure, actually, the only one you can sympathize with. This is somehow crooked as he is to be the bad guy. Remember, this is Shakespeare's theater, we have good guys and bad guys. Our age's greyness has not penetrated those times yet.
Second, the daughter of Shylock, contrary to the feelings of all the audience, just can't wait to get off and away with her love. While the actress does a great job with what she gets, there is not much space left for her to develop a character. This I find disturbing as she is supposedly the character that leads to the deeds of Shylock and his lust for revenge, which make up the story as such.
Third, this Shakespearian play has been turned into some sort of Holocaust-movie, which is, from one side, appropriate, since it depicts the general views of the age, but, from the other side, is completely twisted, since the performance of a medieval play also requires some understanding of the age it stems from- and at that time, Jews were tormented due to religious, and not racial differences. This was true mutually and for any men of different religions. Although you might agree with this new view of the director, it is simply disturbing because the balance of the entire play is thrown over- the bad guy is the good guy, the good guys are the intolerant guys, I'll leave this with that.
Fourth, as the relationship between Antonio and Bassanio is left unexplained, and the homosexual line - albeit suggested by many renowned Shakespeare-researchers and not unknown at the time - is not included, the viewer is left wondering whether he or she had any "friend" he or she would offer a pound of his or her flesh for. Thus, the other most important storyline - besides that of the daughter of Shylock- is also inadequately depicted.
Fifth, the main speeches are not delivered at the appropriate places. Shylock's big one ('Do we not bleed') is whispered in the open street, which would be okay, but, since the director goes through the biggest efforts to make Shylock the nice leading man - in which he I think succeeds- more emphasis should have been included here.
Shakespeare, I believe, included funny parts for you to laugh and have a good time, and could still make you think and consider. I think this is the foundation of the beloved English sense of humor, that there is always something below the surface. You may laugh at the surface, but you shall think of what lies beneath it.
This movie is a completely American adaptation- it looks great, but does not assume you shall be able to think of what Shakespeare supposedly wanted to say if you get your laughs as well. A social drama instead of a comedy. Anyway, a treat to the eye.
If you have seen Luther with Joseph Fiennes, in which he undoubtedly did great, you can about imagine how dark and somber this version of a - supposedly- funny play has turned out.
First of all, Shylock is a very tormented figure, actually, the only one you can sympathize with. This is somehow crooked as he is to be the bad guy. Remember, this is Shakespeare's theater, we have good guys and bad guys. Our age's greyness has not penetrated those times yet.
Second, the daughter of Shylock, contrary to the feelings of all the audience, just can't wait to get off and away with her love. While the actress does a great job with what she gets, there is not much space left for her to develop a character. This I find disturbing as she is supposedly the character that leads to the deeds of Shylock and his lust for revenge, which make up the story as such.
Third, this Shakespearian play has been turned into some sort of Holocaust-movie, which is, from one side, appropriate, since it depicts the general views of the age, but, from the other side, is completely twisted, since the performance of a medieval play also requires some understanding of the age it stems from- and at that time, Jews were tormented due to religious, and not racial differences. This was true mutually and for any men of different religions. Although you might agree with this new view of the director, it is simply disturbing because the balance of the entire play is thrown over- the bad guy is the good guy, the good guys are the intolerant guys, I'll leave this with that.
Fourth, as the relationship between Antonio and Bassanio is left unexplained, and the homosexual line - albeit suggested by many renowned Shakespeare-researchers and not unknown at the time - is not included, the viewer is left wondering whether he or she had any "friend" he or she would offer a pound of his or her flesh for. Thus, the other most important storyline - besides that of the daughter of Shylock- is also inadequately depicted.
Fifth, the main speeches are not delivered at the appropriate places. Shylock's big one ('Do we not bleed') is whispered in the open street, which would be okay, but, since the director goes through the biggest efforts to make Shylock the nice leading man - in which he I think succeeds- more emphasis should have been included here.
Shakespeare, I believe, included funny parts for you to laugh and have a good time, and could still make you think and consider. I think this is the foundation of the beloved English sense of humor, that there is always something below the surface. You may laugh at the surface, but you shall think of what lies beneath it.
This movie is a completely American adaptation- it looks great, but does not assume you shall be able to think of what Shakespeare supposedly wanted to say if you get your laughs as well. A social drama instead of a comedy. Anyway, a treat to the eye.