Review of The Merchant of Venice

Portia: Then must the Jew be merciful.
Shylock: On what compulsion must I? tell me that.
Portia: The quality of mercy is not strain’d;
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice bless’d;
It blesses him that gives and him that takes.
................

Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea consider this –
That in the course of justice none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doeth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy ....
Shylock: My deeds upon my head! I crave the law.

William Shakespeare’s play The Merchant of Venice is one of the more difficult to deal with because it is often alleged to have an anti-Semitic perspective. There are others who see it not so much as anti-Semitic as a reflection and exposé of the attitudes of the society of that day. Of course, we should note that in Shakespeare’s time Jews were generally not a welcomed part of society. They were discriminated against in a variety of ways. Whether the play is an example of anti-Semitism or a repudiation of it, I’ll leave to those who write dissertations on the subject. I suspect what is key is how a production is done. An anti-Semite could easily produce this play so it drips with hatred. So it is fair game to talk about how the current film by Michael Radford deals with the element.

First, we need to recognize that The Merchant of Venice is one of Shakespeare’s comedies. It has many elements in common with other of his comedic works, such as women dressing as men and not being recognized by their husbands. But this film is not done as a comedy; it is a drama – a deadly serious drama. Even given the different understanding of comedy in the 16^th Century, this film is a departure from the spirit of the original play. Shakespeare purists beware; you are liable to be very angry with the treatment.

However, I found the film and the treatment to be very effective. By treating it as drama, Radford has been able to emphasize the persecution of Shylock (and Jews in general) that has led to the dispute between Shylock and Antonio (the merchant of the title). Radford begins with a few scenes not in the play proper, but which serve as stage setting for the play. Along with some title cards telling about the ways Jews were treated in the 16^th Century, he shows them being persecuted and shows Shylock being spat upon by Antonio in the street. While this never actually happens in the play, Shylock does at one point refer to such an incident.

By steering away from the comedy aspects of the story, Radford also steers away from the chief ways anti-Semitism could be emphasized. For example, at the end of the court scene, when Shylock is humiliated, when done as comedy, the scene would be an example of ridicule. As it is, it serves not as ridicule, but actually draws us closer to Shylock and evokes our pity and sympathy for his plight. The film also emphasizes that Shylock is not different from the Christians who stand against him. He says, “If a Jew wrong a Christian; what is his humility? revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example?� why, revenge. The villany you teach me I will execute….�

By treating Shylock as a real man, not as a comic figure, this film treats him with respect. By respecting him, the film gives a mercy that the original play may not have given. The film avoids the easy road into anti-Semitism that the play provides. For that, I think this film version, even though it strays in tone from the original play, should be lauded.

The key issue in this film becomes not the possibility of anti-Semitism, but the relationship of justice and mercy. These represent two seemingly mutually exclusive concepts. How can one be both just and merciful at the same time? (And yet we affirm both in relationship to God.) Shylock demands justice. He demands that the letter of the law be carried out. To be sure, he does so because he wants revenge more than for respect for the law, but his points are all well taken. Without the rule of law in his case, the whole system of law and justice is undermined.

When the final twist comes, and Shylock must seek the mercy he withheld, we discover that the mercy the Christians show him is more severe than the judgment he sought. In this, the film reminds me a bit of Dogville. Like Dogville it makes us think about the ways that justice (and the revenge that is tied to it) and mercy (or law and grace) are interrelated. One cannot really be understood or appreciated without the other.

While this film may be a radical departure from the original approach to this play, it is certainly a valuable production of one of the great works of English theatre. It is valuable not just for the superb performances by Al Pacino and Jeremy Irons. It is valuable because it can lead us to see the dark sides of both our calls for law and order, and the ways we may show mercy that really is not mercy.