Professor David Peimer
The Merchant of Venice in Film, Part 1
Professor David Peimer - The Merchant of Venice in Film, Part 1
- [Host] David, whenever you’re ready, I will hand over to you.
- Okay. Okay, thank you. So, thank you so much Lauren, and appreciate again. Okay, so, hi everybody, and hope everyone is well, and vaccinated, wherever you are on our little planet, and, what you’re going to do today is look at “The Merchant of Venice” in film, and looking at part one today, and then in two weeks time, going to pick up with part two. And what I’m going to look at in particular, what I was asked to talk about was not only the image of Shylock, but how the image of the Jew, obviously the character of Shylock, is portrayed in “The Merchant of Venice,” and looking at it in film over, basically, fair amount of last century. And what I’m going to do is look at, from early days with Laurence Olivier, and then some images of how “The Merchant of Venice” was performed in Nazi Germany, but we only have images, we don’t have film footage that has survived. And then going to look at a remarkable piece which has gone down in classical theatre schools around the world, and is used in all teaching of acting and Shakespeare, a remarkable piece done by the Royal Shakespeare Company in the ‘60s with John Barton, who was a wonderful director and person with them, Shakespeare expert, and going to show some of the rehearsals that he had with a couple of the actors on the part of Shylock, 'cause it presents, in essence, I think, part of the fascinating debate. And then of course going to look at some of the Al Pacino film, with Jeremy Irons playing Antonio, which play Shylock, and a little bit of Orson Welles, and then a couple of contemporary Black British actors who, you know, and their interpretations of the part of Shylock and some others.
So, that’s just to give you a little taste of what I’m going to cover in today’s talk and in two weeks time with part two. Looking at this, why choose “The Merchant of Venice” and why choose Shylock, is, when we talk about the image of the Jew in film, we know “The Producers,” we know, so, so many. The Marx Brothers, you know, there are so many that we could choose, but this is in particular for me. Shylock is the archetype, is the ultimate archetype because the character captures so many of the ambiguities and contradictions and ironies which are both historical, and in a way, transcend historical, because they feed so much of the myth of the Jewish stereotype, and trying to challenge that stereotype, of the representation of the Jewish character in film. The ultimate, if you like, ultimate archetype of all of them is the character of Shylock. Also, of course, Shakespeare’s language, Shakespeare’s poetry, his remarkable theatrical attributes, are incredible. But the understanding of Shakespeare’s imagination to push through his own period and tried to get to grips with something, if he ever met a Jew, unlikely. I mean, Jews, as we know, were banned in England for 300 years, including the whole period of Shakespeare’s life and career. So did he ever meet a Jew? Very unlikely, maybe, 'cause they were banned. He might have met one or two at, you know, the palace, there was the one doctor who helped Queen Elizabeth, was a physician for Queen Elizabeth, but he was in, you know, tried on on a charge of treason, probably trumped up, and he was executed. You know, he was a Jewish doctor from Spain. But did Shakespeare ever meet, and if not, who knows.
There’s “The Jew of Malta,” written by Marlowe. So there are, in a sense, if we imagine Shakespeare’s time, that number one, he never met a Jew, most likely. Number two, would he have, or even Othello, if we think of it. Would he ever have met a Black Arab general? Of course not, didn’t exist. So his remarkable imagination to push through, to understand the stereotype and to understand perhaps the archetype, but to try and find the humanity in the character no matter what. And I think it’s testament to this guy’s writing that he could, he wanted to take on these kind of very outsider, and if you like, banned or exiled characters, who would not have been allowed to be in London or anywhere in England in his own lifetime. Did he choose it for business purposes? Because if he could choose the Jew and the stereotype and play with that and subvert it, could make a lot of money, in the same way as with the Black Arab general, Othello. We don’t know. These are all speculations, which can go on forever. But what for me is interesting is that of all depictions of Jewish characters in film, we always come back to the root of Shylock. And I’m going to try and tease out through looking at these productions, and these actors in these productions, tease out some of the contradictions and ambiguities in the character and the portrayal of the Jewish character Shylock.
I’m not going to try and imagine Shakespeare’s intention, 'cause that we can debate until, you know, until the cows come home next century, endless debate and discussion. And I think that leads us a possible garden path. It’s a fascinating debate, but it leads us up possible garden paths. Secondly, is it an antisemitic play at root or not? I’m not going to debate that either. That’s a separate debate, which can also go for many, many hours, in all different directions. What I want to look at is the portrayal of the Jewish character and the image of the Jew in film, particularly through for me, the ultimate archetype of the Jewish character of the last four, five centuries, which for me is Shylock in “The Merchant of Venice.” Okay, of course we have characters like Fagin in Dickens, and many others, “The Jew of Malta,” Marlowe, I mentioned, but they are not as, and there’s kind of a Faginization of Shylock, which has been done in some productions, but they in a way feed off the Shylock. Okay, to throw out a couple of provocative statements to begin with, is from Harold Bloom, who was one of the preeminent critics, literary critics from America, one of the great critics, studied all over the world, and his classical book, 1998, called “Shakespeare and the Invention of the Human.” An interesting, “Shakespeare and the Invention of the Human,” it fundamentally argues that Shakespeare began, what I’ve spoken about a few times, trying to bring the human qualities, human contradictions, into characters. They were no longer only stock. Stock, the princess, the prince, the village idiot, the fool, the doctor, and so on. Or the peasant, et cetera.
So not the social type character, but to try and find the psychology of the character within the social type, hence the soliloquies, which capture the inner dilemmas, which are so deeply psychological and profound human nature within the individual. And Harold Bloom writes about that in his book “Shakespeare and the Invention of the Human.” Now, what’s interesting about Bloom, 'cause he’s really influential, and huge, and remains so today, from his 1998 book, and this is what Bloom wrote, and he’s Jewish, Bloom. “One would have to be blind, deaf, and dumb not to recognise that 'The Merchant of Venice’ is a profoundly antisemitic work. The play has done real harm to the image of Jews for over four centuries now.” I’m quoting that from Harold Bloom. I don’t necessarily agree with it. I think it’s an endless debate whether he’s right or wrong, and one can find arguments both sides, probably fairly equally valid. As I said, more interesting for me is to look at today’s zeitgeist, to look at the spirit of our times today. How is the Jew portrayed in film all over the world? And for me, it’s part of the trajectory of the portrayal of Shylock in “The Merchant of Venice.” We cannot imagine creating a Jewish character in film, certainly, or theatre, and I would argue novels, without having some echoing resonance of Shylock. And I want to hone in even more specifically with the debate, and that is what I’m going to show in a minute.
The extraordinary series done in the ‘60s of the Royal Shakespeare Company under the direction of John Barton, and it’s called “Playing Shakespeare,” and you can get it on video, it’s I think 10 or 12 videos which show, it’s basically how to act Shakespeare, try to understand and act Shakespeare for contemporary times. And he’s working with some of the most brilliant actors that came out of the RSC of that period. And in particular, there’s the one section where they only look at the character of Shylock, and it’s Patrick Stewart and David Suchet, two fantastic actors, who both played Shylock and both were directed by Barton. And what I’m going to show you is how Patrick Stewart, who’s not Jewish, he argues that in his interpretation of Shylock, Shylock is the outsider who happens to be a Jew, and the Jewishness is not that important. And thus we can see the universality of the outsider or the outcast character who is an exile within his own culture. David Suchet, sitting in discussion with Patrick Stewart, which I’ll show in a moment, argues no, it’s the opposite. That what is the most important is that he is an outsider because he is a Jew. Not that Shylock is an outsider who happens to be a Jew, but Shylock is an outsider because he is a Jew. He’s inevitably an outsider in the dominant host culture. And the Jewishness is very important, David Suchet argues, compared to Patrick Stewart’s intention, whereas the Jewishness is far less. So Stewart goes towards the universality interpretation of Shylock. Anybody who’s an outsider, an outcast, could be racial, religious, ethnic origin, whatever, is an outsider within a dominant culture, is going to feel similarly to Shylock. Whereas Suchet argues, he’s an outsider because he is a Jew, and cannot fit, cannot be ultimately assimilated.
And that’s where so much of the jealousy, the rage, the anger, the hurt, the fear, the worry, the anxiety, and the fighting spirit of Shylock comes in. It’s important to note a couple of things. Shylock is only called by his name six times in that entire play, and he’s called the Jew 22 times. Now, in no other play of Shakespeare’s do we have this kind of dichotomy where a character is called, you know, you can imagine, you know, Macbeth, the Scottish, or whatever, the king, or whatever, or Othello, Othello’s called the Moor often. But six times only by his name, Shylock, 22 times, the Jew. The bad carrion, the dog, the cur. All these barbaric images are always associated with Shylock. What’s very contentious with John Barton’s interpretation when they talk about it at the beginning is that Barton argues that Shylock is a bad Jew and is interacting with bad Christians. That’s a hell of a provocative thought. If you think of it, Barton with the RSC, working with these superb actors and trying to come to grips with what, 15, 20 years after the Holocaust, how to portray the Jew through the RSC. And to simplify it that much, it’s quite a surprise and a shock for me when I hear Barton say it like that. Do we say Othello is a naive Moor, or a Black general? Othello is not, when we think of Othello, we think of him in different ways. Why is it always the Jew with Shylock? Do we say Macbeth is an ambitious, driven, Scottish general?
No. We say he is vicious, and he’s ambitious, and he’s driven, you know, and got flaws. But does it matter that he’s Scottish or not? Course not. So the obsession with the Jew and the link of it is almost irresistible in the controversial play, and thus the controversial interpretations. I don’t think we should shy away from controversy in our interpretation. In our times, it’s a fascinating piece of fiction and literature, which does capture an archetype, and we need to be creative and imaginative, and stimulate debate. Do we say that Romeo and Juliet are star-crossed teenage Italian lovers? No. Does it matter? No. So, the point I’m making, obviously you can see, is that the point of the Jew, the Jew, the Jew, and this does stand out compared to the other plays. The one that’s vaguely similar is “The Tempest,” where Caliban is insulted in so many ways. I mean, he’s seen as the slave, but he has so many insults from Prospero. But it’s a more generic term of the slave, it’s not an ethnic term. And one last point I want to mention is to go back to one of my favourites, Hannah Arendt, who identified the two words in terms of Jews of the 20th century as the pariah, you know, and perceived as the pariah, you know, living off the host nation, or the parvenu, the upstart who makes good in the host nation, which gives rise to the debate of the assimilated Jew. Can the Jew become ultimately assimilated or not? And in the play, we have all of these debates going on. Shylock is called the alien, an alien citizen, but, he lives in Venice. Yes, the ghetto, has to wear the red hat, et cetera, but he lives there, you know, but he’s a foreigner, he is an alien, he’s not a citizen.
And that’s such an important reference for today. Who is an alien? Who is a citizen? Not only in legal terms, but in social and cultural terms. And Shakespeare hits the nail on the head by using those exact words in the play, which resonate today for us, whether Jewish or other, I would imagine. Okay, briefly, I want to, the story everybody knows, but a couple of things to just mention, 'cause I’m going to show clips in a moment. But it’s important to just have just a very quick perhaps refresh of the essence of the story. So Shylock is the Jew. He lends money to Antonio, Antonio comes to him wanting to borrow a whole lot of bucks. But the condition that Shylock makes is, “If you can’t pay me back, I’ll lend you all the ducats, the money, but if you can’t pay me back, I’m going to cut a pound of flesh off you, and I can cut it from anywhere in your body. That’s the deal. And I’m entitled to a pound of your flesh,” of Antonio’s, “if you don’t pay me back, but not your blood.” So, later, when Portia comes in the trial scene much, much later, and Portia’s a clever one, and she says, “Whoa, okay, you’re allowed your pound of flesh. Here is the knife, cut it from Antonio. But, if you spill one jot of Christian blood, you’ll die. 'Cause the bond doesn’t mention that you’re entitled to a jot, a drop, a jot of Christian blood. And if you take more or less than an exact pound of flesh, and we’ll weigh it, even in the estimation of a hair, you’ll die.” Which of course is a way to catch Shylock out, and Shylock loses at the end in the trial scene.
And the final insult is not only what happens with his money and his properties and all that, but that he, Antonio is asked by the Duke, “Okay, what would you like as revenge, Antonio?” And for Antonio, the most important thing comes at the end of the play, Shylock will convert to being a Christian. And that’s the last straw that is thrown to Shylock. So he’s brought right down. The alien, the foreigner, the outsider, the outcast, brought right down. The only way you can join us, have some vague fantasy of fitting in, or even we tolerate you, rather, is if you convert. So Shakespeare’s remarkable imagination gets it, you know that that’s the ultimate insult. Betray your nation, betray your group, and then we might accept you. And by the time Shylock realises all this is going on, it’s too late. He’s pushed it too far. Is it because of his rage, his anger? Because he feels so hurt 'cause he’s an outcast? Yes, he’s obsessed with money, and he goes, the Rialto, in the play, is the Venetian stock exchange of the time, and he’s involved in business and making money and so on. But deeper than that is that he is a Jew. And that riles at him, that he cannot be accepted. He could try and assimilate, it’s not going to work, not assimilate, is that going to work? And he captures all these contradictions, I believe, in our own contemporary zeitgeists in the Jewish diaspora today.
Hence the archetype. Shylock is seen by all the other characters as the stereotypical greedy, money-grabbing Jew, who has no compassion. What is Christianity, the quality of mercy speech, compassion, he cannot have that because that’s Christian. Although that’s shown obviously to be totally hypocritical. The powers, the Christian powers in Venice, the Duke, Antonio, and all the others, utter hypocrisy in the play. And they see him as the dog, the cur, they insult him endlessly, you know, old carrion, they call him. They don’t seem him as human at all. He’s like a filthy piece of human creature to them. And that’s part of the contemporary perception, going back centuries, as we know. The stereotype of the greedy Jew, bottom line. Plus, in the play, his daughter Jessica runs away with a Christian, and a lot of his money. And finally, when he’s outsmarted by Portia and the Christians, he’s forced to convert to Christianity. The Nazis, between '33 and the end of the war, they had 50 productions of “The Merchant of Venice” performed in Germany and some of the conquered territories. In Vienna, in 1943, one of the great classical productions of the Nazi era is this picture. 1943, Vienna. A obviously very antisemitic production, and it was organised by Baldur von Schirach, and he was the highly antisemitic leader of the Nazi Youth, and he was one of the main Nazi leaders in Vienna, of Austria, of the times, and he individually commissioned the production. Okay, lastly, I want to mention the phrase right at the end of, towards the end of the play in the trial scene, when Portia comes in, and she looks, and there’s Antonio, and I’m going to show this in some of the film clips, there’s Antonio, the merchant.
Antonio is the merchant of Venice, not Shylock. And Shylock, and when Portia comes in at the end, she walks in and she obviously sees who is the Jew and who is Antonio, and I’ll give you an image from the Pacino play. Okay, here you see obviously the painterly image, the Pacino movie, you know, obviously influenced by the painting of the time. Michael Radford, the director, fantastic production, which I’m going to show clips of more next week. But to have a look here, okay, this is some of the image, if you like, of, and I’m not going to play it, but I’m just going to show it. The image of Pacino playing Shylock. The red hat, Venice, you know, trying to dress in the costume probably of the times, trying to show Venice of the times that the play is set. And I do this to show the outsider-insider, trying to capture it in the costume. He’s wearing the beard and so on. So, we can imagine him coming to the final trial at the end, here in the trial scene, as shown in this film, of the Pacino film. And Portia comes in, takes command of the space. She’s the youngest. I mean, a woman dressed as a young man, doesn’t matter, I won’t go into that love story. But she has the phrase, the question, “Who is the Jew, and who is the merchant?” She knows, all she has to do is obviously look, and she’ll see the red cap of Shylock. She knows that’s going to be Shylock. She doesn’t have to ask that. So it’s all the time these insults, whether they’re obviously verbal or subtle, or less subtle, even. “Who is the Jew, and who the merchant?” And she would know obviously immediately. But it’s thrown in by Shakespeare brilliantly through the character of Portia at the end. And that for me is such an important little line, because it’s again, the foreigner, the outside, the outcast, the parvenu, et cetera. You know, you think you’re assimilated, you’re not, et cetera. The insult before the trial even begins. Okay, now, what I want to do is show a few clips, and I’m going to start with the Barton and Patrick Stewart and David Suchet discussion. By the way, it’s always in rehearsal.
CLIP BEGINS
- This evening, we’re going to do something we’ve not done elsewhere in our series. We’re going to look at one of Shakespeare’s characters in detail. Shylock is one of Shakespeare’s most famous parts, and today “The Merchant of Venice” is perhaps the play that’s most argued about. Some people of course feel it’s deeply antisemitic and ought not to be performed. Others react the other way, and say that if you read the text aright, Shylock the Jew is intended by Shakespeare to be sympathetic and even a heroic character, and it’s often played that way, so you can take your choice. Patrick and David and I have done the play together at different times, though neither of them have seen each other play the part. So we should all declare at the outset what we believe Shakespeare means us to feel about the character. Well, what we believe is that he shows Shylock as a bad Jew and a bad human being, but that this in itself does not make the play antisemitic. If we thought it was, we certainly wouldn’t do it. Antisemitism is certainly expressed in the play by some of the characters, but of course that doesn’t mean that Shakespeare himself approves of what they’re saying. There are two other Jews in the play, Shylock’s daughter Jessica and Tubal, and Shakespeare does not take an antisemitic view of them. But Shylock is a would-be murderer who refuses to show Antonio, the merchant and his intended victim, any mercy. Those who try to justify Shylock have to work very hard to get round that, though they usually feel that they can do so. It’s interesting that in Israel, most Jews don’t seem to have such scruples.
There’ve been quite a number of productions of the play there since the war. The problem with the part, I think, really springs from Shakespeare himself, because he very rarely expresses his own views explicitly in a play. He shows us here a bad Jew and some bad Christians, and yet he doesn’t articulate his view of the characters, he lets them betray themselves by their words and actions. That is Shakespeare’s way. He rarely makes his characters all black any more than he makes them all white. Yet different critics or actors are apt to pick out the black bits or the white bits only, and to interpret the play accordingly. It’s even been said that there are only two ways of playing Shylock, either as a goodie or a baddie. But if we are to read Shakespeare truly, we must look for the delicate ambiguities and inconsistencies that he provides, as we’ve seen elsewhere. These inconsistencies are the character. Flawed, contradictory, human. If I had to say to an actor one thing only about a part, I think I’d choose to say, look for the ambiguities and the contradictions, and play them. So, David, let’s first of all get out of the way the question of the antisemitism.
Yes, well, being Jewish myself, I’d like to get it out the way because I remember when I was coming up to actually perform the role, I’d get letters from America, telling me, or questioning, even the very fact that I was doing the role in the first place. How dare I do Shylock, you know. And I think that we all have to be very, very careful not just to respond to the play in relation to the 20th century Holocaust.
Yes. Patrick, what do you think?
Yeah, I, perhaps for the first time, the last time in this programme, I find myself totally in agreement with David. The antisemitism, the alleged antisemitism of the play, because we agree is not an antisemitic play, it has antisemitic elements, is a distraction. But I also believe that the Jewishness which is so often emphasised in “The Merchant” is equally a distraction. David’s right, for us in the second half of the 20th century, the antisemitic expressions in the play are going to reverberate very powerfully, and the director and the actor won’t need to emphasise them. The reverberation will be present anyway, but you cannot avoid them and you can’t underplay them. I think, however, to concentrate on Jewishness is to avoid the great potential in the character, which is his universality. I think that whenever I’ve seen a very ethnic, a very Jewish Shylock, I’ve felt that something has been missing, that something has been lost from the performance. Shylock is essentially an alien, an outsider. I think if you see him as a Jew first and foremost, then he’s in danger of becoming only a symbol. I think that Shylock is an outsider who happens to be a Jew.
[John] Would you challenge that?
Yes, I would, only insofar as that I would interpret Shylock, I’m an outsider, not who happens to be a Jew, but because I’m a Jew. I think that the Jewish element in the play, I think is, is unavoidably very important. I think this is probably where we differ probably in our interpretations. I’m looking forward to seeing what, what your Shylock is like, because in each of the scenes, and there’re not that many, well, in three of the scenes, I mean, Shakespeare does manage to ring a wonderful change in the way that Shylock, the Jew, has a business relationship, a family relationship, how he responds to his enemies, how he responds to his friends, and also how he, he demonstrates the laws of the land in which he lives. And I think also, Shakespeare never forget, never lets us the audience or the character forget the Jewish thing. One only has to look at the trial scene to realise that Shylock’s name, even having been asked, “Shylock is your name?” “Shylock is my name,” that he’s only actually called by his name, Shylock, six times, Jew, 22.
Okay, well now let’s dig into the part with beginning to find already what we find everywhere with Shakespeare, that there’s an infinite number of interpretations. Each actor coming to play the part has to start afresh. So where does he start? He’ll probably begin by reacting against previous interpretations. And his starting point, I suppose for most actors is the crucial question, what did he look like, How did he talk?
I should state here that when the part was originally offered to me, my inclination was to refuse it for one principle reason, which was that it seemed to me that the part was eternally stuck in a kind of tradition, a ritual about the role. That if you were to play Shylock, then it would necessarily mean ringlets, a hooked nose, long, exotic, perhaps semi-oriental gowns, either shabby or decorative to taste, that there was so much traditional appearance and traditional behaviour attached to the role that I could never free myself from it. I could never find a human being at the heart of that exterior, that set exterior. So, well, as I began to read the play, of course, something else began to appear, something else began to unfold about the character, and I found that indeed there was a highly complex and very modern creation. I decided therefore that I would avoid the easily recognisable symbolic elements of Jewishness, the ringlets, the gown, and the nose and so on, although I should say that I had a very large, bushy beard and a lot of long, dirty, tangly hair, and I wore a shabby, dirty, broken-down frock coat, because I think that the most important thing with Shylock in the play is money, possessions, and finance, having it.
Therefore, you’re not going to waste it on how you appear, so I made an attempt to make my Shylock very shabby and down-at-heel. As for the voice, one thing influenced me. Shylock is living in a strange culture, an alien culture. I think that in order to survive, it’s necessary, one of the ways of surviving in an alien culture is to assimilate yourself into it. Therefore, I gave him an accent which was more cultured, more native than the natives. So I gave him a cultured, over-cultured, an over-refined accent, much more so than the aristocrats in the play. You see, I think that the foreignness in Shylock, that which is truly strange and exotic, lies in the language, not in how he appears. No one in “The Merchant of Venice” speaks like Shylock, not even his fellow Jew Tubal. If you take for instance the Laban speech, there is so much rich and curious, bizarre use of language in that speech that that alone says foreigner.
[John] Right. So, David, what about you?
I chose everything in opposition to that. I also discovered, as you did in the language, there is a certain rhythm to the language, which I went with to the extent of even going further with the lilt and slight accent. I didn’t place the accent in any particular area at all, but I wanted to make it foreign with the language that was foreign. 'Cause I felt that was important. I never wanted anybody to forget that I was an outsider, or from that point of view. And it’s something that I felt Shylock would not have tried to alter, because I’m, my Shylock was very proud of his Jewishness, and why hide it? Exploit it where necessary, if necessary, which I think he does in the first scene.
Isn’t that dangerous, exploiting it? Isn’t that-
No, I don’t think so, because I think, well I think it’s that human behaviour, but I think also my dress, if I can just say, was smart, because, yes, motivation money, absolutely agree, but with those that he deals with, he asks, “What news on the Rialto,” the stock exchange, banking money, I think that he would dress according to the status that he believes he has.
[Patrick] Sure, yes, yeah.
As director of the play each time, I found both those images totally acceptable.
Okay, so, this for me sets up the whole debate that we’re talking about today, and in part two when I look at it in two weeks’ time. And I think these two very intelligent, wonderful actors capture the essence of how to interpret, how to portray in a contemporary way, the character of Shylock, given that for me, he’s the archetype, ultimately, of the ultimate Jewish character, historically and of today’s times and how it resonates. And all the little choices from costumes to nose to hair, to choice of accent, all of this feeds the portrayal, and therefore the interpretation, and of course how the audience will experience the character. And every little detail has to be chosen and thought through with such a controversial character. Okay, I want to play a scene from them here. This is all done in the rehearsal space at the RSC. And I want to show the Rialto speech, where Shylock meets Antonio. They don’t get dressed in costume, Stewart and Suchet, they are just, because as I say, this is meant to be all done in rehearsal, which it is. Okay, and I’m going to get it here.
Overcoat and stick, yeah.
Suchet is playing Shylock.
Makes me feel old. All right. Signior Antonio, many a time and oft in the Rialto you have rated me about my moneys and my usances, hm? Still have I borne it with a patient shrug, for sufferance is the badge of all our tribe. You call me misbeliever, cut-throat dog, and spit upon my Jewish gaberdine, and, all for use of that which is mine own. Well then, it now appears you need my help. Go to, then, you come to me, and you say, “Shylock, we would have moneys,” you say so, you, that did void your rheum upon my beard and foot me as you spurn a stranger cur over your threshold, moneys is your suit? What should I say to you? Should I not say, “Hath a dog money? Is it possible a cur can lend, what, 3,000 ducats?” Or, shall I bend low, and in a bondman’s key, with bated breath and whispering humbleness, say this, “Fair sir, you spat upon me Wednesday last, you spurned me such a day, another time, you called me dog, and for these courtesies, I’ll lend you thus much moneys?”
Okay, good. Shylock ‘cause early on in the play, Antonio wants to borrow money, but he’s been called dog, cur, spat on et cetera, and now, “What do you want? Want me to borrow? You want me to lend you money, after you’ve insulted and abused me so much?” It’s that fighting spirit that Suchet captures, a fighting spirit, I’m going to show it in a minute in Olivier as well, the fighting spirit of Shylock, which brings him alive with passion. And he is, I’d agree with David Suchet, he’s proud to be Jewish, and he’s proud of the heritage, and he’s constantly talking about, you know, his tribe, and et cetera, the past, and there’s so many biblical references, Daniel and many others, in the play. So Shylock comes with an echoing resonance of biblical times, of a biblical and a mythological history of the Jews, and how the wandering Jew has been treated, exile in any host nation. Okay, I want to go on to, this has got the great speech in it where, okay, so what are you going to do if he, if Antonio forfeits and can’t pay you back the 3,000 ducats, are you really going to claim your pound of flesh? And that leads us to the great speech. And again, I’m going to so show David Suchet doing it. It’s as if-
Here we go.
Go from, “I’m sure, if you will not for-”
“I’m sure,” yes.
I’m sure if he forfeit, thou will not take his flesh. What’s that good for?
To bait fish withal. If it will feed nothing else, it will feed my revenge. He hath disgraced me, and hindered me half a million, laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies, and what’s his reason? I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands? Organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Ah. revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard, but I will better the instruction.
Okay, I find it fascinating in a rehearsal context to show his interpretation, because he’s trying to push through, is the universal character, but also, you know, in Aristotle’s great phrase, the character we feel the most for is the character’s undeserved misfortune. Antigone, so many others. And Shylock, I would argue, has undeserved misfortune. He’s born a Jew, and therefore he must live in a ghetto in Venice. Therefore he must be treated as an alien, not just second class citizen, third class, but an alien, a foreigner within the host culture. Therefore he can be called dog, he can be spat on. The laws can be changed, manipulated, he doesn’t have any real rights, and he’s got to live in a ghetto, and other things. His rights of marriage, normal day-to-day life, business, other things, jobs, et cetera. All starts with the character of, it’s all captured in Shylock. So it’s undeserved misfortune, simply because he is a Jew, as that speech captures. “Why? Because I am a Jew.” Now, in Shakespeare, I think, and it gets to the core of the whole matter, and none of the others in the entire play deny that. They want it, they need it. You know, they need the hated other, or the despised other, or to put it maybe a bit more politely, they need the other to feel prejudice so they can feel good. Schadenfreude maybe. Okay, I want to show a clip from the Laurence Olivier production. Directed by Jonathan Miller, it’s a fantastic production which was filmed, where Olivier played Shylock with a similar scene leading to that same speech. And it’s done in a very, very English way, and colonial way, as you can see.
I would it might prove the end of his losses.
Let me say amen betimes, lest the devil cross my prayer, for here he comes in the likeness of a Jew. How now, Shylock! What news among the merchants?
You knew, none so well, none so well as you, of my daughter’s flight.
That’s certain. I for my part knew the tailor that made the wings she flew withal.
And Shylock, for his own part, knew the bird was fledged, and then it is the complexion of them all to leave the dam.
She is damned for it.
That’s certain, if the devil may be her judge.
My own flesh and blood to revolt.
Out upon it, old carrion! Revolts it at these years?
I say, my daughter is my flesh and blood.
There is more difference between thy flesh and hers than between jet and ivory, more between your bloods than there is between red wine and Rhenish! But tell us, do you hear whether Antonio have had any loss at sea or no?
Nay, there I have another bad match, a bankrupt, a prodigal, that dare scarce show his head in the Rialto! A beggar, that was used to come so smug upon the mart! Let him look to his bond. He was wont to call me usurer. Let him look to his bond. He was used to lend out moneys for Christian courtesy. Let him look to his bond.
I am sure if he forfeit, thou wilt not take his flesh. What’s that good for?
To bait fish withal. He hath disgraced me, and hindered me half a million. Laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation! Thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, he heated mine enemies, and what is his reason? I’m a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that! If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Why, revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be, by Christian example? Why! The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard, but I will better the instruction.
Okay, I’m going to hold this part here. What’s fascinating to me is how Laurence Olivier tries to capture something of both what Patrick Stewart and David Suchet for me are saying. You know, for Suchet, he’s an outsider because he is a Jew. And for Stewart, he is an outsider who happens to be the Jew. And that’s so important, that choice to be made. Either the one is much more rooted in Jewishness, and the other in the universality of an outcast character in a culture. And Olivier for me tries to capture a bit of both. But the Jewishness comes through more and more. The compassion, the sympathy for the character, in Olivier’s interpretation, is very strong, I think. Yes, we’ve got Olivier with his little bit of maybe excessive physical theatricality, you know, imaginative, perhaps slightly at times looks a bit melodramatic. But the essence of this interpretation is brilliant, because I think he’s trying to grapple with that, you know, and he’s trying to show that this is a real man who’s got serious dilemmas, got serious problems. Yes, he’s greedy with money, he’s hungry, he wants it, and so on.
But he’s not only that, there’s something much deeper going on. And then the attitude of the other two, and their absolutely supercilious assumed superiority and entitlement. And this is just a Jew, old carrion. I mean, if any of us were called old carrion today, I would, so it’s, I mean, you know, Shakespeare’s giving all of this, but the portrayal in the film is much more balanced between the other two representing, if you like, the aristocratic elite who really rule the country, and then the Shylock character of Olivier’s, who is always going to be the outsider and knows it. And what he’s railing against is because he is an outsider because he is the Jew, and no matter what he’s doing, he’s trying to fit in, he tries not to fit in, he tries to fight against it, loses, wins, and that he has this endless, passionate, therefore charismatic energy, which is partly Olivier, but also I think in the character. Okay, I want to show a very, very different interpretation, and one that I find brilliant, and fascinating. Orson Welles was obsessed with the character of Shylock, and did many, many interpretations of it, which he filmed. And in particular, the same speech. Before I say anything, let’s just watch it.
[Narrator] Orson was obsessed with the character of Shylock. In the course of his life he created six different Shylocks.
[Speaker 1] Okay, now to-
[Speaker 2] He’s not in? Good?
[Speaker 1] That’s good, now that’s good, okay. Rolling!
[Speaker 3] Rolling.
[Speaker 2] Shylock.
He hath disgraced me, laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, heated mine enemies, cooled my friends, scorned my nation. And what’s his reason? I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands? Organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same summer and winter? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in. The villainy you teach us, we will execute, and we will better the instruction.
For me, what Orson Welles so brilliantly captures is without any costume, without wearing a yarmulke, without any of the props or anything, just in the face and in the character, extraordinarily fierce intelligence of Shylock, and the charisma, is through a contemplative, reflective thinking. “Why do they hate me? Why do they not want me to live? Why do they gun for me? Why do they insult me, call me dog, cur, carrion? Why do they call me Jew, Jew, Jew all the time? What’s going on here?” And it’s so much more riveting for me than all the other performances, and so much more contemporary, ironically, although it’s Orson Welles many, many decades ago doing this. He draws us right in with a softness in a filmic way, of course. In a theatre, got to reach 1,000 or 800, 500 people, you’ve got to project the voice. But in a filmic way, you can bring the audience right in. You feel the humanity of Shylock, the humanity of the character who is filled with these dilemmas I’m speaking of. He’s the parvenu, he’s the pariah, he’s the outsider. Why do they hate? It’s so simple in the end, just because he’s a Jew. Undeserved misfortune, as Aristotle would say. But it’s that dawning realisation that Orson Welles gives the character that for me makes it a much more humanistic, contemporary interpretation. And he doesn’t need any of the affectations of voice, accent, costume, you know, extra beard, looking like he’s in Venice of the 15, 16th century. It’s captured in this way, so contemporary. And in that reflective, contemplative manner, I think he draws the audience right in to the heart of sympathy, or empathy, as that can identify with the character.
So whatever else, John Barton’s phrase, the bad Jews, the bad Christians, which I find are pretty, not, I don’t want to sound politically correct, 'cause I’m certainly not politically correct, but I just find it a bit naive to just categorise characters like that. But Barton does say full of contradictions, full of ambiguities. And that’s the key to all of Shakespeare characters, but particularly this character, I think, is the most of all. And here, with Orson Welles, he’s utterly aware of it, but he lets the fierce intelligence control the passion, the rage, the hurt, the pain, the anger, the suffering, and the desire that Shylock feels. The intelligence drives the character. Okay, so a very different interpretation of the archetypal character of the Jew from Orson Welles. Not Jewish. Finally, to tempt you a little bit for the next time, I’m going to show it, we’re going to look at Pacino’s film version. We’re going to look at some very contemporary Royal Shakespeare Company actors, a little bit more of the Laurence Olivier, a little bit more of the David Suchet, John Barton, the RSC, just to give you a little taste. So this is the towards the final scene in the fantastic Pacino film, with Jeremy Irons playing Antonio. Pacino, you know, Shylock. And this is just to give you a tiny taste. This is at the end, where Pacino in the front, and you can see it’s so painterly, the way that it’s staged and directed for Venice of the times. They tried to be as naturalistic to the times, visually, as they could. Jeremy Irons’ Antonio, and Shylock at the end of the trial scene with Portia, right towards the end of the play, and he’s coming up to cut his pound of flesh. This is just a little taste, a trailer, if you like. For the next session.
Tarry a little. There is something else. This bond does give thee here no drop of blood. The words expressly are “a pound of flesh.” Take then your bond, take then your pound of flesh, But in the cutting of it, if you do shed one drop of Christian blood, your lands and goods are by the laws of Venice confiscate unto the state of Venice.
O, upright judge. Mark, Jew. Learned judge!
Is that the law?
Yourself shall see the act. For as you urge on justice, be assured, you shall have justice more than you desire.
CLIP ENDS
- Okay, and I’m going to show more of this in the next session, but as Shylock says here, “Is that the law?” Everything he’s believed, everything he’s been led to believe, that finally the law of Venice will protect him, ‘cause he has the right. He lent the money, the money was not paid back because Antonio lost all the money recklessly, all the ships were sunk in the Mediterranean, so Antonio loses everything, but doesn’t pay him back his 3,000 ducats, he’s entitled to get payback, a pound of flesh. And now comes, “If you take a jot of blood,” Christian blood, of course, and so on. So we see here the beginning of the realisation in the Shylock character. What the law says is not necessarily what the law will do, because he’s the outsider, the alien, the foreigner, in the host culture always. The law can be manipulated at any time, or changed. “Is that the law?” he says, and the whole shift happens, as he’s about to cut and get his revenge and take the blood, take the pound of flesh. “Is that the law?” Et cetera. Okay, then Shylock says, “All right, I’ll give him what he wants.”
No, no, no, no, no, it’s not enough. And they push it and push it until Antonio at the end finally says, “What I want most of all is that he convert to be a Christian.” Fit in, or back out. Fit in, or realise you ain’t going to belong. Try and assimilate, tough. For me, it captures no right or wrong, no good or bad. It just captures the dilemma of the Jew, and in this case the Shylock character, brilliantly in all these different interpretations caught on the horns of history and the horns of the dilemma of being an alien, a foreigner, an outsider, an insider, no matter how much the accent is perfected, no matter how much the rituals of the host culture are learnt, there’s always this little lingering thing underneath. And I think Shakespeare captures that superbly, and these actors in all their ways are trying to find it in some way. And for me, that’s why this is the ultimate archetype of the Jew. Obviously post-Holocaust, it has so much more reverberation, as they talked about, the two actors earlier on, but even before. You know, for me, it’s, and it still resonates so powerfully today, because it’s all about the greedy stereotype, the stereotype of the greedy, manipulative banker, rich Jew, and the physical look and all of that that comes in as well. Okay, so, I’m going to hold it there, and thank you very much, everybody. And I hope we can celebrate these fantastic performances and these, it’s a treasure trove of theatrical interpretation.
- [Lauren] David, would you like to take any questions?
Q&A and Comments:
- Yeah, sure. Pleasure. Okay, Karen. “In the '70s,” ah, okay, that’s great, with Ringler, okay.
Q: Carol. “Did Shakespeare know any Jews?”
A: As I was saying, I don’t think, well the Jews were banned for 300 years. And so over Shakespeare’s time, I doubt he would have met a Jew. Perhaps seen in the street or somewhere, but they were not allowed to live there. So it’s his imagination pushing through to understand the Other. Okay, thanks, Carol.
Then going on, Carol. “Probability that Shakespeare never met Jews and minorities may increase of theory that Shakespeare was not the single author of many of his plays.” Whoa, that’s a huge debate! Was Edward de Vere the writer, were many others? My personal thing is that it was Shakespeare, and that Shakespeare did write the plays, but that’s a whole separate debate, which, happy to have at any time.
Judith, “Promotion for Liverpool.” Okay, thanks. Okay, I should become a PR for Liverpool.
Yolandi, “There’s a Stratford production of 'The Merchant,’ it’s particularly antisemitic and heinous, much more than others.” Yeah, I mean there were, let’s never forget, there were 50 productions done in the 12 years of Nazi Germany, of the Nazis ruling in Germany, not by chance. So it lends itself to very antisemitic productions. Not only by the Nazis, but anywhere in the world. You know, it can be staged in so many ways. But let’s be honest, you know, some of other Shakespeare’s plays can also be staged in various ways. You can stage “Othello” thinking the Black character, the general, is the most naive idiot on the planet, ‘cause he believes everything that Iago says, never questions it, never doubts it, ridiculous. A general, so naive?
Okay. Lauren. “Dara Horn, a related book, 'People Love Dead Jews.’ That’s a very compelling case.” Yeah, well, and I think that she’s in her book, I think that it’s all, it builds on the Harold Bloom book, because Harold Bloom, in a way, he’s a brilliant literary critic, not only of Shakespeare or “Merchant.” He says, you know, “You’d have to be blind, deaf, or dumb not to see ‘Merchant of Venice’ as an antisemitic play.” Now that’s a pretty damning strong statement by a very preeminent critic of, you know, the late second half the 20th century. But it sparks the debate. And I’m not just, I don’t want you to sit on a fence, but I really believe we can argue and debate it endlessly, both ways. It might also, you know, and also Shakespeare was trying to make money. I mean, you know, putting on popular plays, it’s got to see that side of him as well. You know, to make bucks. So there might’ve been something in it if it was, but I’m hesitant to ever go that far, because we cannot know the mind of the writer at all. Susan, it’s a question. “I would like to bring contemporary play inspired by the kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara to your attention.”
Please, that’ll be great. Susan, thank you. If you could email it, thank you.
Q: Cheryl. “Did the fact that David Suchet felt he was the outsider Jew led him to convert to Christianity?”
A: Do you mean David Suchet the actor, or the character? Not sure, okay. But interesting, Cheryl, thank you.
Q: Sandy, “Have you seen the Globe’s production of ‘The Merchant,’ The last scene where Shylock converts as Jessica sang and singing the Kaddish?”
A: Yeah. Beautiful, I know. And it does, it’s so moving. I think many contemporary interpretations in the Western world push much more their very empathetic interpretation of Shylock. But if you look at productions done in some Arab countries and other countries around the world, very different. Not all, but different. Romaine.
Q: “How does Shakespeare use being a Jew or slave facilitate his story aside from the stereotype of the day?”
A: I’m not sure what you mean here, Romaine, if you could help me a little bit. Okay, I’ll come back.
Margaret. “Even if Shakespeare didn’t travel himself, quite likely that he spoke with people who travelled, talked for the foreign parts.” Yeah, lovely point, Margaret. He may well have, of course, met others, ‘cause I mean, it’s the time that England was going out, trading and discovering all the new worlds, colonising, et cetera, it was a very outward time in Elizabeth’s reign. So sure, and in London, he would’ve met sailors and travellers in the taverns or pubs and elsewhere who travelled to distant lands, brought back fantastical stories. You know, of monsters, and all sorts of creatures and animals and peoples, you know, Caliban, all the things that feed in to many of his plays, to fire his imagination. But it’s all nevertheless would be second or thirdhand, as opposed to actually meeting Jews. But it doesn’t mean anything to me in the end, it just shows the remarkable quality of his imaginative theatrical brilliance.
Diane, “The book you’re referring to was written by my brothers,” ah! Okay, thank you. Okay, that’s amazing, Diane.
Q: Monty. “Is the name Shylock a common Jewish name?”
A: That’s a very interesting question. I don’t think so. And, want to call him Abraham, Isaac, or Joseph? I think Shakespeare would’ve wanted to get away from a name that was literally from the bible, and find something else, because of possible, because the bible is still used, the Old Testament, obviously he’s still using in Christian times, and the Jews are banned. I don’t know, I’m purely speculating. We can’t know the mind of the writer.
Ruth. “Olivier played Sherlock,” Sherlock, maybe Shylock you mean, “at the Chichester Festival, dignified, respected. He would not charge interest at that moment. There was no possibility that at least one of Antonio’s cargoes would not safely arrive. However, there has to be consideration for such a contract, so as a merry sport.” Like exactly in the beginning, Shylock agrees, as you’re saying, Ruth, Shylock thinks it’s a lot of fun. It’s just a joke, really. 'Cause the beginning with the idea is, “Well, in a merry sport, if you don’t pay me back, then I’ll take a pound of your flesh.” There is a sense of Shylock the performer, the actor, the entertainer. “Well, we’ll have some fun.” But that turns serious.
Q: Ruth, “What changed Shylock’s mind was the loss of his daughter to a Christian.”
A: Yeah, I mean, Jessica he loses, 'cause Jessica runs off with a Christian and steals a whole lot of his money, and that’s, is it?
Well, what I would suggest, Ruth, is for me, that’s the final straw. The final straw that pushes him over the edge where he’s going to fight and take revenge. He can’t get his daughter back, he can’t get a lot of the money that was stolen back, so he’s pushed over the edge. That would be my interpretation.
Jill, “If you can’t hide it, flaunt it.” Okay, thanks. Rochelle.
“The best Shylock was Henry Goodman.” Yeah, brilliant. Fantastic actor of “Friday Night Prayers,” and brilliant actor. It was also a fascinating production done by Greg Doran. You know, he’s currently the artist director of the RSC, wonderful director, and Antony Sher’s partner. And he did a fantastic production where the actors were spitting a lot of the time, to capture that feeling of spitting on the dog, cur Shylock, and the Jew. M
ichael. “The crook in the story is Antonio, who knew very well that he could not pay it back. Every intention to cheat Shylock. So by going to court in order to save his own skin took vengeance against the Jew.” It could be, but Antonio doesn’t know that Portia’s going to arrive at the end, and Portia’s intelligence with the law is going to flip the whole story so that Shylock is the loser. Because that’s why I wanted to show that last image where the Pacino Shylock has got the knife and is about to cut his pound of flesh, and in comes, I know Michael Radford is staging it like that in the film for dramatic effect, but it shows that Antonio maybe didn’t know, you know, that Portia’s going to come in.
Okay, Colin. That was in the '60s. I’ll check the exact date. They did a series of, I think it was 11 or 12, sort of, if you like, rehearsed readings, rehearsal discussions, with these brilliant actors in a rehearsal discussion context to try and discover Shakespeare, our contemporary, how to act him and how to interpret staging.
Sandra. “I think that thanks to the commercial success of 'The Jew of Malta,’” yeah. Shakespeare might well have written it because he saw that Marlowe made a lot of money from “The Jew of Malta,” and therefore he wrote “The Merchant of Venice” about the villainous Jew. The original title for the play is “The Merchant of Venice,” with Shylock, “with the extreme cruelty of Shylock the Jew.” That’s the original title that would’ve gone out in leaflets, I guess, in Shakespeare’s time.
Martin. Shakespeare got most of his plots from preexisting stories. There is a source of the pound of flesh, which is interesting. Whether Shakespeare knew about it or not, we can’t prove, but there is another story, which was during the rounds, of pound of flesh. It’s not necessarily Shakespeare’s invention, that phrase, but maybe it was, we don’t know if he knew, you know, the other stories going around.
Jan. “David Suchet converted to Christianity,” yes. Okay, Suchet I think is very underrated. He doesn’t have the lead character looks, so not cast, I mean, he’s cast as Hercule Poirot, but, you know, but I think very underrated. Yeah, he fiddled with his cap, Carol, his kippah before his speech, absolutely. The way he brings down that cane on the table.
Judy, “Strange comment, ‘In Israel, they do not have such scruples.’” Well that’s what I wanted to try and show of the RSC at the time, John Barton in particular, his interpretation, ‘cause it is very influential in the Western world. The Barton experience of “Playing Shakespeare,” the book and the collection of these one-hour production or rehearsed staging productions is very influential for many students learning Shakespeare, learning to act it and to interpret it, and directors. So, that’s why I wanted to show the comments of Barton early on. It’s interesting to, not to judge it, but to simply see, it’s interesting at different times, you know, how different fantastic theatre minds will respond to this or other plays.
Louise. “How prevalent is Harold Bloom’s view?” Well, it’s part of the big debate, and all hats off to Shakespeare for taking on this topic, by the way, which would’ve been very pretty provocative in his own time, in the same way as doing “Othello.” A Black general? I mean, an Arab Black general in an army? You know, and some of the other characters, Shakespeare didn’t have to take on. You know, interesting.
Q: How much Bloom’s interpretation is view?
A: I think it provokes many debates, and always will, probably.
Henry. “Said that Shylock was greedy. Any livelihood opened to Jews?”
A: No, I’m saying that, I just need to clarify this, Henry. What I’m saying is that the stereotype perception of Shylock and of the Jew is greedy. Money-grabbing, greedy, that is one of the preeminent stereotypes of the Jew. I’m not saying that Shylock is greedy. He is business-obsessed, of course, and making money, but I’m saying the perception of the others in the play is that he’s greedy, and that ties in with a perception of the Jew in contemporary culture, I would argue. That’s the stereotype. So how do you act against it or incorporating it in this classic play?
Sonia, “No beard.” Absolutely, and I think Olivier is a much more intelligent interpretation than people often give credit for. People often see it as a melodramatic interpretation, but there’s no beard. Many other things he doesn’t resort to, you know. I think he tries to combine the intelligence and the body in his interpretation. He doesn’t need a lot of the other props, if you like, of the beard and other things in acting.
Mel. “A director stacked the deck” “when he has a cat barking in the background.” Yup, I know. Lovely, thank you for noticing that. Dawn. “Superb acting,” the actors thank you very much. Katherine, “What would’ve been the social status of Jews in England?” Pretty low. As I said, they were banned, so, they weren’t allow to live there, never mind earn a living, have a job, or anything, they weren’t allowed to live there. They’d been kicked out. They were kicked out for 300 years. So, social status was pretty low, you know, right at the bottom of any social ladder. Hyman, Yiddish productions? I’ve heard of some, and would be fascinating to explore in another series, perhaps.
Romaine, “Orson Welles shows more vulnerability, and you see the intelligence.” Absolutely. There’s a vulnerability, I see it as thoughtfulness and intelligence, and there’s a contemplative, reflective quality which is subtle, and lovely. I agree, there is that vulnerability as well. Art, “Welles’s version is like a soliloquy.” Yeah, it is taken out of context of the whole scene. So he’s just doing the soliloquy, and that is the one criticism I would have, that it may be easier for Orson Welles, because it’s not the context of the whole play. Judith, “Thanks about Orson Welles, believable.” Yeah, it’s very, it speaks to me for our times. It’s trying to capture something of that debate. He’s an outsider because he’s a Jew, he realises that, but it’s done in a reflective, realising way, not done in the raging, screaming way.
Q: Joan, “If it is not antisemitic, why is it relevant that it is Christian blood?”
A: Of course. Well, I’m not saying it’s antisemitic play.
Portia and the others say “not one jot of Christian blood.” So Shakespeare has the other characters talking about Christians, Christians being holier than thou, better, et cetera, Christian blood, et cetera, and so on. It’s the other characters. It’s not necessarily Shakespeare.
Mavis, “You say that the Jew is still an outsider today.” Well, that’s exactly the question, Mavis, that I think the character of Shylock throws to us. And I think that that’s the question that I think Jews grapple with everywhere, outside of Israel. You know, the outsider-insider. It goes on, the dilemma and the contradictions and the debate. And that’s why to choose the character of Shylock. And Shakespeare knows it, he uses the words alien and foreigner in the play. Those words are used by the other characters, the Christian characters.
Margaret, “Series of film?” Yes, they’re all available, you can find them on the internet, I think, YouTube, you know, generally, they should be available. Would say thanks.
Okay, Nicki, thank you, Ron, thanks, Sharon, thank you.
Marcia, “Film version of fantastical, theatrical version,” oh, oh, of “Macbeth.” I don’t know, I’ll check that.
Miri, “I think Shakespeare wanted to know the end that the Jew may be wily, but ultimately it is the Christians who are more clever, more forgiving, allow Shylock to join.” Yeah, well, they have the power. The Christian aristocrats in Venice have the power. So they can manipulate the law, they can manipulate the culture, the morals and the mores of the culture, so, it’s basically, “Fit in, buddy, convert.” That’s more important than anything else. Or, you know, “Get out.” Yolandi, “'Merchant of Venice’ was particularly antisemitic in Stratford,” da de da. Okay, “One student, only Jewish kid, had money thrown at him. Result of that rendition, I forgot the director.” Okay, yeah, well, it can be staged in any of these ways, and has been, you know, in different parts of the world.
Harold Bloom, thank you, Karen, okay. Jenna, “Antisemitism was of a fact of life. Difference is that Shakespeare gives Shylock dimension.” Okay, Orson Welles, yup. You know, Orson Welles, in a way, it’s totally different, but it reminds me of the other brilliant interpretation of a Jewish character, which is Rod Steiger in “The Pawnbroker,” and I’m return grateful to Trudy for pointing that out to me some time ago.
It’s brilliant. It’s one of the best portrayals of a Jew, and this is an Auschwitz survivor in “The Pawnbroker.” It’s a remarkable film, and a remarkable performance by Rod Steiger. That and Orson Welles are are stunning, because they transcend almost these questions. You know, he is an outsider because he’s a Jew, the Suchet comment.
Caroline, thank you, thank you, Romaine, thanks, okay, and Miriam, thank you. Okay, so, thank you very much everybody, and hope you have a lovely rest of Saturday and Sunday. Take care.
[Lauren] Thank you so much David, and thank you to all our participants. Have a good day.
Bye.
Great. Take care. Ciao.