Professor David Peimer
The Merchant of Venice in Film, Part 2

Professor David Peimer - The Merchant of Venice in Film, Part 2

- Okay, great. Okay, so Lauren, thank you as ever so much, and to Wendy and everybody. So welcome everybody, and hope you’re well. This is the second part of what I’m focusing on, which is portrayals of the “Merchant of Venice” on film. And as I’m sure you recall last time, two weeks ago, I showed a little bit of the John Barton, the Royal Shakespeare Educational Series with some of the brilliant actors, Patrick Stewart, David Suchet, and John Barton, and the work they did in the late-‘60s. A little bit of Olivier, and I showed the Orson Welles, and so on. So just to get an idea of different interpretations, and different thoughts behind how to portray this remarkable character in one of the eternally enduringly provocative plays of that remarkable writer, William Shakespeare. And I say that thoughtfully, not just as a cliche, that this is really, I think, one of the most endurable, and remarkably provocative, and thought provoking plays of all of them that he wrote. Because, you know, without getting into a simplistic polemic, you know, is it anti-Semitic, isn’t it, da, da, da. I think much more interesting is to tease out what we started to do two weeks ago of much more of what is actually in the play that can speak to us today, and today’s zeitgeist. And for me, it’s about understanding the role of the Jew in society. And I think Shakespeare hits on the absolute archetype of Shylock, who’s, on the one hand, you know, obviously he’s greedy about money, and it’s his obsession. But at the same time, he is an outsider. The Jew defined as the Jew.

And his relationship with his daughter, Jessica, with a couple of his, you know, there’s the one Jewish friend, Tubal, I’m going to show a few scenes of, but I think almost more than his other plays, this possibly is the most controversial and provocative, the fact that the Nazis, as I mentioned last time, chose to stage it, this is the image, again, chose to stage it. This is the image from the 1943 production in Vienna, Baldur von Schirach, who was the, the gold light, if you like, of Vienna, and he chose this to show “The Merchant of Venice” when almost all the Jews had been murdered, and massacred, and sent to camps, or killed in the city itself. So, and it was shown as a celebration of the eradication of the Jewish people from Vienna and Austria, but Vienna in particular. This is the image, the classic stereotyped anti-Jew hatred image that the Nazi showed. But what is weird and bizarre for me, they showed it in celebration. They still wanted to show “The Merchant of Venice” as a kind of celebration of their achievement of mass slaughter and industrialised murder. They still wanted to show the play. So no matter what, in different circumstances and in different situations, this play is being staged again and again. Currently, there’s a very interesting production with Tracy Oberman, you know, where there’s a female playing, an actress playing Shylock. Anyway, so much of this play generates discussion, especially in our darkening times of antisemitism and racism and of, of many, many kinds happening all over particular, you know, parts of the western world, and other parts of the world as well. So it’s a play that strikes so many chords.

So for me, it’s eternally provocative, and remarkable that Shakespeare in his own time, I know I’ve said this before, but if he ever met a Jew, would he ever spoken to a Jew? Would he ever have had a comment? You know, Jews were banned, yes, there were some conversos, et cetera, but would he ever really have the opportunity in his time? We can imagine London, you know, of the late 1590s, early 1600s, really meeting, talking, getting to know, of course not. So it’s his imagination bursting forth, I think. You try and understand the essence of the outsider, the Jew, and why the Jew is for me, in a slightly different category, as I said before, of Othello who is the Black Moor, because Othello is a general, he’s at the top of the tree in the army, and yes, you know, order is restored, and Iago is the real villain, and Othello is shown to be a bit naive. This is very different, and Caliban, the slave, Prospero, you know, Shakespeare’s constantly looking for the other outsider, and he doesn’t have to, he could have just kept on writing, you know, very popular comedies to make a lot of money. Maybe he wrote this to make money, because of the stereotype attitudes towards the Jews at the time, even though the Jews were banned from England. Nevertheless, the stereotype persisted. So we spoke last time about the Patrick Stewart, David Suchet, the two brilliant RSC actors, and the debate between, as Patrick Stewart saw, that Shylock is an outsider who happens to be a Jew, or as David Suchet argued, Shylock is an outsider because he is a Jew.

And that is a profound for me, and far more profound than many academics to be frank, that I’ve read on the play. I don’t want to get into the debate of whether it’s an anti-Semite play or not, I know Harold Bloom argued it is, and many others argued this way or that, but I think that’s a bit of a well-trodden path by many people, more eminent than me. I’m more interested in these characters, and what can they speak to us today, the zeitgeist, than a judgement overall of the play. And I would argue along with the same line as David Suchet, that he’s an outsider because he is a Jew, not as Patrick Stewart, he’s an outsider who happens to be a Jew. Now, it’s important not only as interpretation of the character, but it’s important in terms of a global western perception as to, well, who is this figure, creature, the Jew, you know, is this person, it’s an outsider in an insider culture, and what makes them an outsider? What makes a Black person, an Islamic person in Afghanistan, whatever, an outsider, is it nationality, religion, mixtures and so on. And obviously there’s blood libel deep down underneath everything, but then there’s the image of the greedy, the rich, the all powerful Jews, the Rothchild, you know, cliche stereotype of controlling the world, the sources, et cetera. So why in this tiny little nation of 14 million today, why is this still nevertheless presses so many buttons and is used in so many ideologically, if you like ideologically comfortable ways because people feel it’s a comfortable way to attack some other, Hannah Arendt’s idea that the Jew will always be a pariah or a parvenu in the host nation, in the diaspora.

The pariah, the host who is like the pariah insect on the host nation, which is what the Nazis obviously took much further, or the parvenu, the upstart made good, makes a lot of money, or goes into business or into law, becomes the professor at Harvard, wherever, et cetera. So Hannah Arendt’s two definitions that the Jew is always caught between the two in trying to assimilate or partially assimilate in another, if you like to use inverted commas, her phrase, in the host nation, not only her phrase, but the phrase the Germans and many others took up later. So I do think it’s different., and I do think, as I said before, you know, Macbeth is not seen as a Scottish king, you know, in Shakespeare, he’s seen as a king who has vaulting ambition to quote Shakespeare. The fact that he’s Scottish is not such a big issue, whereas my mother might say, not such a big matzo pudding of an issue . Okay, so coming back to this here, I want to look at, we’re going to look at Pacino, a little bit of one or two scenes from Olivier, and a little bit more of Al Pacino in the film.

And then I want to show a clip of an amazing contemporary Black world Shakespeare actor Joseph Patterson and his interpretation of the famous speech. In the Pacino film, what we see for me, Pacino understands he’s an outsider because he is a Jew. I think with without doubt, I don’t think he goes along the Patrick Stewart line. And for me it makes it so contemporary. To be honest, I find it’s a bit too much anger, and he could have varied it a bit, but it gets some core of the intensity of the character. Also, the way of staging, they made the film intentionally to capture Venice of the time, the sense of the smog, and the dirt, the filth, the costume that Pacino wears would’ve been pretty close to the costume that Jews would’ve had to wear. It’s, remember the word ghetto is Italian, and it starts from, you know, the Italian city states of the time. And of course, Shylock could be living in the ghetto. So this is the great famous speech from Al Pacino’s perspective in the recent film.

CLIP BEGINS

• I’m sure if you forfeit, he 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, 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, so I want to hold it there, because I think it’s a remarkable performance by Pacino. He’s got the acting technique for camera where he hardly blinks as you notice, but the way his body is so animated, and his eyes, and there is rage, and it’s not the controlled rage that Brando was so famous for, or the controlled fury that Brando was so famous, he’s letting it out. But I still think there’s an edge of control in that the words are never drowned by the emotion. If you like the words of the surfboard, and the emotion is the wave, which is a fantastic achievement when he’s doing so much anger in that speech. What do we see? You know, and the fact that there’s a couple of shots of the Venetians, you know, in this case here, Antonio and so on, these are the Venetian aristocracy. Olivier is using English aristocracy in upper class. Here, they’re trying to show American actors. But you know, doesn’t matter the accent, I don’t care about that, with the Venice of its time, and it is a bit of a shock, and a bit of a surprise, as a reaction from the other characters, and I think it’s therefore he’s trying to empathise even more with Shylock, you know, the director and Pacino give us even more because he’s dressed like this compared to how the others, why can’t he be dressed in the same way as the Venetian aristocracy are dressed. You know, it shows us in the costume, it shows us in the hair, you know, this is seen as the dirty Jew, rich, we want to borrow, get money from him, but the eternal dirty Jew, the rich Jew, all the rest of it, you know, and he’s like almost coming out of the sewers to come and fight. What I love about Pacino’s performance is that he’s a fighter. You know, there’s a militancy inside. Yes, I have to accept this is my lot, this is my hell, this is what you’ve told me. I can’t have any choice, but I’m going to fight nevertheless. And this goes on all the way through the rest of the play in the Pacino film. And he doesn’t try to make beautiful ways of speaking out of the famous lines, you know, “If you prick us, do we not bleed?

If you tickle us, do we not laugh?” You know, et cetera, et cetera. He tries to do it within, you know, the speech of this raging character of Shylock. You know, he’s pretty angry about the whole situation. That’s something that I really like. And you know, what we get, I feel, is a much more empathetic interpretation of the character, cannot help for me identify, going back to Aristotle, the character whose undeserved misfortune is the one we feel the most for. Undeserved misfortune, he’s born a Jew, that’s his misfortune in the world, and everything is as a result of that. The mention of of of money, the mention of the situation, all of that, I think he captured so fantastically in the way he delivers the speech, and it’s set on a balcony with a fog, and the, you know, it’s set more in Shylock’s part of Venice than it would be perhaps the stock exchange, the Rialto part, or the aristocratic part of Venice. So the setting happens there. It doesn’t happen in another, in the Olivier it’s set in a more upper class, you know, sort of colonial english space as we saw in the Olivier version. Okay, I don’t want to go on and on about it, but I do think these choices made are really important. It’s not only how we interpret the character, but choices made of how we stage, costume the character and the decor or the setting that we set it in when we look closely at these films, because they do give, they give texture to the interpretation, and they give direction to the interpretation. Okay, I want to show now a very interesting contrast to this. I showed Olson Welles last week. This is Joseph Peterson, contemporary, fantastic actor with a Royal Shakespeare Company giving the same speech.

• Signior Antonio, many a time and oft in the Rialto you have rated me about my moneys and my usances, 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 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 on me on 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?”

CLIP ENDS

• So what I love about his interpretation is not in the fact that he’s a Black RSC actor, but it’s so subtle, and it’s so intelligent, and how it draws you in slowly. Of course it’s much more filmic, you know, in a big theatre you’d have to project much more the voice, but it’s so subtle and intelligently driven, a very different sense. This not the same speech, obviously as the Rialto speech, you know, when Antonio comes to ask for money, but compared to Olivier, Olivier is getting, you know, meta-dramatic, and shouting, and raging. But here he just draws us in. You know, “Come on buddy, who’s really here, you know, why do you want money? I’m a Jew, you call me a dog, you call me a kir, you spit on me, my Jewish gaberdine, et cetera, and you still want,” you know? He’s trying to turn the tables on Antonio and the aristocrats of Venice, a very different, and I think very contemporary, very contemporary interpretation of the Shylock character, and I think also shows, to go back to my original argument is showing that he’s an outsider because he is a Jew, not an outsider who happens to be the Jew. And I think that’s what Joseph Patterson captures.

And I feel anyway that I can, you know, I don’t need the other stuff, the costume, and all the rest, I feel inside, for me personally, he’s capturing that interpretation of the character, which is a huge, you know, a remarkable insight for him, the actor, and informs everything of the way to act it, and I think this would be such a contemporary way of doing, you know, as a development on from the Pacino way in very recent times for us. 'Cause you cannot help listen, you cannot help being absorbed. Mandela, was it Mandela, no, it was Steve Biko. “The more radical the thought, the softer the tone.” And I think Biko’s phrase precisely for me informs, you know, Patterson’s interpretation here, the more radical the thought, the softer the tone. The listener has no option but to listen and hear,, and absorb highly empathetic interpretation of the Shylock. And we have to break so many of the stereotypes of the rich, the greedy Jew, blood libel going way back. The Jew controls the world, and all those mad stereotyped interpretations, responses. So I sense this is offering an opportunity to look at Shylock in a very fresh, you know, really 21st century way. Okay, I’m going to show some more, and the next ones I want to show are this is going back to Suchet, David Suchet, and Patrick Stewart.

And this is the scene between Shylock and his friend, Tubal. And I’m going to show this and compare it to the David Suchet interpretation here. It’s going back to the John Barton, and Patrick Stewart, and David Suchet, so Tubal is just to remind those who may not remember, but Tubal is the one other Jewish character, besides Jessica, of course the daughter, but the main Jewish character who is Shylock’s friend. They’re both work on the stock exchange in the Rialto, the stock exchange, they’re both businessmen of wealth and of reputation. And Tubal is traditionally the much more rational, calm, and doesn’t bring in Jewish history, Jewish culture, and all the rest of it. He doesn’t have the rage of Shylock. I want to show the difference between Suchet’s interpretation in the scene between the two friends, and our friends going back not only Jewish and business colleagues, friends. And then I’m going to show the other interpretation. Okay, so this is first from.

CLIP BEGINS

• I’ll bring you to the chair, and I’ll greet you just around the chair, and sit you down.

• Yes.

• Places please.

• How now, Tubal ? What news from Genoa? Hast thou found my daughter?

• I often came where I did hear of her, but cannot find.

• Why, there, there, there, there ! A diamond gone cost me 2,000 ducats in Frankfurt, the curse never fell upon our nation till now! I never felt it till now. 2,000 ducats in that, and other precious, precious jewels . I would my daughter were dead at my foot, and the jewels in her ear! Would she were hearsed at my foot, and the ducats in her coffin! No news of them? Why, so. And I know not what’s spent in the search. Why thou, loss upon loss! The thief gone with so much, and so much to find the thief, and no satisfaction, no revenge, no ill luck stirring but what lights on my shoulders, no sighs but of my breathing, no tears but of my shedding .

• Yes, other men have ill luck too. Antonio, as I heard in Genoa-

• What, what, what? Ill luck, ill luck?

• Hath an argosy cast away coming from Tripolis.

• I thank God, I thank God! Is it true, is it true?

• I spoke with some of the sailors that escaped the wrack.

• I thank thee, good Tubal. Good news, good news ! Heard in Genoa.

• Your daughter spent in Genoa, as I heard, in one night fourscore ducats.

• Thou stickest a dagger in me. I shall never see my gold again. Fourscore ducats at a sitting! Fourscore ducats!

• [Tubal] There came divers of Antonio’s creditors in my company to Venice who swear he cannot choose but break.

• I’m glad of it. I am very glad of it. I’ll plague him, I’ll torture him, I am glad of it.

• [Tubal] One of them showed me a ring he had of your daughter for a monkey.

• Out upon her! Thou torturest me, Tubal. It was my turquoise. I had it of Leah when I was a bachelor. I would not have given it for a wilderness of monkeys .

• [Tubal] But Antonio is certainly undone.

• Nay, that’s true, that’s, that’s very true. Go, Tubal, fee me an officer. Bespeak him a fortnight before. I will have the heart of him if he forfeit, for were he out of Venice, I can make what merchandise I will. Go, go, Tubal, and meet me at our synagogue. Go, good Tubal. At our synagogue, Tubal.

• Yes.

CLIP ENDS

• This is again showing in a rehearsal context, I feel that sometimes David Suchet slips into some of the stereotype. You know, I’m not sure if the accent really works here. And I think also he falls in a bit of a stereotype of the slimy greedy Jew as opposed to, you know, Shylock the Jewish businessman, I think Pacino tries to capture he is a businessman, he is obsessed with money and making money, but he doesn’t have that slimy quality to him, because he’s driven more by the anger, you know, that he can’t rise in society, he can’t be treated like a human being, because he is a Jew, and therefore an outsider. I think here Suchet does slip every now and then into that slimy stereotype of the Jew, and then pulls himself out of it. So it’s fascinating to explore, to try and understand because these ways of acting the ultimate, for me, the ultimate archetype of the Jewish character, and I really believe not just because it’s Shakespeare, but I believe 'cause it’s a remarkable play and a remarkable character Shakespeare’s trying to write that he captures this archetype of those things I mentioned earlier. Okay, I want to move on, and I’m going to show Laurence Olivier doing the same scene between Olivier playing Shylock and the other actor playing Tubal, and how Olivier chooses to interpret exactly the same scene. And I think we get a very interesting contrast. Here, come it now. It’ll come up in a minute.

CLIP BEGINS

• Gentlemen, my master Antonio is at his house, and desires to speak with you both.

• We have been up and down to seek him.

• Here comes another of the tribe. A third cannot be matched unless the devil himself turned Jew.

• How now, Tubal? What news from Genoa? Hast thou found my daughter?

• I often came where I did hear of her, but cannot find her.

• Why, there, there, there, there! The diamond gone cost me 2,000 ducats in Frankfurt! The curse never fell upon our nation till now , I never felt it till now. 2,000 ducats in that, and other precious, precious jewels! I would my daughter were dead at my foot, and the jewels in her ear; I would she were hearsed at my foot, and the ducats in her coffin. No news of them? Why so? And I know not what’s lost in the search! Why, thou loss upon loss! The thief gone with so much, and so much to find the thief, and no satisfaction, no revenge, nor no ill luck stirring, but what lights on my shoulders, no sighs but of my breathing, no tears but of my shedding.

• Yes, other men have ill luck, too. Antonio, as I heard in Genoa-

• What? Ill luck?

• Hath an argosy cast away coming from Tripolis.

• I thank God, I thank God! Is it true, is it true?

• I spoke with some of the sailors that escaped the wrack.

• I thank thee, good Tubal. Good news, good news . What else did thou hear in Genoa?

• Your daughter spent in Genoa, as I heard, one night fourscore ducats.

• Thou stic'st a dagger in me. I shall never see my gold again. Fourscore ducats at a sitting, fourscore ducats!

• There came divers of Antonios creditors in my company to Venice that swear he cannot choose but break.

• I am very glad of it, I’ll plague him, I’ll torture him, I am glad of it.

• One of them showed me a ring that he had of your daughter for a monkey.

• It was my turquoise! I had it of Leah when I was a bachelor. I would not have given it for a wilderness of monkeys.

• [Tubal] But Antonio is certainly undone.

• Nay, that’s true, that’s very true. Go, Tubal, fee me an officer. Bespeak him a fortnight before. I will have the heart of him if he forfeit, Go, Tubal, and meet me at our synagogue. Go, good Tubal, at our synagogue, Tubal.

CLIP ENDS

• With Olivier’s interpretation is, yes, there’s some melodramatic acting, and a bit overacting, and over-emoting. But besides having the charm and the charisma of the Shylock character, and Olivier, you know, dancing, the entertainer, dancing around the performer. For me inside everything, he captures the pain of Shylock. And everything I’ve said about him being determined by the society, ostracised, the outsider, the society is what creates the misfortune that he’s born into. He has no choice, and I think Olivier’s understood that he is an outsider because he is a Jew, not an outsider who happens to be a Jew, and he’s trying to, in his own way, he’s trying as best he can to interpret for me from that perspective. So he’s holding the picture at the beginning of the daughter, which he smashes. Yes, she’s broken. She spent 2000 ducats in one night, a fortune, and she’s run away from home, from him. But also it’s the loss of his daughter. Leah, his wife has been lost already.

But the loss of the daughter, and the loss of the money, all of it together, the history of his own life, it just all comes into that for me. So the rage, and smashing the picture of the daughter is all of that. We feel the burden of history on the Jewish Shylock in that as well. Not only that he is a money grabbing guy who cares more about the 2,000 ducats than about his daughter, you know, running away to Genoa with a Christian Guy. So I feel Olivier is trying to come from that perspective again, to understand, to really be such a pariah or parvenu, mixture of the two in the host nation. And then at the end, you know, he’s not all euphoric in a naive way, but he’s thinking it through, “Okay, I’m going to now exact my revenge if that’s what they want to do to me, if that’s how they want to treat me, I’m going to plan, I’m going to cut, and get my pound of flesh from Antonio, and then at the end, this remarkable image of putting on, you know, the talent and this image of Olivier, and we can’t separate the icon of Olivier, the actor from, you know, the character of Shylock, and putting this on, and this visual image, it sets up for me so many complex responses. I don’t think there’s an easy answer, because in that image and in that voice, in that face, you know, in the end, this is what society will stamp on you, Shylock. This is what society will make you out to be, whether you like it or not. And I think he’s aware, and hence putting it all on, he’s reverting more and more to his Jewishness, and he does this throughout the whole production at various times, Olivier.

I’m not saying it’s fully conscious, but I’m in Olivier, but I think he’s really trying to get to that sense. When you are beaten down step by step by the society around as the outsider living on the inside, pushed, pushed, pushed, what resources do you have to go back on? But your tradition, your culture, your religion in this case, you know, you have to find something to give you the strength to keep fighting. He could say at any point, "Okay, I’ll give up getting my pound of flesh. I’m not going to take flesh from Antonio. I’ll forget the losses, whatever, we’ll do some deal.” He doesn’t, you know, and Turbal the friend is showing to be a very rational, caring friend here. But I think it, it almost, there’s a balance, because Olivier is highly emotional and emotive, but that’s his, you know, the passionate energy is his energy to fight the Venetian system, you know, ruled by Christianity. Tubal I think is more the Cossack contemporary businessman in a way who will not get involved in the passion, but sees the business.

He sees Antonio’s ships have been lost, Antonio is lost, Antonio is going to have to come up with the money to pay you back. So I feel this is a fascinating interpretation of the two Jewish friends here in the production. The reason I want to harp on this kind of detail is because this for me captures so many ways of how antisemitism is portrayed in our contemporary society, and the cliched perceptions from people who do not like Jews, put it mildly, and their perceptions, and how then as Jews, do Jews choose to perform to counteract that, and vice versa, an ongoing debate, so I don’t want to get into now, and you know, contemporary ways of actually doing it in life, but I think these images from these films try to give us an inkling what position do we come from originally? Okay, I want to move on to the last scene in the Pacino film, which is an amazing scene. And this is here, sorry, just to find it here for one second.

Okay, this is a scene which is absolutely, you can see the beautiful staging first of all, which is really like a Venetian painting, you know, a painting of the era, and the director, obviously they’re completely influenced by using paintings of the era to stage the costumes, the positioning, the hierarchy, you know, who’s got the real power, the religious, and then the politicians, the aristocrats, the lawyers. So this is here, Jeremy Irons playing Antonio. And at the bottom, in the centre is Pacino’s Shylock holding the dagger and about to cut his pound of flesh from, it’s the end of the trial scene, towards the end of the trial scene, towards the end of the play. And the Pacino Shylock character is about to take the knife, the dagger, and cut his pound of flesh from next to Antonio’s heart, the Jeremy Irons character. And you’ll see how this last scene is played out, and I’ll ask us to look, where is the sympathy going? What is the portrayal of these stereotyped images, the Jews I’ve mentioned, and what is their interpretation? You know, in the staging together with of course, enjoying the sumptuous visual of the lighting and the costumes.

CLIP BEGINS

• Tarry a little, there is something else. This bond doth give thee here no drop of blood; The words expressly are a pound of flesh. Take then thy bond, take thou thy pound of flesh, fut, in the cutting it, if thou do shed one drop of Christian blood, your lands and goods by the laws of Venice confiscated, unto the state of Venice.

• O upright judge! Mark, Jew, o learned judge! .

• Is that the law?

• Yourself shall see the act. For, as you urged on justice, be assured you shalt have justice, more than you desire.

• I take the offer then. Pay the bond twice, and let the Christian go.

• Here is the money.

• Soft, the Jew shall have all justice, no haste. He shall have nothing but the penalty, therefore prepare you to cut off the flesh. Shed then no blood, nor cut you less nor more, but just a pound of flesh. If you take more or less than a just pound, be it but so much as makes it light or heavy in the substance or division of the 20th part of one poor scruple, nay. If the scale do turn, but in the estimation of a hair, you die and all your goods are confiscate.

• [Gratiano] A second Daniel. Now infidel, I have you on the hip.

• Why just did you pause?

• Shall I not have even my principal?

• You shall have nothing but your forfeiture to be so taken at your peril, Jew.

• Why, then the devil give him good of it! I’ll stay no longer question.

• Tarry, Jew, the law has yet another hold on you. It is enacted in the laws of Venice, If it be proved against an alien that by direct or indirect attempts He seek the life of any citizen, the party against the which he doth contrive shall seize one half his goods; the other half comes to the privy coffer of the state, and the offender’s life lies in the mercy of the duke only, against all other voice. In which predicament, I say, you stand. Down therefore, and beg mercy of the duke.

• Beg that thou mayst have leave to hang yourself:

• That thou shalt see the difference of our spirit, I pardon thee thy life before thou ask it. For half thy wealth, it is Antonio’s, the other half shall come to the general state.

• Nay, take my life and all; pardon not that. You take my house when you do take the prop that doth sustain my house; you take my life when you take the means whereby I live.

• What mercy can you render him, Antonio?

• A halter gratis, nothing else, for God’s sake.

• So please my lord the duke, and all the court forego the fine for one half of his gross, I am content, so he will let me use the other half relinquish it upon his death, unto the gentleman that lately stole his daughter. One thing provided more, that, for this favour, He shall presently become a Christian;

• He shall do this, or else I do recant the pardon I late pronounced here.

• [Portia] Art thou contented, Jew?

• You see it-

• Okay, I’m going to hold it here because We get the idea that just to quickly show you one second, again, I want to show this here, where he’s come from.

• I’m sure if you forfeit, you 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 have distressed me and hindered me half a million, laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, called my friends, heeded my enemies, and what’s his reason? I am a jew.

• So we’ve gone from that, which is a, you know, he is the victim and the loser, but he’s fighting, and so militant, and we go from that to this.

• And just, relinquish it upon his death. And to the gentleman that lately stole his daughter.

CLIP ENDS

• And the final thing is that, okay, even more important than the money, more important than losing his possessions. The final thing, Antonio, representing the ruling power of Venice, the final, ultimate sentence, become a Christian. So get rid of all this other stuff, and become one of us. And that Shakespeare has the brilliance to bring that in at the end. That that ultimately is what can turn it, and maybe you’ll be accepted. Oh, okay, great. So ultimately he’s got to come back, he’s reduced to this, and what is the end result? Convert, convert buddy, and you’ll be okay. So that phrase that Shakespeare wrote in the middle of, you know, “And why for all this, et cetera, because I am a Jew.” I think Pacino really gets it. He’s an outsider, because he’s Jewish, not an outsider who happens to be Jewish. Because at the end of the day, what matters is that you become Christian. And that kind of change doesn’t happen in other Shakespeare plays where turns on a religious conversion in this kind of way. And I think Shakespeare’s a remarkable imagination to be able to push through to see that that is the final thing. The only way that that Shylock can survive, otherwise exile, lose everything, all the rest of it gone. He has to conform, fit in at the end, no longer even pariah or parvenu.

Totally disregard everything of your tradition, your culture, your religion, and become one of us completely, and nothing else. And you know, I think in a way this fits in so strongly with so much of what’s going on at the moment in so many parts of the world, you know, anti-immigrant of all kinds, you know, race, and religion, and ethnicity, et cetera, et cetera. The question of the alien and the citizen, the foreigner and you know, the citizen from the inside, and all those words are in the text. Shakespeare uses the words alien and foreigner, you know, and why, because of this one reason. So this for me is a very sympathetic interpretation of the script. If we look back at the 1943 one I don’t want to show aspects of that, of the Nazi, if you like, victorious celebration in inverted commas of the eradication and annihilation of all the Jews of Vienna and Austria, there, you know, what they show, and hear what they show. And I think between the two extremes lies many interpretations of Shylock. And what can that say to us today? How do we perform our Jewishness? How do I, David perform our Jewishness in ordinary day-to-day level, on another level? You know, I think the play provokes all these questions for us, no right or wrong, but offers us an incredible treasure of ways of performing this, for me, the most archetypal Jewish character of contemporary times. I want you to show lastly, a little bit of the interview with Charlie Rose, and Pacino, and Jeremy Irons, and the director, Michael Radford. Okay, great, thanks.

CLIP BEGINS

• I don’t know, it may be that it’s a kind of controversial, maybe I think that there was a period in the middle of the century when the play was hijacked by certain elements in the world. And it was thought for a moment or two that it wasn’t a good play to put on, because it’s very controversial in terms of its describing of the world between Christians and Jews, and I think that people were very, very sensitive about things like that.

• Was it automatic, you wanted to make it in Venice?

• Absolutely, absolutely. I mean, if you’ve got Venice, and particularly if you want to set the film in its context, which we wanted to do, because it’s a very, very realistic film, if you like. You’ve got this wonderful place, and it was the most wonderful place in the 16th century.

• I think you must know this. And this is the legend that he went to see Brando, who I knew and who you obviously knew well, is this a true story?

• No, this is not a true story.

• No, I don’t think so.

• Here’s what has been written, this is amazing. And then, you said to Brando, who should play Shylock? And Brando said Pacino is the only person that can do it.

• That might have been Barry.

• That was Barry Navidi, the producer of the movie.

• [Charlie] Oh, went to Brando and said.

• Yes, yes, he told me that just recently. This amazing thing, yes. I didn’t know it just the other day.

• Is this one of the best Shakespearean parts other than Hamlet?

• Well, Hamlet, yes. But there’s so many, I mean, there’s the comedies, the partisan comedies, and then of course Richard III.

• [Charlie] Which you know a bit about.

• Yeah, Iago claims to be a great role. And I think it is, except it sort of, it just doesn’t resolve itself well. I don’t think at the edge. It just doesn’t, but there’s Richard, and there’s Othello, really? Othello’s a great role in the first half.

• You played in Lear before at some point.

• Oh, Lear, yeah, oh gee, that’s, yeah.

• So you haven’t done that.

• That’s coming, no, no. I haven’t even thought about doing it. No, it’s coming though.

• In college themed courses. They always say, is this a Christian comedy or a Jewish tragedy?

• Well, to me it’s a tragedy of a man, a character. That was what finally got me to do it, I guess, is I had in the past no interest in playing Shylock. I’ve been offered it a few times, and we talked about that, and I don’t know why, I thought, I didn’t see the role. I saw some brilliant performances as Shylock. I’ve seen him in London, I’ve seen him here.

• I think Dustin played in London on stage.

• Dustin was brilliant. I saw him do it here. So I had my fill of it, I thought, “Geez, his wonderful performances, and what does it have to do with me until I read Michael Radford’s text, his screenplay, his adaptation of it. And for some reason, when I read that, I felt I knew who Shylock was, I could relate to it. I found I was able to understand where he was coming from, where this character was coming from, and I thought only then that I might be able to interpret it. And so that was after that I said, yes.

• Tell me who he is, and where he’s coming from. I mean, is it revenge? Is it rage? I sit anti-Semitism? Is it all that? It’s a combination of everything. Because when you take his life, at least the life that I tried to, the before life I tried to give to the character, and in understanding it, I saw someone who was put upon, I was interested in that message of how far can you drive somebody before they, you know, and the background, it’s obvious to me in reading Michael’s script that you see a man alone, sad, depressed, almost. You see a man confined to a ghetto. You see a man who loves his daughter, his only daughter, and the loneliness of that, and in a way you see this sort of gradation of abuse. And that was what I related to, a kind of persecution that ultimately explodes, because to me, he’s reached his limit when they take his daughter, and that’s how he feels about it, and that’s how I saw him a man with dignity.

• He’s reached his limit, and there are no limits for him, right?

• Well, that, I don’t know. Jury’s out on that one, that’s something we could always talk about as to whether the pound of flesh and what that means. But I did feel that he was able to maintain himself a lot of dignity in terms of his work. He was quite good at it, and he was proud of it. And in that sequence with Jeremy, who plays Antonio, where he says, okay, we’ll make this deal. I, you know, if if you don’t pay me, I’ll take a pound of flesh. So I thought that in that way he, he was pretty sure that Antonio would pay him back. It wasn’t that much the money.

• [Charlie] Well, he would have the money.

• Well, he would have the money, and it was his way of saying, you see though, but I won’t even charge you interest, but we’ll just say, you know, let’s say a pound of your fair flesh actually is what he said. It’s a kind of little play on it. But he’s doing it in a sense to say, you know, look at me, I’m a gambler in a way. And it’s kind of oneupmanship. Remember we talked a lot about that, and in order to be able to, you know, find a way to be able to say these words, you have to sometimes just supply your own story to it, you know, your own sort of subplot you said.

CLIP ENDS

• I think what is really interesting for all of us here. What was interesting for me with Pacino, you know, to go back right to the beginning, Patrick Stewart spoke about, you know, his prime motivation is money, and everything is subservient to that. David Suchet, he’s an outsider, because he’s a Jew, as I’ve said. For Pacino, he’s trying to come in and say, "Look, you know, he cracks finally when he loses his daughter, he cracks at other point, how far can you push a character? How far can you push a human being before they crack, before they rage, before they explode? And I find this fascinating that this is another way into understanding, he’s an outsider because he’s a Jew, but he’s going through the detail of what the character actually goes through in the play of trying to rail against it, fight against it, but at the end, the society is crushing more, and more, and more, and in the end crushes him like we see in that final scene. And Pacino’s trying to just tap into the character. He knows he’s an outsider and outcast. How far can you push the guy before he rebels. and then ultimately, of course he’s crushed by the society.

And I think these major interpretations capture in a way some of the very contemporary debates, and ideas about how on Earth to play this character, Shylock. this ultimate archetype of the Jewish character in Western theatre. And I think Pacino is getting there somewhere, together with a little bit of the David Suchet, if you go through what’s really going on with a character, he doesn’t talk about the the money and all that, Pacino. He talks about where this guy’s going through, because of the undeserved misfortune he’s born into, you know, and how he’s trying to fight and rail against it, et cetera. And I found that a fascinating understanding in a very contemporary way of trying to get into the character of the other, in this case the Jewish character. And I think it offers us a fairly fresh approach, which I think can lead to like what Joseph Patterson is trying to, can lead to something of how to really get inside, so we can speak to the humanity of the audience, and they also understand that it’s because he’s a Jew, the two can come together instead of being a polemic, you know, set out by the Suchet-Stewart debate. Okay, thank you so much everybody, and appreciate coming on this little journey with this remarkable play captain in a couple of films . Thank you.

• [Judy] Do you have time for a couple of questions, David?

Q&A and Comments:

• Yeah, sure. Sandra. Hi. Okay, Hope you’re okay, everything. All best and all funders to you Dion, we spoke. Thank you Rhonda.

I did a little bit of a recap I think at the beginning where are tried to contextualise the key ideas of the debate. Sue, thank you, appreciate.

Sonya, Portia seems to say that mercy is a Christian value. Absolutely. So in the Portia speech, you know, absolutely the quality of mercy, et cetera, that whole speech. So they try to appropriate mercy, and compassion, and forgiveness as the Christian value as opposed to the Jewish eye for an eye, absolutely. Done by Shakespeare, the writer, in the Portia speech. Mitzi, always seem to me that is a Jew is an element of vengeance, but changed as a gentile, who is in the difficult almost subservient position Portia brings this out. Yeah, I mean that’s what Shakespeare sets up. I mean the great line of vengeance is, you know, "You teach me your villainy, but I will better, which I,” I forget the exact line, “But I will learn from and I will better the instruction in execution of it, which is similar to the great Caliban line to Prospero in the Tempest where Caliban says, "You teach me your language, and my profit on it is I know how to curse you,” not thank you for colonising me or you know, like in the “Life of Brian,” you bring me aqueducts, water, educate, yeah, et cetera, et cetera. Well no, you teach me your language and how to curse you, but for Shylock it’s revenge.

Absolutely I will better, but I will learn from you, my ruler, and I will better the instruction. So he is still at that stage, you know, at that moment in the play, but by the end, the forces of the ruling elite crash him, you know, so how far can the other quote Pacino, “How far can you push a person when you other them.

Jackie, from a Semantic point of view that almost all the characters are full Italian names whereas Shylock’s outsideness is further emphasised, because his name is so different.

Absolutely, and the others are overtly, as you say, are Italian names, except Shylock. And let’s never forget in the play he’s called Jew 22 times, and he’s only called Shylock six times, which is a whole shift in Shakespeare’s understanding of this position of this outsider.

Sandy, there isn’t one admirable character in the play, I mean Shylock has a reason to be so, his ducats and his daughter were the only thing he has. Right from the beginning he’s treated horribly leaving him with nothing. Yeah, I mean absolutely. You know who else except Tubal, his friend, his Jewish friend, who else tries to treat him with a little bit, nevermind compassion, but a moment of human kindness. It ain’t, it ain’t there.

Thank you, spot on. Gail, hi. Hope you well in Joburg, and everything, and thanks for your help.

Q: "Did the Nazis cut the speech with the Jews being like all other people?”

A: I don’t know actually it’s a great question, which I’ll find out.

Thank you, there’s no recording of the actual, there’s no film recording of that 1943 production of the Nazis. So I’ll try and find out through other research. Thank you. It was the most likely Shakespeare source for The Merchant published in Italy.

Yeah, great, thank you, Faye. “I saw Patterson Joseph in the play. He almost underplayed the character.” Yeah, which is another brilliant way in. And I think that offers us another way in a contemporary context of how to, you know, get the character in order to produce the maximum emotional effect in the audience. Mitzi, “She then brings, gets to bring out her Christian values,” yep. Yolandi, Pacino is much more convincing as a Sicilian actor playing Italian roles. Better than the Jewish actors we saw last week. He’s by far the best in my opinion.“ Great, thank you. You know, so Pacino coming from an Italian American background, et cetera. Yeah, you know, and maybe bringing something of that, of the outsider of that into, you know, and the stereotype attitude of Italians that you can imagine Italian and Sicilian in particular. Not only mafia, but you know, that the perception of the Sicilian American.

Q: Sally, "How do you rate Warren Mitchell’s rendition of Shylock?”

A: I don’t know to be honest. So I need to have a look, and get back to you. Thanks for that.

Rochelle, “Henry Goodman is brilliant.” I’ve been trying to show some of the better scenes, you know, there are some of Henry Goodman in the trailer, but not actual scenes. But he is brilliant in it without a doubt. If not possibly the best of all.

Jerry, thank you. “However, I believe we have to face the reality the play’s a comedy, for many elements of comedy, the disguises, et cetera, the storyline. And Shylock is, is the unregenerate villain in the context. Contemporary productions can no longer stage it as a comedy, Shakespeare’s genius, he humanises the villain.” Yeah, I’m not sure if it is a comedy. I’m not sure I agree with you entirely, Jerry. It may have been staged more as a comedy in Shakespeare’s time, but I think post Holocaust, I don’t think we can stage it as a comedy. It’s my personal opinion.

Jen, “Olivier does a good Basil Fawlty rendition of Shylock.” He certainly has some of that, and maybe John Cleese took a bit of that from Olivier. They all take from each other, as a great professor of mine at Columbia once said, “David, originality is lack of information.” So Cleese might have taken it from Olivier.

Cheryl, thank you. If Shakespeare, no interference, no interaction with Jews. I didn’t think he was able to capture the Jew. Well that’s it. I personally don’t believe he ever would’ve met a Jew. And even if he had met a Converso Jew at the time, would that person have told him he was a Jew? Some playwright, he then becomes, you know, part of the king’s players, I don’t think so. I think it had to burst from his, I think what’s remarkable at Shakespeare, not only the language, but his remarkable imagination to project his mind into characters he would never have met. Would he have met a Black Moor general, a fellow? No, would he have met a Scottish king? Well maybe you know, et cetera. But you know, it’s his imagination bursting through to try and understand and particular the outsider characters I think. And less so the characters which you could relate to in terms of of of knowing, you know, the royalty, and all the political shenanigans.

Suzanne, “Found the Olivier version most tragic.’ Yeah, he does. He gives a performance of loss. You feel the pain for Olivier. It’s coming from pain, not coming from rage like Martino, it’s coming from real pain, although it’s sometime melodramatic style of acting for us, I think it’s not driven by money, like Patrick Stewart, It’s driven by pain, I agree.

Barbara, "Thanks for sharing the clips. Great, yeah, very authentic for that reason.” ‘cause these debates for me threw up the portrayal, how do you portray not only Shylock, but a Jew in a contemporary play or film actually.

Dennis, thanks “Olivier was directed by Jonathan Miller.” Yep, to what extent. Yeah, I think that, I mean, Jonathan Miller interestingly said that Olivier kept saying to him, give me direction, not about the Jewishness from what I’ve read, but that he respected Jonathan Miller as a director. And Miller came in as a young director with this great icon, Olivier, and gave him direction, which was agreed sometimes and not, but they had a proper good relationship apparently. Mitzi, “Portia beats him with a Jewish device.” Okay, great at how she twists and everything, yeah. Okay.

Q: Yolandi, “What role does the player’s director play in the actor’s interpretation of the characters not left up to the actors?”

A: Absolutely, I mean, as we see here, Michael Radford discussing with Pacino, Pacino discussing with Jeremy Irons, and Pacino saying the three of them would talk quite a bit to get an understanding of the scene before going into playing it. So without a doubt, the director and the main actors we definitely discussed, the only time I ever read was Coppola talking about directing Brando in “The Godfather” where he never gave him a single direction at all. And Kaza directing Brando in “Streetcar” when he was very young, obviously Brando was very young, also never gave him a direction. They respected the brilliance of the talent and the intelligence. I haven’t read of any other director actor who has just let the actor sort of do whatever.

Jerry, “A lot of crucifixion iconography.” Absolutely, you know, you can see that they’re trying to show the pain through the paintings and the imagery of that period in Venice, in the Pacino film.

Okay, thanks, Romaine. Wilma, “A lot of feeling portrayed in Pacino’s eyes.” Yep, and it’s a technique to not blink, you know, with a camera and the position of the eyes or the camera, you know, how you do that, that’s a whole technique, okay? But for sure Pacino’s trying to capture it, and I think he’s trying to minimise the melodrama in that moment at the end.

Thanks, Mrs. Tab. You can get it, I think Judy or Lauren will have the URL link.

Rhonda, thank you Rita. Uta, thanks Margo. “Please do another series like this.” “Sorry, Prof,” thank you. Production ends with Shylock struggling. Well actually interesting at the end of the Laurence Olivier production, when Olivier’s made to, you know, say, okay, I’ll become Christian. And then we see the camera goes still, and we see Olivier walking off slowly, and it’s set in a boardroom, it’s not set in a Venetian court. It’s set in a contemporary London colonial, late-19th century colonial type business boardroom. And Shylock, Olivier slowly walks off, and the others are silent and still, and for a good about seven, eight seconds, Shylock is off stage. And then we hear this incredible gut drenching scream from Olivier, and that’s the end of the play. But there’s been seven seconds, a long time in film off stage before we hear this scream, but it’s off stage. This howl of not quiet despair. This howl of rage and despair, of loss. You know, often actors talk about how do you end when you walk off stage as Shylock. You’ve been defeated, you’ve lost everything. What is the actor’s choice at the end? And Olivier’s one has gone down in theatre folklore.

Okay. Then Sonya, “Saw Pacino on Broadway, great. Gave me a headache.” Okay, I love, theatre provokes us. We love it or we hate it. No, we can all be different, you know, it’s life. That’s why I like it. One of the reasons.

Q: Roberta, “Is the Henry Goodman one you recommend to buy a DVD?”

A: I’ll check that. I’m not sure I’ve looked myself, but I will find as much as I can on the Henry Goodman brilliant interpretation.

Okay, thank you so much, Lauren and Wendy.

Thank you everybody, really appreciate for coming on this in-depth journey into this remarkably archetypal treasure of a character.