Customer Reviews
yes and no- a review for late 2008 - By: Julie Cutler, 08 Dec 2008 
A spendaholic with a poor credit rating persuades his mate to borrow off his worst enemy so that he can get the rich girl he fancies & pay off his debts. The loan turns out to be decidedly sub prime & the enemy seeks to foreclose on his unusual contract.
A handsome hero down on his luck is kindly lend some money by his best mate. They have to borrow from a despised outsider. Against the odds he wins the love of his lifein a fairy tale casket scene. He hears his friend isin danger & hurries to save him from the clutches of the evil outsider. His love slaps on the breeches & becomes pivotalin saving the life of the best mate.
Post 20th century holocaust, this one's a poser to adapt. And yet the magic of Bill Shakespeare's writing (I used to live only a few miles from where he was born, so he won't mind the "Bill") is that four centuries on, you can twist & knead the words to adapt it to your own interpretation. Try that with his contemporaries! Marlowe's "Jew of Malta" is the big bogey man, the villainin tights that you hiss at & scream at the stage, "he's behind you!". Shylock is difficult. You can play him straight as the evil gold loving villain after a literal pound of flesh. But there's that whole "if you prick us, do we not bleed" speech- the defence of the outsider, the smack to your liberal conscience. Possibly the reinterpretation of Shakespeare as the outsider within is correct, the child of a Warwickshire Catholic family, (who paid a fine as "recusants" rather than going to the Protestant church), seeking to both fit into the bright lights of Court & to hold true to his background & the ideals of those he held dear.
So this is the cossie adaptation, & is set mostly down the canals of Venice. This is the PC version, a vehicle for Al Pacino as an understandable, but flawed Shylock. He becomes more the central hero with the big flaw- the Hamlet who should have just left home but stayed to argue with his mother, the Macbeth who should have taken up birdwatching & tossed aside political ambition. He is spat at, made to live apart, his daughter abducted, money stolen from him. His enemy slips up & he keeps on coming for vengeance. He gets offered his money back, but he can't let go of his smouldering hatred for Antonio, & as a consequence suffers the ultimate humiliation of a forcible baptism, all he holds dear as his cultural essence to be ripped from his identity. That bit is fairly good, as is Jeremy Irons as the eponymous merchant, Antonio. He writhes convincingly when it looks like the forfeit of flesh is actually going to take placein the culmination of the trial scene. Two big stars, strutting their stuff.
Unfortunately the story is really about getting the girl, with a whole load of pretty caskets. And like the Grimms' homily about always giving your last biscuit to grubby strangers on the road, becausein return they will give you magical gifts which will win your fortune, there's a whole lot of pretty poetry about not being takenin by outward appearances. In this interpretation, this falls by the wayside. It's the afterthought, the bright wrapping around the present. Joseph Fiennes is woeful as Bassanio (and I liked him so muchin Shakespeare In Love [1999]- he seemed to really have presence). Portia is a bit giggly- not missing her vocation as a cool headed lawyer. Although an attempt is made at Venetian atmosphere- long nosed masks & courtesans showing their "charms", we've been too spoilt by Francesco da Mosto chattingin fish markets about the relative characteristics of prawns & shrimps, to be particularly taken in. The extra detail is missing.
Like Mansfield Park [1999] [2000], which upset some Austenites by daring to slamin the fact that nice 18th century houses were built on the profit of sugar plantations, this adaptation has added a little interest to the mix- it has something to say which is uncomfortable, & we are all the better for it.
But it doesn't fully deliver- we need to have our cake & eat it. Still worth a look...
Who says Americans can't play Shakespeare? - By: Bookworm, 03 Dec 2008 
Livingin London & with relativesin Warwickshire within half an hour's drive of Stratford, I'm spoilt for choicein indulging my love of the Bard. Unfortunately, I'm always coming up against those superior & assinine people who hold the equally superior & assinine view that only we Brits can play Shakespeare. My dearest wish is that Pacino's Shylock finally & irrevocably consigns this idiotic opinion, along with those who express it, to the dustbin of history. Since the original play is setin what is now Italy, I can think of no more suitable actor to play this role than the Italian American Pacino. His is a restrained Shylock & he doesn't go for thundering denunciations - quite rightlyin my view. Villainous, yes, but qualified villiany. His position is set out at the start, that as a Jew, he was denied access to most professions & usury - the lending of money for interest - was one of the very few ways Jewish peoplein late 16th century Venice had of making a living. Pacino's Shylock is balanced by Jeremy Irons' equally restrained Antonio & by Joseph Fiennes' lovestruck Bassanio. Lynn Collins' Portia has that woefully rare blend of stunning beauty, high intelligence & witty articulation. This is a not-to-be missed Merchant of Venice, beautifully photographed & at just over two hours not too heavily cut. I have seen some reviews of this DVD bemoaning its length, but my feeling is that this disproves the aphorism that good things comein small packages. Much less than this & it simply wouldn't be The Merchant of Venice. It has pride of place among my collection of Shakespeare on DVD
A masterpiece dumbed down for the masses - By: E. Coolican, 10 Oct 2008 
I LOOKED FORWARD TO RELISHING THE DUKE OF ARAGON's WONDROUS SPEECH, SURELY ONE OF THE FINEST IN ALL THE BARDS PLAYS, TO WHIT "THE FOOL MULTITUDE WHO JUDGE BY SHOW, CARING ONLY FOR WHAT THE FOND EYE DOTH TEACH ... I PARAPHRASE....TO SEE ITS NOT THERE! AND THEN IT STRUCK ME< IT MIGHT INSULT 99% OF THE AUDIENCE, WHO DO INDEED JUDGE BY SHOW, AND WOULD TURN OFF IN A HUFF! GOODBYE PACINO,I CAN NEVER FORGIVE YOU FOR THIS,LIKE HAMLET WITHOUT HAMLET!
The tragic innuendo of Shakespeare's language is missed - By: Jacques COULARDEAU, 19 Aug 2008 This play by Shakespeare is worth a pound of gold, at least. It reveals with crudity one side of Shakespeare & Shakespeare's time most people would like to ignore: his supposed anti-Semitism. Everyone wants to ignore it because no one can see the double talk Shakespeare is a great master of. In his days Jews were seen as vultures, tolerated vultures but vultures all the same. Of course Shakespeare could have avoided dealing with the subject. He did deal with it several times. The Saracenin Titus Andronicus is another heroic case. He also had to deal with it because of what was happening around him. Shakespeare was a conscious & socially oriented mirror of his time. His theatre was committed to the real world. He managed to survive longer than his friend & competitor Marlowe because he probably was more prudent & careful. He might have avoided the dangerous spots, nocturnal or diurnal. But even so, he had an art that Marlowe never had. He knew how to speak with a forked tongue, he knew double entendre, he knew double talk & he had many tonguesin his many cheeks; This is the case with this particular play & the film, I must say, does not totally show this duplicity. Apart from the famous tirade on the Jew who bleeds when you prick him with a needle, the rest is not seen or shown, & yet it is said. It is not clearly exploited how the ruthlessness & the pitilessness of Skylock is totally & even with a multiplied force inverted & applied to Shylock by the good Christians who do not show the slightness pity or forgiveness or mercy towards the Jew once he is defeated. And the double language is quite obviousin the fact that the learned doctor is an impersonation (notein Shakespeare's time the two women would have been played by two men & then the two women, who would have been men, or rather boys, would have disguised as men) & this does not work today at all the same way since the two women are real women. A false doctor & false man, who is a false woman under that first skin, & who is a real boy under that second skin is speaking the law, justice, truth. What a lie! The only one who is true to his word is Shylock, even if his word is ruthless, but where is the mercy these good Christians were preaching to him, once they have won their case? All that law Shakespeare defends is shown,in the tone of a tragic comedy, as a big lie, as a farce, as a disguise of any truth, & the final episode of the two un-givable rings that were sworn never to be given away & were given to pay the services of two liars & disguised tricksters after the big farce of the use of law to pitilessly fool & victimize a Jew is the most beautiful piece of underground meaning. This is containedin Shakespearein the balancing act he playsin which any binary element is balance (perfection being four) & any ternary element is disruption. In the "IF" little dialogue of the end Bassanioin four lines tries to build a square that never comes & the four "I" are the only real balanced element surrounded by three "gave" , five "the ring", etc. And Portia can answer with a perfect ternary structure revealing how false his reasoning is, but she is the liar, she is the serpent who forced Bassanio into giving the ring, she is the one who was who she was not & who is who she was not either. The accuser once again is a false Daniel. Daniel saved Suzanne from a lie. Portia saved Antonio with the unjust law of Venice enforced by a lying tongue, hers that was his disguising hers. That's how Shakespeare was being witty with anti-Semitism & thus distancing himself from it. Imagine the wit of the man Bassanio telling the boy playing Portia she/he will be his bedfellow & he will let Her/him lie with Her/him when he is absent. Most of the time Shakespeare uses disguises to reveal some good things like love. Here he uses disguises to reveal the forked tongues with which all these Christians are speaking. The film does not show it & prefers adding some images that exonerate the director from the accusation whereas he should exonerate Shakespeare from it, because Shakespeare does not deserve it.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines
Wow! - By: blodyn, 15 May 2008 I recently watched thisin my English class. We are studying merchant of venice. I could get along with this film without getting confused. The topless women were pointless, & I pictured Salarino & Solanio different but never mind. Al Pacino-wow!!brilliant. my friends & i agreed that he was the best.you couldn't help but feel sorry for him when he found out Jessica had gone with his money, with the crying "jessica." We actually clapped when he finished the "Hath not a Jew eyes" speech. Very powerful. Brilliant film.
