I think this is a wonderfully done version of The Merchant of Venice that suffers from some inevitable balance problems.
I don’t think the casting, costuming or cinematography could have been better and the soundtrack is a particular triumph.
It’s a difficult and problematic play and this production did much, possibly too much, to address the issues inherent therein.
This is a Pacino vehicle and that’s saying something considering the cast. (Jeremy Irons, Joseph Fiennes, Lynn Collins)
He glowers and gnashes and stares forlornly in a way that feels sympathetic and off putting all at once.
He’s taken a role that was meant to as a caricature of a morality play villain and turned it into a fully realized human being. He’s done a better job at it than I’ve seen and kept to the text. The successes and failures of the rest of the play lay mostly at the feet of the choices he’s made to do that.
The Merchant of Venice is a comedy. We must bear in mind that comedy means happy ending in these plays and not as we modernly define it (as funny).
Because Pacino succeeds so well with humanizing Shylock none of the funny stuff lands.
I know this is a directorial/production decision as well and I can’t fault it because I doubt very much the movie would have been made otherwise.
So given that the tone is so grim, how does everything else fit?
It feels like Venice in the late 1500’s.
It does a good job of effective scene setting. It is lush and beautiful.
Just look at these gorgeous shots.
They could each be a painting.
Lynn Colin’s has the least encumbered role of the main cast and plays an interesting and effective Portia.
The Great Courses lecture advises us to view this play as a fairy tale. That is the best and most valid reading in my view as well.
In its romantic plot Bassanio woos Portia and wins her by choosing the right box of 3 while solving a riddle about the nature of love.
Bassanio has spent all his own money and needs to borrow some from an older friend (lover?) Antonio.
Antonio is out of ready cash but he has 3 ships out, any of which is worth lots of money. Antonio therefore an agrees to co-sign on a giant loan so that young Bassanio can go woo in style.
They get the loan from Shylock. Shylock is a money lending Jew who hates Antonio and will only give the loan with a pound of Antonio’s flesh as collateral.
In Venice of the 1500s a money lender (Usurer) was pretty much guaranteed to be a Jew as that was the only group of people allowed to lend money.
It’s important when watching this play to pay attention to how it’s been viewed in the past.
By the time the movie gets to the pivotal courtroom scene all the characters have been fully established and they get to be their best or at least most authentic selves.
Bassanio is a slimy bastard, Antonio is a pitiable victim, Shylock is a stubborn and vindictive fool, and only Portia comes out well as the (Shakespeare typical) cross dressing young lawyer.
The argument that Shylock is Shakespeare's first tragic hero is strong here. He paints himself into the corner of merciless inflexibility and suffers for it.
After this scene the movie falls apart. The “happy ending” feels jarring nasty.
I think Mariam will write more about that as it bothered her more.
Things that potentially could have worked in a slapstick/vaudeville style are uncomfortable in a serious drama setting.
The couples (Bassanio and Portia) and their servants (including Shylock’s now Christian daughter Jessica) all pair of happily in prosperity and joy.
The movie knows that this ending doesn’t work and follow it up with a no play scene of Shylocks daughter Jessica looking forlornly into the Venice lagoon.
I don’t love this play but am impressed by the movie.
None of the characters are speaking to me and I don’t like the dehumanizing of Shylock.
I think the fairytale reading is right but it’s not a fairytale I like either.
It’s weird that I’m giving the 4 star rating given all that but it’s just so well done.
Mariam said that it’s one of the most contemporarily relevant plays we’ve watched so far. That probably has something to do with it.
I think it was the music that took me from my expected 3.5 up to a 4.
It’s just transporting.
The Merchant of Venice - 4 stars for production
Mom score - 0 stars
This play really could have used some moms. I feel like a mom or even better some wives and moms would have injected a modicum of sense and restraint and maybe even compassion into the heads of these stories.
This is probably only due to my mom-ness.
They after moms did nothing of the sort for Romeo and Juliet.
A lot of what I want to do here is compare the 1935 and 1999 film versions of this play. I watched them both this week so they are pretty fresh in my head.
Let us start with something one to one comparison, the transformation of Bottom.
1935
1999
This side by side has quite a lot going for it. First of all we’ve got two popular and critically acclaimed actors in James Cagney and Kevin Kline. Sometimes differences in delivery are more down to director than actor with plays like this, but I think it’s a good guess that with stars of this caliber, you are seeing mostly their own choices.
I think they are both good and actually fairly similar for this scene but the stand out differences come from what’s going on around them.
This is the time to reveal that I find child actor Mickey Rooney to be insufferably grating. His Puck ruined my day when I watched the 1935 version.
So, Puck notwithstanding, the biggest differences are technological. Lighting and recording were much harder in 1935 so everything is unnaturally (but intentionally and intelligently) lit. I generally prefer more natural lighting but I dig the artistry of a film classic that has to work so hard within its constraints.
The sound recording was just not good back then. Soft sounds were pretty much inaudible so everyone was half shouting (it’s hard to do subtitles this way) and the swelling Mendelssohn is constantly distorted. The 1999 has my vote here but it didn’t do much to deserve it. The musical choices were fine but not inspired (except for the processional in which Mendelssohn and an aria or two). For me this one is a draw.
A standout feature with Midsummer’s Nights Dream is that it lends itself to great set work and design. There are opportunities for costume, makeup, backgrounds, and these days even CGI.
Both of these films knocked it out of the park given what they had to work with.
The 1999 went all out on Roman tinged bacchanals with heavy prosthetic use, imaginative and colorful costume design, choreography and a lite hand on the fairy lights. They were shooting in Italy and you just can’t top that for scenery.
I’d give it to the 1935 version here. They were stuck with practical effects but they did so much with them.
In the above scenes you get a feel for the boundary pushing of the Reinhardt and the relative comfort of the Hoffman choices, reflected in Bottoms transformation above.
Lastly, for me, there is pure watchability.
The 1935 is very long, it’s 2 hours 33 minutes of Theater brought to the soundstage. It introduces a few scenes like the wedding processional and mixed in some choral and orchestral beats.
The 1999 was just under 2 hours even with its tribute processional and smaller musical breaks (banging use of opera here).
I loved both Titania's but especially Anita Louise who is radiant.
But Michelle Pfeiffer is always stunning.
Oberon are always meh for me because I don’t like the character.
Puck is my sticking point.
The obnoxious delivery and the godawful vocalizations coming out of that child make me want to throw things at the screen. Oooo I hate it.
Tucci is funny and quick and enjoyable.
I cant find a good clip but...
"This is the man, but not this the maid."
...
The lovers are all entertaining and interchangeable. Hippolyta is background, I prefer 1935 Theseus.
But I love the 1999 Mechanicals. They are sweet on top of 1935s bumbling. Klein and Rockwell grant some much appreciated grace and complexity.
Make no mistake, this is a hammy and silly play. For me it’s perfect for Klein who can be the cheesiest while still underneath it all connecting with his audience. I love his work.
In the same way that Rooney drags down the 1935, Klein elevates the 1999.
If I were recommending a single version to a modern audience who didn’t know the play it would be the 99. But I liked the 35 very much and if it weren’t for Rooney would happily watch it again.
Regarding the play itself.
The theory of its origin is a little fragmented. It was probably commissioned as an entertainment for a noble wedding and then latter that season or the next made its way out into the Globe and common production.
This is a quintessentially Elizabethan play and there is some possibility it was created for her for a holiday revel. Either way it’s light and fluffy and sweet and fun. James didn’t love it and it fell out of full production until the Victorians brought it back.
Midsummers Nights Dream - 4 stars for fun. Minus one for needlessly confusing semi twin plot conventions.
Mom score - 2 stars for Titania taking in the son of one of her deceased followers to raise. She wasn’t what you’d call an attentive guardian though.
This week I had 2 encounters that I will generously interpret as Shakespearean.
The first was a new dance from the Playford Dance Master book called Hole in the Wall.
Here is a decidedly Regency version that is mostly correct (right music and mostly right moves).
And here is another where they didn’t have to worry about plot and closeups so did All the right moves.
This dance is much more mathematical and had a bonus introduction us to sharking.
Sharking is when you cut in on someone but you are elegant and flirty about it.
I am wretched at sharking but it certainly added an athleticism to our dancing that we’d managed to avoid heretofore.
I’m looking forward to the party and have been 3D printing and sewing bits up to be ready.
I am going as Titania’s lady-in-waiting Moth, so I’m adding wings and elements to a late Tudor gown that look fairy like or moth like depending.
Probably my favorite thing about all of this is that Moth may be an early typo/ bad read by Blake. It’s possible that the character is supposed to be Mote and in the play represented by a disembodied off stage voice.
I feel delighted that I might, in fact, be going to a Midsummers Nights Dream party as a Shakespearean typo/misunderstanding!
Also my sweet and long suffering husband has agreed to let me dress him up and I’m all excited about being matchy matchy errors.
My other “Shakespearean” encounter of the week happened because we went to the Renaissance Fair on Saturday.
I love it so much.
It’s one of the many reasons I love living in Maryland.
Maryland has a bangin Ren Fair.
We ate not at all Elizabethan food.
Went to see genuine Shakespeare inspired entertainment.
Watched and listened to artisans and musicians do Jacobian style feats of wonder.
I Pretended to be pirate Hamlet.
And finally, we hung out in period style theaters and laughed and were amazed by players, sword swallowers and jugglers.
Much of the point of this Shakespeare project for me is simply to enjoy as audiences did the works of the bard and I think the Fair was a delightful taste of that atmosphere (minus bear bating and cockfights).
It’s a play I already enjoyed prior to this version and I liked it immensely when I first saw it. This time I liked it a lot but down graded it from 5 stars to 4 due to a sort of flat feel I got from some of the dialog and delivery.
Those works always feature fairies and elves, much in the way contemporary Romantasy books feature The Fae. One of the things that differentiates these two sub genera’s of Urban Fantasy (cliche fairy porn in the moderns notwithstanding) is that all of the old stuff had some basis in Midsummer’s nights Eve and The Tempest.
The courts of Oberon and Titania featured heavily and Ariel and Puck show up all the time. Because of this most of my non-Celtic mythology fairy’s look like and behave like Ariel does in this production. It’s a weird conformation bias of ‘this spirit is the one most of my fairies are based on therefore he acts like a fairy should act.’.
I love Ben Wishaw in this. For me this is the perfect Ariel and Fairy. Super capricious, semi androgynous, sweet and terrifying is IT.
Here he is in one of his scary modes showing off some of the beautiful makeup and lighting that I love in this film.
I think this movie did right by Ariel and I’ve always been drawn to that character so props for that.
I was even impressed by the groans from within the tree part that sounds good on the page but can be cringy on the stage.
The other characterization that I am drawn to here is Helen Mirin’s Prospera. Gender swaps in Shakespearean productions are fairly common, but usually not that great. Julie Taymor said that she wanted to try it because she thought she could pull it off as not too gimmicky. I think she managed that.
This will circle me around to my Shakespeare writing pretty much only fathers and daughters theme. I found myself sympathetic with Prospera in a way I never was with Prospero. When he made arbitrary seeming decisions to challenge the love of Ferdinand I felt like he was just pulling power plays but when Prospera did it suddenly I was all in favor. “That’s your daughter” I thought “You’ve got to protect her. You know what men are like.” And when Próspero was inconsistent with Airiel I felt like he was just some typical noble pleasing himself but when Prospera did it I felt like she was tenuously balancing and desperate. When Próspero was controlling of his child and her love and her world I thought it was manipulative and self serving but when Prospera was the same way it was caution and justice for those who had wronged her.
So much of this is just me projecting but, of course, a good deal of it is just in how I’ve seen these characters preformed.
I liked the gender swap. I like that it made me think about my assumptions.
I even enjoyed the sexual subtext that Ariel and Prospera displayed.
I know that many read Prospero as Shakespeare himself, in this his farewell play. He is the all powerful creator and manipulator of his world.
I think there is a lot to that reading and I am more than sympathetic with it.
In a non allegorical sense though, I’d rather be locked in a room with Prospera, flawed as she may be, than with Prospero.
My Shout out here goes to Djimon Hounsou as Caliban.
That is not a modern part and all of the colonial implications are sunk deep into this character.
The chasm between the text and the modern viewer is widest here, I think. Slavery is assumed for one and abjectly rejected by the other and portraying that part sympathetically while staying true to the monster and flat villain on the page is a mighty big ask.
I’ve seen Hounsou in other Shakespeare and always felt he had the chops but this is such a tricky line to walk that he deserves some special recognition.
I don’t think that it’s an accident that these three are on the official movie poster.
That brings me to the rest. Some good actors here and ones that I usually enjoy watching but noting great in this Tempest for me.
Russel Brand is distractingly himself, the romance is uninteresting, the Kingly plot feels flat and even the conspiracy to murder feels contrived.
Meh.
This is why 4 stars not 5.
Principal photography took place on the Big Island where my dad lives so points for that.
The costumes were great. The music good.
Definitely worth watching.
I love this play in its historical context as a reaction to the Brave New World that is colonial America. I love the retirement vibe of Prósperos final soliloquy.
I love how much thought it engenders on topics of power, colonialism, gender, and parenting.
The Tempest - 4 stars for pure watchability
Mom score - 4 stars for brining up your daughter the best you can and setting her into the world with all the advantages you can manage.
