Saturday, July 10, 2010

Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice

Entry No. 4 in the Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF) 2010 Recollection Series.

This being the first time I have ever encountered this text in any format, I warn you, dear readers: this may look more like musings and ramblings than a review.

I would like to think that Shakespeare wrote this play is order to spur conversation and debate. In fact, I'd wager the true performance here occurs after the curtain call - in the reactions of those who were of late in attendance and applause.

What struck me most was that there was only one character in the main cast who I found truly likable: Basanio. His only fault that I can see was haste without discretion and foolishness to trust a woman he'd not known previously (we must assume, or at least not to any great extent) to love him simply because he won her in accordance with her father's will. But this is pardonable by comparison.

I feel sorry for Antonio that his (in this production) obviously romantic feelings for Basanio came to nothing at all [what is it with Antonios? First the pirate and now this! And both in trade, of sorts. I wonder. Was one or both Antonios (be they perhaps in reference to an original) comparable to a summer's day?] and I feel sorry he resigned himself to die. However, I do not in the least feel sorry for him in light of his blatant prejudice and harmful, open discrimination, "climate of the times" be damned. Likewise, I feel sorry for Shylock's oppression due to his religion and the pain it causes him, but I can by no means pity his open greed and his lack of grief for the loss of his daughter rather than his duckets. And additionally, of Portia I can pity her predicament at being the grand prize in some shell-game contrivance of her father's, but I cannot help but be appalled by all her other dealings in the play: deceiving her husband on a whim, preaching mercy yet showing none, and being constantly swayed by prejudice and hatred.

I fully understand that this is a work more relevant to our times than many would be comfortable with admitting. I can see that, and I openly acknowledge it. As a text it is something which is timeless and thereby invaluable, and I commend all directors, designers, artists, participants for attempting to drive that point home by anachronistic integration (the costumes, for example, were a blend of Renaissance Italy and present-day Europe: my best example will once again be Basanio, who cut a fine figure in a blue leather doublet with detachable shoulders, black riding boots, a white shirt with a button-down collar, and blue jeans): you did your jobs well.

At last I think I come to my point, in a roundabout kind of fashion, as seems to be usual for me now. I think I am so unsettled by this work because although the aim was to have this piece hang somewhere in the interim where past and present are seem at once like two panes of different colored glass held to light [for blue and yellow do indeed make green] in some brilliant stroke of fantasy, the cruelty in the actions and words was all too human, and all too real. So I beseech not only myself, but others, though to few ears and to the world in general, if it had a mind to hear me: learn from that cruelty. Acknowledge it, and know it can bring no good.

But then again, how precious few look to do things for "good"s sake alone.

In short, my readers, a grim kind of not-quite-fiction, human through and through, and absolutely food for thought.

2 comments:

  1. We are also seeing this next weekend. I hadn't heard that they mix the timelines. Sounds interesting.

    Our Dad rented a DVD of this play last week so that we could be familiar with it before going to see the OSF show. And I agree with some of your opinions, but I also think that a lot of this play is a) up to interpretation by the audience and b) up to interpretation by the players. The Antonio in the film version was fond of Bassanio only as a dear friend, for example, and I liked him a great deal. Yes, he is an anti-semite, but so was the whole of Venice, so I really can't hold it against him any more than I can hold racism against Marlow or Kurtz. The only act he committed that came off as unkind was his final damnation of Shylock in forcing him to convert - but even that was softened a bit because although I do not believe in revenge, that's what it seemed like, more than it seemed like cruelty without motivation. Antonio is no worse to Shylock than the rest of the city, or he wasn't in the version we saw. And Shylock, I cannot like at all. I can pity him for his circumstances, yes, but he's a loathsome, violent little man who wants to murder someone, which is really what it boils down to for me is his desire to cut out Antonio's heart with his own hands. Literally. I really hate him.

    Also, Porscia. Or however the hell you spell her name. Yes, I think it's bratty of her to trick her husband, but (again, in the version we saw) it came off as "for funsies!" which is really refreshing in a Shakespearian female. She wasn't genuinely mad at him for giving away her ring, she just did it... well, for funsies. And she saved his friend, which is nice. Also in the version we saw she was the most fail at pretending to be a boy of any female character I have ever seen, but oh well.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Like I said, this was entirely me trying to sort out what the hell my reaction to this play was, as I'd never encountered it before.

    ReplyDelete