User reviews

'The Merchant of Venice' is one of Shakespeare's better-known plays and is still regularly performed in the theatre. Incredibly, however, this film would seem to be the first-ever English-language version made for the cinema rather than television. There were a number of versions made in Britain or America during the early days of the cinema, but these were all silents.

The reason for this neglect of the play may be connected with sensitivities about the play's alleged anti-Semitism, a subject which has been even more sensitive since the rise to power of the Nazis in 1933. (This may explain why all previous versions were made during the silent era; in 1908 or 1922 it would have been easier to portray Shylock as a straightforward villain than it would be today). Yet in my view the film is not anti-Semitic at all. It should be remembered that during Shakespeare's lifetime there was no settled Jewish community in England; the Jews had been expelled by Edward I in the late 13th century, and were not permitted to return until the time of Cromwell, some forty years after Shakespeare's death. As far as we know, Shakespeare never travelled abroad, so it seems quite possible that he himself never knew any Jews personally or experienced the effects of anti-Semitism at first hand. The play is not simply about the Jewish question, but is, among other things, an analysis of the corrosive effects of religious prejudice. It may, in fact, be a coded examination of the mutual antipathy between Catholics and Protestants in Tudor England (something of which Shakespeare certainly would have had first-hand experience) and an appeal for greater tolerance between them.

Then as now, traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes had always depicted Jews as avaricious, but Shylock's principal sin is not avarice; if it were, he would certainly have accepted Bassanio's offer to pay him six thousand ducats, twice the amount borrowed by Antonio. Rather, Shylock's besetting sin is anger, and the root of his anger is the way in which he and his fellow-Jews are treated by the Christians of Venice. Not only are Jews in general regarded as second-class citizens, but Jewish moneylenders such as Shylock are particular targets for abuse, even though the services they provide are necessary to the Venetian economy. The play shows the corrupting effects of prejudice. Not only do views of this sort corrupt the Christians who hold them, they can also corrupt the Jews who suffer abuse. Shylock's vindictiveness is out of all proportion to the wrongs he has suffered. By spitting on him and calling him a dog, Antonio behaves like a boorish bigot, but boorishness and bigotry are not generally regarded as crimes deserving of the death penalty. Moreover, Shylock seeks to revenge himself on Antonio not merely for the undoubted wrongs that Antonio has done towards him, but also for all the wrongs, real and imaginary, that he has suffered at the hands of the Christian community, such as his daughter's marriage to Lorenzo.

It is to the credit of the film's director, Michael Radford and of its star, Al Pacino, that they understand all these issues. Pacino's Shylock has, initially, a sort of angry dignity about him that gradually gives way to vindictive rage and finally, after his humiliation in the trial scene by Portia's reasoning, to pathos. We see clearly that he has been the instrument of his own destruction, but we can still sympathise with him. In my view, none of Pacino's performances that I have seen have ever equalled those he gave in the first two 'Godfather' films (not 'Scent of a Woman', for which he won an Oscar, and certainly not 'Godfather III'), but 'The Merchant of Venice is the one that comes closest to those benchmarks. The other acting performance that stood out was Lynn Collins's luminous Portia, speaking her lines with great clarity and simplicity and bringing out the intelligence and resourcefulness that make her character more than simply a romantic heroine. I was less impressed with Jeremy Irons's Antonio, who seemed too passive. Antonio is a complex character; part loyal friend, part melancholy contemplative, part religious bigot and part enterprising capitalist. Although Irons captured the first two of those aspects, it was difficult to envisage his Antonio either spitting on someone of a different faith or hazarding his all on risky trading ventures.

Radford's interpretation of the play was attacked by the film critic of the 'Daily Telegraph' who, although he admired Pacino's performance, disliked the period setting and argued that Shakespeare needs to be placed in a contemporary setting if it is to have 'relevance' for a modern audience, citing a recent stage production which set the action in Weimar Germany. I would disagree profoundly with this approach. The theatre and the cinema are quite different media and, while there have been some striking modernist approaches to Shakespeare in the cinema (Trevor Nunn's 'Twelfth Night' comes to mind), a traditionalist approach is often the best one. (I preferred, for example, Zeffirelli's 'Romeo and Juliet' to Baz Luhrmann's). The idea that we can only appreciate Shakespeare in a modern guise is sheer intellectual laziness; we are not prepared to make the effort to see our greatest writer in the context of the Elizabethan society that produced him, but rather prefer him dressed up as an ersatz twentieth-century man.

Radford's traditional approach not only enables us to appreciate that bigotry and vindictiveness are age-old, universal problems, but also makes for a visually striking film. In the play, the scenes set in Venice itself are characterised by turbulent action; those set in Portia's country house at Belmont are happier and more peaceful. In the film, the Venetian exterior scenes were shot on location against a backdrop of misty, wintry grey skies, similar to the look achieved in 'Don't Look Now'. The candlelit interiors, with faces brightly lit against a dark background, were reminiscent of the chiaroscuro effects of a Caravaggio painting; I suspect this was quite deliberate, as Caravaggio was a contemporary of Shakespeare. By contrast to dark or misty Venice, the Belmont scenes (shot in an enchanting Palladian villa on an island in a lake) were characterised by sunshine or peaceful moonlight.

This is one of the best Shakespeare adaptations of recent years; an intelligent and visually attractive look at a complex play. 8/10.

A couple of errors. We see a black swan on the water in front of Portia's house. These birds are natives of Australia and were not introduced to Europe until well after 1596, the date when the film is set. Also, the portrait of Portia in the leaden casket is painted in the style of the Florentine Botticelli, who was active about a century before that date. Lynn Collins may be reminiscent of a Botticelli beauty, but it seems unlikely that a late 16th century Venetian lady would have had herself painted in the manner of late 15th century Florence.

Al Pacino is terrific in this film. I loved his performance. Jeremy Irons is also great.

I would have rated this film even higher, but it is based on Shakespeare's play, and Shakespeare did not handle this play's plot very well. He put a comic romantic scene near the end of what is otherwise a very tragic story. This "rings" scene near the end makes no sense to me. It does not fit in with the rest of the film, either in storyline or emotional tone. And because this scene comes near the end, it ruins what until this point had been a terrific cinematic experience.

The original Merchant of Venice has serious weaknesses, particularly the casket and rings foolishness, which takes up far too much time.

But Radford makes these scenes much weaker than necessary. For example, he allows the suitors to overact laughably and also cuts their dialog in a way that limits their complexity -- especially with the Duke, who appears stuck-up but smart in the full text, merely stupidly foppish in the movie. In short, Radford wipes out any hope for either comedy or pathos -- both of which can be found in better productions.

In contrast to the cheesy heterosexuality, the clearly homosexual love of Antonio for Bassanio is quite moving, in large part because it's subtly played by an excellent Jeremy Irons. For that matter, Lynn Collins is much better at portraying Portia in drag than Portia the beautiful, expectant young maiden.

Meanwhile, the Shylock plot is compelling as always and benefits from an excellent performance by Pacino. However, a whole strand of Shylock's character has been more or less eliminated. In the full text, Shylock repeatedly makes it clear that he does *not* merely want revenge for mistreatment -- rather he wants to kill Antonio because Antonio is cutting into his business and bringing down interest rates by lending for free:

"I hate him for he is a Christian; but more for that in low simplicity he lends out money gratis, and brings down the rate of usance here with us in Venice."

That's also why Shylock refuses Bassanio's offer of many times more than Antonio owes -- Shylock knows that it still won't equal what he can make in higher interest if Antonio is dead:

"I will have the heart of him, if he forfeit; for, were he out of Venice, I can make what merchandise I will."

To make Shylock more sympathetic, such cold-hearted calculation is excised almost entirely from this screen version.

Still, by making Shylock less an outright villain, the director arguably improves on the original -- Pacino can appear more intriguingly human, less like the Jewish Snidely Whiplash that Shakespeare frequently gives us.

In all, I felt that about two-thirds of this Merchant was excellent drama, and one third was tedious romantic "comedy."

This British-US-Italian co-production is set in 16th century, Venice. It's a taking on Shakespeare book based on ¨pound of flesh¨ drama, focusing a tale of religious and social prejudice, where the Jew Shylock gets its vengeance in a money loan .(Jeremy Irons) Antonio's friend Bassanio(Joseph Fiennes)is in love and needs money to go courting Portia(Lynn Collins.) Antonio borrows money from ambitious and revenger Shylock. Then, Shylock's daughter named Jessica(Zuleikha Robinson) runaway home with all jewels and money. The Jew Shylock(Al Pacino) has a long memory of oppression but vendetta isn't so sweet and reclaims repayment over Antonio's flesh. Shylock becomes furious and is extremely motived by the injustices of life as Jew. Meanwhile the trial is assembled and Portia goes into action to save Antonio.

This very enjoyable film is a balance of both, tragedy and comedy. As is both delightful, disturbing and dramatically marvellous. Al Pacino delivers a wonderfully complex and dark performance. His portrayal is pretty watchable and absolutely memorable, he's a Shakespeare expert , like he proved in ¨Looking for King Richard III¨ which he starred and and directed. I found particularly nice the way the film handled the court rivalry , the antagonism between them and final result. The movie packs an evocative musical score by Jocelyn Pock(Eye wide shut) and colorful cinematography by Benoit Delhomme, director's usual cameraman. The motion picture is well directed by Michael Radford. Another adaptation about this known book are mostly made for TV, these are the following : 1973 with Laurence Olivier, Joan Plowright and Jeremy Brett ; 1980 by Jack Gold with Warren Mitchell and John Rhys Davies ; 2001 by Trevor Nunn with Henry Goodman. And by Orson Welles with Oja Kodar but was scrapped and pretended to release with other of his unfinished movies, though never completed when the negatives were mysteriously lost. I would recommend this picture to anybody interested by Shakespeare.

In the Sixteenth Century, there was a great intolerance against Jews. In 1596, in the liberal Venice, Bassanio (Joseph Fiennes) asks for a large amount to his friend, the merchant Antonio (Jeremy Irons), to travel to Belmont and propose the gorgeous Portia (Lynn Collins). Antonio has invested all his money in his ships and borrows from the usurer Shylock (Al Pacino), who proposes an unusual bond: if Antonio does not pay the money without any interest three months later, he might receive one pound of his flesh instead, at his choice. When Shylock's daughter Jessica (Zuleikha Robinson) runaway home with all his money and jewels, he becomes furious. Meanwhile, the load of Antonio sinks with three different vessels and he is not able to pay his debts with Shylock, and the Jew goes to court of Venice claiming the execution of his deal. In spite of many requests, his tough heart does not accept any other agreement further than the one established in their contract.

"The Merchant of Venice" is a great adaptation of Shakespeare play and a perfect vehicle for the brilliant Al Pacino, with a character, dialogs and screenplay tailored for him. Jeremy Irons is also fantastic on the other side of this tale of revenge with cruelty and forgiveness. The cinematography, costumes, landscapes and scenery are stunning and the beauty of Lynn Collins is amazing. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "O Mercador de Veneza" ("The Merchant of Venice")

The inherent problem with any staging of 'The Merchant of Venice' has never been the pseudo-controversial anti-Semitism, but the fact that there are two story lines wildly different in both tone and content; a frothy romantic comedy and a searing tragedy. While mixing genres was all the rage in the sixteenth century (and mocked by Shakespeare in Hamlet), it rarely fails to grate with modern audiences. As a result, most directors are forced to place an emphasis on one storyline at the expense of the other, and it is no surprise that the decision falls in the favour of Shylock.

Like so many of Shakespeare's great tragic heroes, Shylock continues to fascinate after 400 years because he is such a difficult and complex character. Pitiful, proud, angry, vengeful, weak, arrogant; his behaviour defies simply analysis and continues to be argued over. He is flawed not because he is a Jew, but because he is human. Rarely do modern screenwriters imbue their creations with such richly textured contradictions, and it is to everyone's benefit that we have Shakespeare to draw on for inspiration.

Shakespearean language is wild and rambling, saturated in multiple meanings, word play and metaphor. To be understood it must be wrangled and tamed by an actor with the strength and knowledge to do so. When an actor fails, the words pour forth in a torrent of incomprehensible words, but when he succeeds, the English language springs to life with an immediacy and vibrancy that takes your breath away. Al Pacino is one such actor, and here displays an incredible level of clarity and control that, were there any justice, would sweep every award in the offering. He meets the challenge of presenting Shylock head on, and delivers an extraordinarily subtle and nuanced performance. It would be a crime if we never got the opportunity to see what he does with King Lear.

The supporting cast is noteworthy. Jeremy Irons gives an original take on the familiar Antonio, presenting an older, quieter figure that displays the unsavoury contradictions between medieval chivalry and ugly prejudice of the time. Joseph Fiennes is a revelation as he matures beyond superficial eye-candy to actually inhabit a character for once. Lynn Collins is the only disappointment. Many of Shakespeare's women are underwritten and require an actor to really work hard to bring them to life, and Collins' Gwyneth Paltrow impersonation seems a little flat and unsuited to the darker tone that Radford is aiming for.

The design team must be acknowledged for creating a unique and thoroughly believable vision of Late Renaissance Venice. The city has not looked this ominous since 'Don't Look Now'. Taking full advantage of extant locations and natural light, the film has an appearance of authenticity that is greatly enhanced by the dark and timeworn costume design. All, again, are worthy of award recognition.

The financial backers of films such as this must be commended. With a budget of $30 million, they must go into such a venture in the full and certain knowledge that they will never make a profit, and yet they invest nonetheless. We can all be grateful for it, as the result is a remarkable adaptation that is sure to be a benchmark for many years to come.

The Merchant of Venice would be just a competent period piece were it not for Al Pacino's performance. His character Shylock is by far the most interesting character, even though his character is no doubt intended as an antagonist. I can't endorse the actions he eventually takes, but is his initial desire for revenge so wrong? He is spit on by Christians because just being a Jew is supposedly sinful, the same Christians who routinely visit whorehouses. The money he has loaned has not been returned as was promised and to add insult to injury, his daughter runs off with a Christian and his fortune.

There's a great courtroom scene in which Shylock attempts to collect a pound of flesh from the man in debt, Antonio (Jeremy Irons) by falling back on technicalities of the court. His "Hath not a Jew eyes?" speech is fantastic, although paradoxical with the anti-Semitism apparent in Shakespeare's play. Then Shylock meets his bitter downfall by having other technicalities thrown back at him. In contrast with this scene, the last 20 minutes following a subplot about rings is farcical.

The look of the Merchant of Venice is well-done. Both the costume and set design are just about faultless. How the film has been put onto celluloid I would think would be pretty close to what the Bard had probably imagined it. Of course, not even the best production values can save a film entirely. And the Merchant of Venice has its share of slips.

The story following Bassanio (Jeremy Irons) wooing Portia (Lynn Collins, who resembles Cate Blanchett) is often unexciting. The biggest problem is the erratic tone of the film. The drama of the characters Antonio and Shylock is undercut by dips into screwball comedy. Sometimes the comic relief works. Other times, like when the courtroom scene's drama is punctured by the presence of a cross-dressing Portia (yes, you read that correctly), it feels ridiculous. In addition, the character Bassanio is uninteresting. Guessing if Antonio has romantic feelings towards him is of some interest, but Shylock is the only character I'm going to remember a week from now.

Even if the background story wasn't that interesting, I still think it may be worth a look for Al Pacino's excellent turn. He brings depth and pathos to a story that doesn't possess much of it. The film's intelligent and is the first adaptation of the play that isn't a silent film. But those looking for a little more meat to their films might want to look elsewhere.

Michael Radford has done an excellent job bringing this difficult play to the screen. He has taken a play with a reputation for anti-semitism, and shown us that Shakespeare knew quite well the humanity of the Jews. Radford said after the screening, and I agree, that Shylock is his first tragic hero, the first of his characters to be undone by a driving, compulsive need for revenge. He also points out, quite rightly, that a man who was anti-semitic could not have written Shylock's speech of "If you prick me, do i not bleed?" Radford is himself of Jewish descent and he has picked out the good and bad of all characters with delicacy and honesty. no character is free from flaws; no character is evil. Radford has placed the play in the 16th century, which gives a lush background of Venetian politics and decadence on which to project Shakespeare's words.

If you get a chance to hear Radford speak about the film, I highly recommend you take it, since he gives details about life in 16th century Venice that illuminate a lot of the choices he made and give considerable extra depth to the viewing. I'm hoping that the DVD will come out with extensive commentary.

Jeremy Irons does a gorgeous portrayal of Antonio, a man who resigns himself to bearing the burden of his past misdeeds. Lynn Collins, a relative unknown, gives us an absolutely flawless, stunning, and detailed job as Portia. Not only is Ms. Collins beautiful - she also gives Portia layers of intelligence and humor prior to the trial scene i've rarely seen in any production of this play. the rest of the cast also does a terrific job, with a notable performance by Kris Marshall as Gratiano, and a beautifully subtle work by Allan Corduner as Tubal, playing the foil to Shylock. Finally, while Al Pacino pulls out his usual strong (and loud) performance, his best moments are when the camera focuses on him and he says no words, but you can see all the emotions and madnesses flowing into and out of him as he perceives his fortunes changing.

If you like period movies, I cannot recommend this movie enough.

This is a great popularized and verbally simplified version of Shakespeare for a wide audience with a top-notch cast. Especially Al Pacino's performance is genuinely moving, in his assuming the role of an embittered and torn old man, with superior feel for emotional shift and outstanding voice-acting. Lynn Collins also convinces with a good performance. The soundtrack is likable, light and strangely enchanting, and the scenery is beautiful.

The movie does a great job of complicating the character of Shylock, and makes the viewer question his role as a victim or a villain. In the end, nobody will feel unmoved by the truly excellent and genuinely poignant court scene.

The courting prices are shallow stereotypes and constitute the only kind of (unintentional) humour this otherwise dry movie brings. I do not understand the choice of not giving the play-appropriated importance and weight in consequence to the casket-scenes. This is strange, since the movie is clearly a dramatized version of the play, and else there is not much that distinguishes Portia from a common harlot when every man can come make his suit without consequence. It saddens me to see the superficiality of these scenes, because Shakespeare did provide more complex and sympathetic characters in the original.

I am always impressed when a director (and this case director/screenwriter) takes a piece of classical text - and makes it come alive. Sure, Shakespeare's text can give you goosebumps even when hammered out with self-importance, but to see a production where true inventiveness makes wonderful words even more so - by the provision of context or nuance not found in the stage directions is simply awe-inspiring. There are many troubling things about the play. It is a racist play about racism - and that still sticks. I have never accepted Jessica's desertion of her father without any acceptable reason. I have never accepted the Christians' position of sanctimonious self-righteousness. But, brilliantly, there is a text prologue which helps us understand the times and politics in which the story is set, and mercifully, much of Jessica's part is cut.

The text is quite stripped down with many passages cut. But, I only noticed one line which was cut at the moment when I expected to hear it - and it was replaced by a look that said it all. This economy and judicious editing has given us a gripping movie - not just a film of the play.

And at last, there is a rationale as to why Antonio is so loyal and generous to the undeserving/unrelated Bassanio - you can almost feel Antonio's pulse start to race when he catches glimpse of Bassanio passing by in a gondola, or arriving for a visit. But it is as subtle as that - no more. I was spellbound.

There were many other highlights. I felt the arguments during the trial to be heartbreaking. And, the suitors' trials are hilarious.

Add all that to glorious cinematography and costumes that resonated with the times, and you'll understand why I can't wait to see it again. And again.

Stunning film, I won't dispute that. Seldom have I seen such an interface of high caliber talent (and I don't mean "names") -- from the original music, to the costume design, to the acting, to the poetic writing of Shakespeare. Al Pacino's acting, particularly in the first two-thirds of the movie, took my breath away. Jeremy Irons continues to impress me. Lynn Collins was every bit the equal of these two greats.

I also appreciate the good intentions of director and screenwriter Michael Radford. I think he did the best he could to bring out the humanitarian vision within the play and overcome its anti-Semitism.

However, anti-Semitism is almost as fundamental to this play as sexism is to Taming of the Shrew. It simply can't be transformed into something else, and ultimately the play does not offer an insightful glimpse into the corrosive effects of racism/anti-Semitism.

Shakespeare never interacted with any Jews or Jewish community because Jews were expelled from England before his time. His play was written based on what he learned from the society around him and, from there, his "enlightened" interpretation of the anti-Semitic myths about the Jews. But an "enlightened" interpretation of lies and projections of villainy, giving the fabricated scoundrel of the anti-Semitic imagination some "humanity" and complex motivation, is still founded on lies and projections.

It isn't enough to "understand" Shylock's bitter and murderous behavior, because the portrayal didn't refer, even metaphorically, to a real dynamic in the behavior of severely oppressed Jews toward their gentile oppressors.

Antonio's more lofty behavior in the end was Shakespeare's dramatization of the commonly held belief in Christian moral superiority, a belief widely held to this day. This belief was maintained despite (and because of) widespread anti-Semitic Christian behavior toward Jews, which at that time did not just consist of spitting and insults, but of rape and persecution and murder. The pursued pound of flesh was Jewish.

Shakespeare brings the play to conclusion with his (and his intended audience's) idea of justice. However, the depiction of the brutal intentions, which reverses the historical dynamic between Christian and Jew, is fundamentally unjust. It brings "understanding" to an unreal phenomenon for which there is no need for understanding. Shylock is a fabrication created from the threads of anti-Semitic myths; the character is not a historically valid representation of a Jewish man.

The filmmakers and actors argued that the play/film is a valuable exploration of the corrosive effects of anti-Semitism and racism. While the effects of racism is a very worthy subject to explore through film, an honest depiction will reveal that the effects from injustice, degradation, and danger are most often directed toward one's own. Today that dynamic is seen in impoverished inner cities where the victims and perpetrators are usually from the same communities and families. Nevertheless, there is the contemporary, paranoid mind of the oppressor which imagines the oppressed is "out to get us."

It's also important to note that the effects of oppression are complex, and are not solely negative. Some of the most creative American traditions have come from the inner city. There is the experience of danger and poverty, but there is also laughter and vibrancy that are largely missing in the American suburbs and the wealthier parts of a city. Similarly, Jewish men and women have created and sustained nurturing communities, vibrant culture(s), and have made creative and intellectual contributions to the larger world disproportionate to their numbers. These positive aspects are probably due in part to having to cope with and overcome the harmful effects of oppression.

Of course, Shakespeare doesn't depict the treasures of Jewish community and culture. And while he depicts some of the pain, frustration, and outrage, the depiction of these feelings simply taking the form of vengeance is not valid.

That doesn't mean I think this film shouldn't have been made, or the play shouldn't be produced. However, I don't think that it should be presented as NOT anti-Semitic. I think an accompanying critique of the inherent anti-Semitism of the play, and the historic anti-Semitism in England, is the only conscientious way to present it. There is no need to pretend that Shakespeare rose above the racism and sexism of his time. He didn't. He had many moments of profound, humanitarian insights, but those moments shouldn't be used to argue he was something he wasn't.

Watching this movie and then listening to the commentary, it's clear that Michael Radford doesn't understand this play. The first clue that he fails to fully grasp the work is that he takes pains to set the film in seventeenth-century Venice. Which sounds truly odd, yes, that misunderstanding the film would mean trying to make it as accurate to its location as possible. But anyone who's studied Shakespeare knows that, while he set most of his plays in exotic locals, the culture and values are always contemporary England. This doesn't hurt the film, but it displays a lack of necessary knowledge.

Where Radford kills the film is in making it so dead serious. He manages to suck every joke out of the script, leaving the whole production flat. Every ounce of passion is beaten out of the characters. Even Shylock's 'Do we not bleed' speech is a mild, awkward ranting from a choleric who seems to only be saying and doing what he does because he's supposed to. The lovers are solemn and far too restrained (Joseph Fiennes delivers some of the most romantic lines in the cinema this year in a barely audible whisper), Gratiano (who has to promise to behave at one point) is more sober and collected than Bassiano (who makes him promise to behave), Jessica is reluctant to leave her father and spends her life with Lorenzo pouting.

In the commentary for the bland and watered-down court scene, the director voices his shock that an audience laughed at Portia's 'A pound of flesh, no more, no less' sentence; ultimately concluding that it had to tension release laughter. 'The Merchant of Venice' is a comedy and Radford scoffs at the idea that the most absurd and hysterical portions of the story are anything but the most daringly provocative drama.

The film has no intelligible focus, yet cuts out some of the most entertaining scenes. The characters are forced into high drama veils, so they come out sounding like Ibsen characters reading Victorian poetry. And the comedic ending, where all of the good guys go to bed happy, is drowned in a dignified despair that feels like they're finding stiff- upper-lip peace with impending death, rather than reconciling with lovers. Even Lancelot and Antonio exit the film holding their hats like aristocratic mourners.

The film is poorly done because the creative powers that be don't understand the script. It is stern where it should hysterical. It is reserved where it should be passionate. It is Michael Radford where it should be William Shakespeare.

this film was truly amazing to watch, the costumes and scenery were first-class. Michael Radford has done a tremendous job, on a fairly constrained budget (as he said at the London Premiere). Costumes and general time period pieces were exquisite and Oscar nominations for these would seem in the running.

The acting was simply superb. Al Pacino was (as ALWAYS) perfect. He captured the torture of emotions that run through Shylock impeccably and easily stole the spotlight whenever he was on screen. Jeremy Irons paved the way for great British acting in his earlier times, and now has done the same. Also Lynn Collins, a fairly recent newcomer was perfect as Portia. She was stunning to look at and managed to pull of the speeches with grace.

Although i have all this praise, the film was definitely over-long and many scenes seemed to me like they could have done with a few edits or too. However, the atmosphere of Venice was amazing and it truly felt real in all the mannerisms of the actors.

Ultimately a very successful and ambitious film, that leaves nothing to the imagination, as it is a very realistic approach to Shakespeare. Beautiful to look at and incredible actors too (especially for Pacino) make this a great film that i would watch again an recommend at the drop of a Venetian hat.

am i naive? i don't believe -- nor from the background piece to the film i read by director/scenarist Michael Radford -- that Shakespeare -- whomever he was -- was indeed antisemitic; i believe that if anything, given the breadth & depth of the Bard's canon, his intention was to portray the extent to which the Jew was put-upon in those times; and, furthermore, that appears to be reason enough for resurrecting the play to film now by Radford; in fact -- and, yes, i've read the play, but only once thru -- what i took away from the film mostly was how righteous one may be in this world, but, alas, to no avail, since the world too often rewards the guilty, or, at least, the less than innocent (cf. Albert Camus's "The Fall"); for what really does Shylock in is not that he is wrong, but, rather, his rectitude: he is in the right, howsoever mercilessly so, and he has the oath to prove it -- but he cannot beat the world at its own gamesmanship; think ye anon of thou liege who doth provide thine victuals and how oft thine liege wrongeth thee and yet prove right for, after all, thy liege is thy liege and thus be thy master; in other words, the boss is never wrong even when you know yourself to be 100% right cuz he doth sign thine paychex, fardel.

as for Radford's film itself, i suppose it belongs in a class with Lord Olivier's Shakespearian cinema works & Peter Brook's King Lear, which is to say, it merits viewing & possible re-viewing; Lynn Collins is an able Portia & ranks with Emma Thompson's work as Princess Katherine in then-husband's Kenneth Branagh's "Henry V" for astonishing first work noted by this writer; production design, costume, cinematography are of high standards as they should be.

This was probably one of Shakespeare's weaker plays, at least based on the evidence presented here. There seems to be no point to the movie, other than pointing out that Jews were persecuted and prostitutes bared their breasts in 16th century Venice. With Shakespeare, what's most important is the words, not the plot. Unfortunately, the words are often not clearly enunciated in this lavish but dull and heavy-handed production. Irons is the worst offender, mumbling his lines in a lackluster performance. Pacino is typically blustery as Shylock, but his New York accent is hard to overlook. Fiennes is just too limited an actor to be interesting.

I just saw this at the Toronto International Film Festival in the beautiful Elgin Theatre. I was blown away by the beautiful cinematography, the brilliant adaptation of a very tricky play and last but not least, the bravura performance of Al Pacino, who was born to play this role, which was perfectly balanced by an equally strong performance from Jeremy Irons.

The film deftly explores the themes of love vs loyalty, law vs justice, and passion vs reason. Some might protest that the content is inherently anti-semitic, however they should consider the historical context of the story, and the delicate and nuanced way in which it is told in this adaptation.

9/10

I am glad the DVD had subtitle. My only regret is that there was non in my native language, Norwegian. But in order to fully enjoy Shakespeare I guess one shall see/read it in its original form, English. Class acting by Pacino and also Joseph Fiennes. The film is made easy to understand (story), the Jews and the Christians were like cat and dog, we understand the wrath of angriness toward the discrimination that Shylock expose. The scenery is beautiful and well known to me because I have spent my holidays in Venice! I am a lucky guy. By the way,I really enjoyed the film.

Espen

This is probably one of the best film adaptations of any Shakespeare play.

Upon writing his plays Shakespeare could only imagine what the worlds he set his stories in could possibly look like and the same goes for audience. The stage, especially at Shakespeare's time was remarkably limited of props and pretty much the only thing was dialog and some costumes. With today's film audience thirsty for visual spectacle a film maker must bring those world's to life to attract a larger audience. This film does that in a terrific way and the sets, costumes, and cinematography is brilliant and truly puts Shakespeare's work on the screen. Each setting, from the streets of Venice to Portia's estate, every costume, from extras to key players, looks alive and there very little details have been overlooked.

Next is the cast, which is one most directors would probably kill for. A fantastic set of actors does a terrific job, from the minor roles, like the Prince of Morocco to leads like Antonio. However, special note must be made of Al Pacino's superb performance as Shylock. The play has been criticized, over many many years, for anti-semitic tones and are they here? Without a doubt, but director Michael Radford coasts the fine line and Shylock's image isn't really that of a villain as much as a victim. This point is made rather dully by a on screen text at the film's opening, but that is necessary as, inevitably, not everyone is familiar with the play's background.

Whether someone is a Shakespeare aficionado or some has never seen the Bard's work on screen or on-stage, this is a film to see. 10/10

Rated R, rather ridiculously, for a few scenes of momentary nudity.

Al pacino is extraordinary, and indeed Oscar should win Al Pacino this year, if it has any credibility at all! To be able to draw such profound emotions from the audiences, both hatred and powerful sympathy. I can't emphasize enough on Pacino's impact on the story. Everyone was just dazzled in the theater as we watched this gorgeous piece of work. Jeremy Irons' Bernardo is fascinating, and his performance not only induces such great force of tragedy and sympathy but extreme frustration which i must admit is brilliant film-making on the part of director of il postino, Michael Radford. This is without a doubt one of the top ten films of 2004. The only criticism as far as i can see is the effect it will have on antisemitic parties, who just await a spark to start their infamous attacks once again as they did for Mel Gibson's The Passion. All i have to say to this film is: Just watch the film for what it it. After years movie makers have finally decided to make this extraordinary work of art, even though it branches on a very negative image for the Pacino as Shylock. Don't do anything you might regret.

I saw this film as a sneak preview before the Venice opening at the Telluride Film Festival. Your reaction to it will largely depend on your attitude about respecting the text of Shakespeare. On the plus side: Pacino gives a very good performance indeed as Shylock; Lynn Collins is a fine Portia; and the film has a sumptuous look.

The negatives are predictable. "The Merchant of Venice" is arguably the most difficult of all of Shakespeare's plays to stage today, largely because we look at it through the distorting lens of 20th century history. The romantic plot with Bassanio and Portia presents no problem. The character of Shylock does, because we lack the original frame of reference of the Elizabethan audience. Shylock is simultaneously a human character with human qualities and motivations, and an abstraction of the pitiless quality of the Old Law. When he says "Hath not a Jew eyes?" he is a character; when he proclaims "I will have my bond!" he is an abstraction. The long passage on music and cosmic harmony in the final scene (here moved and cut to ribbons) is the key to the play, in that it re-establishes universal harmony after the disruptive and evil (the Shylock of the trial scene) forces are ejected. It is possible to make psychological sense of the character of Shylock by showing his gradually going mad and turning into a monomaniac by the time the trial scene rolls around--the key is that at a point he must cease being sympathetic.

Pacino's performance almost does it, but not quite. The film can't quite make up its mind--on the one hand, there is the right movement in the character of Shylock, and on the other there is a great deal of extraneous footage of Jews being abused and Venetian whores with rouged nipples (no doubt to show the decadence of Antonio et al). Shakespeare was not writing an Ibsen-like social drama; he was writing a comedy following the classic pattern of disruption of social order and the restoration of social order, symbolized by marriage, with a theme of love versus law at the center of the Shylock plot.

In this sense, the film is a travesty--Radford's surgery on the play and direction almost force us away from what the play really means. (Taking the beginning of the final scene, cutting most of it, and moving it before the trial scene is the most extreme example.) There are some other significant difficulties. Jeremy Irons, a fine actor, plays Antonio as if he were overdosed on sedatives. Joseph Fiennes is pretty but shallow as Bassanio. Most of the actors, with the exceptions of Collins, Pacino, and the actor playing the Duke in the trial scene, mumble their dialogue.

Final verdict? A pretty film with a few decent performances. It's not Shakespeare, it's poor interpretation. Not really worth your time or money--although Lynn Collins as Portia almost redeems it.

Shakespeare's method was to conceive a large construction for each work, then work on language to weave it into being. Between this sky and ground, all sorts of characters, plot lines and situations appear. But they are there in the service of the words and the words are structured around the large notions that form the cosmology of the play.

The situations and characters that result are extremely rich, and those are the things we notice and remember. They are rich because of the massive talent in how the small turns of phrase support the larger containing notions.

When the plays were performed in the form Shakespeare understood, there were essentially no sets or props and the actors' priorities were to convey the language. He knew nothing of the modern notion of acting where actors create characters, characters drive situations and situations define or illuminate a larger context. That's all backwards from his magical tradition.

So putting on a Shakespearian play today is a challenge of high order, at least doing it in such a way that the genius of the thing shines through. Otherwise, you have something of which we have hundreds of thousands of examples from lesser talents. It is made ever harder because actors believe Shakespeare was created for them, and actors — together with other trades who appreciate their perspective — control many creative decisions today.

Matters are much worse when conveying Shakespeare to film. The "language" is different — bigger — including a growing vocabulary of visual language. And the actors are even more unavoidable.

In "Merchant," Shakespeare's big notions had to do with deviation from law in as many forms as he could fit into the play. Foremost among these was the "law" of the dramatic form; this play famously mixes tragedy and comedy. In tragedy, the characters accidentally fall into the machinery of the universe and get ground up, often accelerated by what they "must" do. (In film that would be "noir.")

In Shakespeare's comedies, the characters understand the rules and are able to play with them without hazard for their amusement. (A film equivalent would be screwball.) So one large notion of dealing with law is the very construction of the play: two different notions of law, one within and the other without. Lynch in "Blue Velvet" would similarly have two genres as conflicting characters.

Shakespeare of course piles dozens of other problems with laws, rules and norms into his story: the Venetian legal system, religious prescriptions, and on and on, even down to the duties of a daughter in carrying out her father's eccentric will.

The magic isn't in any of this, impressive as it is. The magic comes in how he constructs the language and metaphors that dart in and out of the various issues and perspectives. Sometimes a metaphor is captured by itself. Sometimes it stands outside itself. Sometimes it even mocks or annotates itself. Its as if he created molecules that have the same lives as the galaxies and then let all the stuff in the middle (people, cities, religions) just emerge but with rich commentary on the laws of emergence.

We do have very good film adaptations of Shakespeare. "Prospero's Books" is a terrifically deep understanding of the spoken and cinematic languages and the self-reference of explicitly portraying the playwright. Branaugh's "Hamlet" appropriately subordinated images and actors (both excellent in his case) to the narrative in the language. Godard's "Lear" is also good, completely translating and discarding the language. Luhrmann's "Romeo and Juliet" takes the kinds of risks with cinematic poetry and magic the source does with language.

Now this. Much has been made of the anti-Semitism, and some about the overt homosexuality. Both are social constructions much younger than this play. For London audiences, no people they knew could be more cartoonish than Italians: foppish, superficial and lacking introspection. This play is anchored on two characters: the aging gay merchant of the title and a rich, ripe orphan virgin. Both end up in differing intrigues over love for the same pretty boy. Both intrigues involve rules, law and money and the writer has them interact.

The Jew and his daughter are secondary, no more important than the contents of the boxes and portrayed no more ruthlessly than the Italians around him. His engagement is more a device to introduce religious law outside that known to the audience. We add the anti-Semitism here, something the adapter decided to accentuate.

This is a nice movie. Everything about it is pretty. Even the modern constructions of characters by Pacino and Irons have a prettiness to them, As an ordinary movie (like say, "Amadeus") it is a reasonable filler of time if your life is lacking in prettiness.

But the source has something far richer to feed us with, the ability to be in a story and think about that story: to break our narrative eye into dozens of fairies, some of which dance outside the engagement and some that are swept along. None of that conveys here. We are instead locked into a single narrative thread, despite many cinematic techniques from others that would have allowed otherwise.

Radford chooses the gold box. We have the sex, not the love. Our ships are lost.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.