One of Shakespeare's most fascinating plays. This production, featuring Olivier, scores 7.6 on IMDb. The Warren Mitchell version scores 7.3, and Al Pacino 7.1. Although I also rate the Pacino version the lowest, I'm not so sure of the order of the other two. But there's no denying the power of Olivier's delivery of the text; and his remarkable ability to extract every nuance with a unique clarity and conviction.
It is necessary to dispel the ridiculous notion that Shakespeare didn't know any Jews. Since the Alhambra Decree of 1492 there had been vast numbers of Jewish refugees from the persecution of the Inquisition in Spain and Portugal fleeing to other parts of Europe. This included England, which was particularly attractive since Henry VIII had rejected Roman Catholicism. By the reign of Elizabeth, in 1597, at the time Shakespeare wrote this play, there were a number of Jews in London he would have known. One of these, the Queen's physician, became a victim of local anti-semitism. Another was the dark lady of the sonnets, Emilia Bassano. A convincing case has recently been made for Shakespeare's father as Jewish, and his mother a Roman Catholic. This makes sense, as the onlooker tends to see more of the game. The play is extraordinarily well and subtly written. I believe it could only have been created by someone who was intimately and personally aware of the problems it addresses.
This play is not anti-semitic, although some disagree. It is, instead, a snapshot of the effects of anti-semitism. Shylock is a product of the anti-semitic climate of the society that surrounds him, exacerbated by the elopement of his daughter. Its real subject is the cause and nature of revenge, which was an underlying theme in several of Shakespeare's plays, as well as some of those of his contemporaries. Hamlet, Othello, Richard III are arguably all about the psychology of revenge, and its legitimacy, or otherwise. The Christian tenets that one should love one's enemies and turn the other cheek have not noticeably been followed in history. Was much mercy shown to Shylock at his trial ?
This production dispenses with Lancelot Gobbo, which is no great loss, since his Elizabethan jokes have dated in a way that the rest of the play has not. There are several other excisions, and the play has been creatively streamlined. There are a number of witty aspects to the text, which remain delightfully recognized. Aragon and Morocco, in my opinion, are funny, although others may find their portrayals ageist and racist. The whole play is inherently sexist, in a witty and amusing manner. There seems little purpose in re-adjusting the time period to late 19th century Venice, but it's not as pointlessly distracting as the Pacino setting. It must be beneficial that both the producer of these two versions, Jonathan Miller, and the directors, Jack Gold and John Sichel, are people with an inside understanding of what it has meant to be Jewish in a non-Jewish environment. This not so true, however, of Olivier, which is why in the final analysis his performance, brilliant though it is, is still an actor's impression of a Jew. Warren Mitchell, in his own words, "enjoyed being Jewish", and somehow that elevates his interpretation.
It is necessary to dispel the ridiculous notion that Shakespeare didn't know any Jews. Since the Alhambra Decree of 1492 there had been vast numbers of Jewish refugees from the persecution of the Inquisition in Spain and Portugal fleeing to other parts of Europe. This included England, which was particularly attractive since Henry VIII had rejected Roman Catholicism. By the reign of Elizabeth, in 1597, at the time Shakespeare wrote this play, there were a number of Jews in London he would have known. One of these, the Queen's physician, became a victim of local anti-semitism. Another was the dark lady of the sonnets, Emilia Bassano. A convincing case has recently been made for Shakespeare's father as Jewish, and his mother a Roman Catholic. This makes sense, as the onlooker tends to see more of the game. The play is extraordinarily well and subtly written. I believe it could only have been created by someone who was intimately and personally aware of the problems it addresses.
This play is not anti-semitic, although some disagree. It is, instead, a snapshot of the effects of anti-semitism. Shylock is a product of the anti-semitic climate of the society that surrounds him, exacerbated by the elopement of his daughter. Its real subject is the cause and nature of revenge, which was an underlying theme in several of Shakespeare's plays, as well as some of those of his contemporaries. Hamlet, Othello, Richard III are arguably all about the psychology of revenge, and its legitimacy, or otherwise. The Christian tenets that one should love one's enemies and turn the other cheek have not noticeably been followed in history. Was much mercy shown to Shylock at his trial ?
This production dispenses with Lancelot Gobbo, which is no great loss, since his Elizabethan jokes have dated in a way that the rest of the play has not. There are several other excisions, and the play has been creatively streamlined. There are a number of witty aspects to the text, which remain delightfully recognized. Aragon and Morocco, in my opinion, are funny, although others may find their portrayals ageist and racist. The whole play is inherently sexist, in a witty and amusing manner. There seems little purpose in re-adjusting the time period to late 19th century Venice, but it's not as pointlessly distracting as the Pacino setting. It must be beneficial that both the producer of these two versions, Jonathan Miller, and the directors, Jack Gold and John Sichel, are people with an inside understanding of what it has meant to be Jewish in a non-Jewish environment. This not so true, however, of Olivier, which is why in the final analysis his performance, brilliant though it is, is still an actor's impression of a Jew. Warren Mitchell, in his own words, "enjoyed being Jewish", and somehow that elevates his interpretation.