| 
 enlarge | Director: Michael Radford
Actors: Al Pacino, Jeremy Irons, Joseph Fiennes, Lynn Collins, Zuleikha Robinson
Studio: Sony Pictures
Category: DVD
List Price: $14.94
Buy New: $7.48
You Save: $7.46 (50%)
New (50) Used (30) Collectible (1) from $6.95
Rating:  98 reviews
Sales Rank: 6375
Format: Ac-3, Color, Dolby, Dvd-video, Subtitled, Widescreen, Ntsc
Languages: English (Original Language), French (Subtitled)
Rating: R (Restricted)
Number Of Items: 1
Running Time: 131
Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1
Dimensions (in): 7.5 x 5.4 x 0.6
MPN: COLD10910D
ISBN: 1404980229
UPC: 043396109100
EAN: 9781404980228
ASIN: B0007WRT4Q
Theatrical Release Date: 2004
Release Date: May 10, 2005
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: ******BRAND NEW****** ** Over 1.5 million orders shipped worldwide and more than 500 000 items in stock, BUY FROM A TRUSTED SOURCE, ESTABLISHED SINCE 1998 - INETVIDEO ~~~
|
| Customer Reviews:
 A fantastic version December 19, 2007
0 out of 2 found this review helpful
This is an amazing cast, and Al Pacino plays the perfect Shylock. I cannot recommend this movie enough, whether you are a lover of Shakespeare or just looking for a movie for the weekend. This is the best version I've seen yet. :)
The Tragedy of Shylock: The Jew of Venice December 9, 2007
5 out of 6 found this review helpful
It is absurd to use the relatively modern term "anti-Semitism "as a worrisome point either in this movie or in the original late sixteenth century play. It is neither the first nor the only time that a stereotype aging male Jew has been used as an almost villainous character in English literature; notably Fagin the master thief and fence in Oliver Twist. The movie version of Oliver Twist of 1948 has Alec Guinness playing Fagin's role with no redeeming features in a very ugly stereotype (much more so than Dickens' portrayal) which seems implausible so soon after the horrors of the holocaust were revealed in newsreels. In the 1982 made for TV version George C. Scott excellently plays Fagin as more of a not unlovable scoundrel than a villain; if less grotesque than the 1948 version it is still unavoidably a stereotype as that is how Dickens conceived the character.
In The Merchant of Venice, however, the producer of the film actually manages the drama in such a way that one actually feels sorry for Shylock as the most sympathetic and deepest character in the whole play. In fact one wonders why Shakespeare did not entitle his play "The Tragedy of Shylock:The Jew of Venice". After all in the end Shylock loses half his wealth, nearly his life and his daughter. In this film version he is shown completely humiliated when his fellow Jews shun him (something not at all indicated in the original drama). As viewers our sympathy with Shylock has little to do with our modern knowledge of where anti-Semitism or any other kind of racist behaviour and such irrational attitudes lead to, whether to the World War II holocaust of the Jews and Gypsies by the Nazis, the Ottoman persecution and holocaust of the Armenians at the end of World War I or the more recent attempted genocides in former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Darfur.
Shakespeare deliberately portrays his heroes. Antonio and Bassanio as rather shallow and not particularly likable characters in The Merchant of Venice, it is the far more likable and lovely Portia that emerges as the winner in this drama and Shylock the loser. What Shakespeare conveys to us and the movie as well is that Shylock's passion for justice is entirely understandable given his shabby treatment as a Jewish moneylender but he has gone too far in demanding the full course of Venetian justice, after Portia in the guise of a young advocate has offered him an honourable and gainful way out. In the role of a classical hero Shylock suffers from hubris, he has sworn an oath to his God not to relinquish his claim on Antonio's bond and his demand for unmerciful justice ultimately backfires on him. To me there is nothing anti-Semitic in that.
The heavy-handed written explanation of renaissance attitudes to Jews at the beginning of the movie is as unnecessary as the similar one concerning the decency of average Italian-Americans whenever The Godfather is screened on mainstream US TV channels. I am sure that anyone unfamiliar with Shakespearean English will not understand any of the Shakespearean movies anyway and the rest will be well versed in renaissance attitudes to Jews, not much different from those of the middle ages, the nineteenth century or the first 45 years or so of the last century,for that matter. The producer put in some less heavy handed scenes at the end that emphasise that nobody lived happily ever after. The final scene in the movie, but not in the original drama where Jessica is shown, not as satisfied with her husband as one might expect. To marry him she has forsaken her father and her religion, stolen the family jewels and seen her father scorned and humiliated. Her deceased mother's ring is shown still on her finger, and not sold to buy a monkey as was spitefully told to Shylock. There are no words in this final scene but her face says it all, masterfully! An Elizabethan audience would not have had any sympathy for Shylock, though I think Shakespeare did feel for his character. (Their characters even if fictitious, become very real for writers). The final scene with Jessica is a modern implant as was the previous screen where a piteous Shylock is shunned by his fellow Jews, a probable outcome of his humiliation in court which would have been keenly felt by co-religionists who were expecting a triumph of justice for the whole Ghetto. One knows, without Shakespeare or the movie telling us that Bassanio is bound to cheat on the lovely Portia sometime in the future, he wouldn't be a renaissance Venetian playboy if he didn't.
The cast is excellent without exception. No ham or emotive acting in this version. The costumes are superb as are the choice of locations. Above all the enchanting musical background composed by Jocelyn Pook. Al Pacino is at his very best in this movie after accepting some rather poor roles in various movies during the 1990s, and Jeremy Irons is a very believable Antonio. Llyn Collins plays an excellent and very lovely Portia -who would have thought she is a Texan by birth! Oh she is far lovelier than the rather mousy and hammy Gwyneth Paltrow in Shakespeare in Love, with whom she has been unfairly compared! Joseph Fiennes out does himself again in an Elizabethan role as Bassanio. Special mention must also be made of the very sensuous Zuleikha Robinson (watch out for her in Rome Season Two.) Among the highly entertaining minor characters Dave Harewood plays a very convincing and amusing role as the Prince of Morocco, one of Portia's suitors and Mackenzie Crook a wonderful Lancelot Gobo, Shylock's treacherous servant.
The cinematography is exquisite. So what if it is somewhat shorter than the original drama, Shakespeare works, unless Bowdlerised, seldom suffer from careful editing when transferred to the screen. I highly recommend this movie to all Shakespeare lovers.
Stunning production of a difficult play October 30, 2007
4 out of 5 found this review helpful
The Merchant of Venice is one of Shakespeare's comedies, although it is easy to forget this, as it sometimes has more of the feel of a tragedy. The plot is simple enough: in 16th c. Venice Bassanio falls in love with the beautiful and intelligent Portia, but needs money in order to court her. He turns to his friend Antonio who agrees to borrow 3,000 ducats from the Jewish moneylender Shylock to finance Bassanio's courtship. Shylock is willing to provide the loan at no interest on one condition: Antonio must pay with a pound of his own flesh if he can't repay the money on time. Antonio readily accepts the deal, as he is sure that he will have plenty of money when his ships come in. With his dearly bought wealth Bassanio succeeds at winning Portia, but news arrives that Antonio's ships have sunk. Shylock, already angry at Antonio's and other Christians' past treatment of him, is pushed over the edge by the fact that his daughter (Jessica) has eloped with a Christian boy and taken most of Shylock's wealth with her. Shylock demands that Antonio forfeit his pound of flesh because he can't pay the bond and refuses to accept anything else.
The dilemma that faced this film is the same one that plagues every production of The Merchant of Venice: how do you solve a problem like Shylock? It is his character, more than any other, that highlights the anti-Semitic overtones of this play, something that was prevalent in Shakespeare's society but which is entirely unacceptable today. In my opinion, this film does a wonderful job with Shylock's character, and Al Pacino gives an outstanding performance in the role. Although Shylock is still portrayed as cruel and unforgiving in his pursuit of Antonio's pound of flesh--even going so far as to sharpen his blade in the trial scene where the validity of the bond is being determined--he is not a soulless, evil creature. Instead, he appears a broken man, worn down after years of being spat on and scorned by the same men who later come to ask for a loan--Antonio included. He is a bitter, wounded, tragic figure, whose world is crumbling around him with the betrayal of his daughter (whose elopement and subsequent conversion rejects both her father and her religion). Shylock's haunted face in the final scenes of the film is absolutely heartbreaking, and he is not a man to be reviled as much as a man to be pitied.
Al Pacino is not the only actor to do give a stand-out performance. Jeremy Irons, as Antonio, provides the right air of melancholy and weariness for a man who begins the play by lamenting, "I know not why I am so sad; it wearies me." Richard Fiennes (Bassanio) is a gallant young lover and honorable friend, while Lynn Collins is an excellent Portia, and makes a disturbingly good boy in the court scene where her character must pretend to be a male law clerk.
Two other high points of note: the scenery and the music. This was the first movie of the Merchant of Venice to be actually filmed in Venice, and the city makes a gorgeous backdrop. The music is beautiful and goes perfectly with the atmosphere of the film; the two stand-out pieces are "With Wand'ring Steps" and the haunting "Bridal Ballad" (which plays over the closing credits).
While some Shakespeare purists may be upset that the film does not reproduce every single line of the play (students seeing this movie instead of reading the play, beware!), it is a beautiful interpretation and nothing absolutely vital is left out (although, as other reviewers have noted, some good scenes didn't make the cut). And, I feel, the increased humanization of Shylock in fact adds quite a lot to the original.
 Wish it had subtitles!!! October 26, 2007
2 out of 7 found this review helpful
We tried but Shakespeare WITH subtitles is difficult enough...without, forget it. This one had all the makings for one of our favorite movie genres...the acting, the costumes, and the scenes all looked fab but without understanding the dialog made it too frustrating to follow.
Sorry, but unless you can really grasp Shakespeare I don't recommend.
Short on comedy but great on dramatic tension! August 26, 2007
1 out of 2 found this review helpful
A great problem with Shakespeare comedies is that they are difficult to translate to the big screen. Whilst MOV is not, strictly speaking, a comedy perhaps (not sure if Ben Johnson classified it as such), it nevertheless is imbued with much comedy. The casket scenes with the unsuitable suitors, for example, might have been more amusing and similarly so the denouement - portia and nerissa's discovery of the traded rings.
Dramatically and visually speaking, however, this film version is a treat - particularly in the courtroom scene while Pacino and Irons as the play's perhaps two most important characters are in fine form.
Al Pacino's shylock interpretation is played as a particularly miserable usurer Jew: an embittered wretch moulded by Venetian cruelty and oppression. His bargaining for the pound of flesh at the beginning of the play is suitably ambiguous regarding whether or not it is intended to be taken seriously and whether or not his offer to Antonio is in fact an act of generosity given that the loan, if repaid in time, would be interest free.
It is easy to sympathise with the character's need for revenge given that which befalls him thereafter, but his seeming complete inability to forgive during the courtroom scene makes us rather side with the ostensibly more merciful venetians again...until they decide to completely humiliate him and take half what he owns and forcibly convert him to Christianity. This is brought out in this film production with Portia shown to be the main instigator of a fairly aggressive form of Venetian justice.
The juxtaposition of Antonio and Shylock as extreme examples of venetian society is clearly in evidence here. The former symbolizes unbounded generosity, even beyond his means; the latter symbolizes extreme tightness with all things monetary; both, however, are clearly afflicted with weltschmerz perhaps owing to their inability to find some measure of acceptance for that which represents the opposite to which they value most.
In this sense the friction between the two values, necessary for any democratic society to be functional and viable, is clearly expressed. The miserly usurer depends on the merchant, the libertine merchant depends on the usurer, and the entire superficial liberal ethos of the rest of society depends on both - the scapegoat and the martyr.
The denouement is done well enough although again is short on comedy. We understand well enough the need for the new generation of venetians to grow to embrace the responsibility that is required of a democratic, open society - a theme clearly resonant for modern western societies.
|
|
|
