The Merchant of Venice (1973)

The Worst Film Ever

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

This production of The Merchant of Venice is set in Victorian times, which rather works against the play in some part. The Victorians were far more subtle in their anti-Semitism than the Elizabethans and it just strikes a false note to see it so openly expressed before a Jew by these Victorian gentlemen.Much of the text is there, which is a relief as so many producers think they know better than Shakespeare how to put a play together, although Miller does omit some lines. For instance we don't hear Shylock loudly lamenting his daughter and his ducats, first with 'O my daughter' then 'O my ducats' and switching between the two with the ducats gradually winning out in this tussle between his losses. It's a marvelous moment and, apart from its comic qualities, is very revealing of the avarice at the heart of Shylock.I think Miller left it out because he didn't want people laughing at Shylock too much. But this is after all a comedy rather than a tragedy and it is owing to Shakespeare's genius that we can both laugh at and sympathize with Shylock at different moments of the play. In fact Miller inserts himself too much into this play, especially where Jessica, Shylock's daughter, is concerned. With no justification at all he shows her as becoming discontent with her match with Lorenzo, brooding and regretful. This darkens the close of the play unnecessarily.Miller should have let the play speak for itself without tromping through it in heavy boots to impose a modern sensibility on the actors. It's a shame because those actors are excellent in their roles. This could have been a far better production if Miller had just kept his ego in check a little, but he finds that difficult in most of his productions.It's worth seeing though, as almost every production of Shakespeare is. His words are there and that is really all that counts at the end of the day. BTW at one point Bassanio says to Portia, "Lady, you have bereft me of all words." I know it's the character speaking but for an instant the idea came to my mind of Shakespeare being bereft of words. It was like thinking of the sun not shining or water not being wet. An impossibility!

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.

Easy-to-follow MERCHANT OF VENICE, though the Maggie Smith version is even more accessible. But whereas the Smith version is more contemporary to Shakespeare's times, this version, with the great Laurence Olivier, is in Victorian dress.The acting is generally good, from Jeremy Brett ("Sherlock Holmes"), Denis Lawson ("Star Wars"). The big surprise here is Michael Jayston ("Nicholas and Alexandra"). Usually consigned stiff, priggish characters, Jayston does an excellent job with Gratiano, this play's Mercutio.A few disappointments. Joan Plowright (Mrs. Laurence Olivier) is a superb Shakespearean actor. But she's not pretty enough for Portia. Of course, Portia is rich, so maybe that's okay. In fact, her looks are so mannish she is able to pull off her lawyer role well, just as she was able to play a boy and a girl alike in "Twelfth Night" (1969).The big disappointment in this play is Laurence Olivier. He might as well have brought a knife and fork with him to chew the scenery.I don't know why director Jonathan Miller chose the Victorian era for the setting, but it works extremely well (far better than his "Mikado" where he changes its venue from Japan to Victorian England, thereby missing the whole point of Gilbert and Sullivan's keen satire).Unfortunately, most recent versions have missed a big point about this play. MERCHANT is one of Shakespeare's best, but the fact that Shylock is Jewish usually means he has to be treated more sympathetically in post-World War II times.What's usually missed, as it is in this version, is that the play is called THE MERCHANT OF VENICE, who is Antonio. And the chief antagonism in the play is between Antonio and Shylock, who hate each other.SPOILER: As with most versions, Portia's "Quality of mercy" speech seems to go for naught. But in reality, while she is addressing Shylock, who will have his pound of flesh by the letter of the law, the person affected is Antonio. It seems insensitive to today's anti-Christian crowd who have the same general attitude toward Christians as the Jacobeans had for Jews, but Portia's speech, aimed at Shylock, actually struck the heart of Antonio, the Merchant, who had a change of heart. Once spitting on Shylock's "Jewish gabardine" (whether meant metaphorically or actually), he insists at the end that Shylock become a Christian. Rather than hating Shylock, Antonio now has such mercy for him he wants to be in Heaven with Shylock, eating at the Supper of the Lamb when Shylock rudely refused to eat with Antonio's like on earth.Just as director Miller missed the point about "The Mikado" he misses the entire point of the play, which is Antonio's conversion to mercy. So at the end Shylcok his hauled off to the baptismal font and he makes such a lot of off-stage noise they might be torturing him, and everyone looks after him rather guiltily. Even Antonio the merchant, who believes he's done Shylock a great service.And I have no idea what's wrong with Jessica at the end. But she always was a silly bitch, who treated her father badly.Overall, this is a good version of MERCHANT, though Portia's suitors all horribly overact, even the usually remarkably restrained Charles Kay. They all make the Belmont scenes hard to endure.

Olivier's Shylock is a wonderful characterization, painful to watch (as it should be) at times, but the show belongs to Joan Plowright as Portia. She is the consummate lady, at times abstracted or petulant (did her wise old father perhaps spoil her a bit?) but always magnetic. Jeremy "Freddy Eynsford-Hill" Brett is a sweet young Bassanio (how did he grow up to be Sherlock Holmes?) and Anna Carteret a smooth, smiling Nerissa, and Miller does interesting things with Jessica and Lorenzo in Act Five. My one quibble is with Anthony Nicholls as Antonio. He and Shylock go around like white-haired doppelgangers in black top hats and cloaks, which is a nice touch, but he himself is just *there*. We don't know what Bassanio sees in him, what he sees in Bassanio, why he hates Shylock so much, why Shylock would bother to hate him, if he's at all distressed at the prospect of forfeiting his bond or concerned about his ships. The suitors mug rather and the singing ladies in the final casket scene are somewhat painful, but it's a creditable job overall.