 | Merchant of Venice |  |
"If you prick us, do we not bleed?
if you tickle us, do we not laugh?
if you poison us, do we not die?
and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?" Act III, scene i
Written: 1598
Royal Shakespeare Company ; April 10, 2008 Stratford-upon-Avon,UK
Director : Tim Carroll ; Starring :
Reviewed on : 2008-04-11 14:27:55 ; Reviewed by : A.L. Alston
| The Merchant of Venice is sometimes referred to as one of Shakespeare’s ‘problem plays’: plays which work to comment on contemporary social problems, often using comedy as a means to that end. But the term can be extended to comment on the RSC’s latest production in a very different light. The text itself is a romantic comedy and, like most of Shakespeare’s comedies, incorporates tragic elements. This poses a significant ‘problem’ for the director, when the term is applied in another sense. The decisions taken by any director to resolve the balance between tragedy and comedy in plays like The Merchant of Venice are important steps in the solving of this fundamental ‘problem’. But the extent to which Tim Carroll’s direction subdues the play’s comedy is off target. Comic scenes are tilted towards tragedy and vice versa. There is a sense that Carroll is forcing a response from his audience counter to their preconceptions, purely for the sake of doing so. But first things first: the text is the source and it is from the text that the director’s decisions must emerge. If this is ignored then the production will not evolve organically and what is seen with the eye will be at odds with what is heard in the language. Unfortunately Carroll falls victim to this fundamental trap.
The first half of the play merited the forty winks being enjoyed by the man behind me. There was a sense of the actors reciting the lines mechanically, as if in rehearsal. It was as though they were not listening to the language. If the actors refrain from speaking with conviction then the audience has a mammoth task when trying to understand the text. Peter Brook taught us a valuable lesson in The Empty Space which Carroll would have benefited from: with what was essentially a bare stage, and very few props, bringing clarity to the text is absolutely essential, as language and gesture is all the actors have at hand in the foundation of a meaning-making process.
This two-dimensional acting also merited my previous assertion that comedy was very much subdued in this production. Portia and her suitors, especially the Prince of Morocco, are given some wonderfully comic lines. Carroll’s decision to subdue their comedic value was a great error. There was one gentleman in the audience who appeared to know the text well and like an obedient servant laughed at what he thought were all the right places. Unfortunately, this was no longer the case. It would be wrong of me to suggest that a director ought not to take liberties with the text. But when the language dictates a particular state, comic or tragic, a decision at odds with this dictation is doomed to failure. I was certainly not alone in my bewilderment. What was offered in the scenes involving the suitors’ choosing between the three caskets was an attempt at the formation of a gothic conclusion to a quest which was more in keeping with Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark than Shakespeare’s text.
My last point merits further justification. The caskets were represented as three blocks of ice which rise from the floor on boxes of gold, silver and lead. Portia stands upstage, dressed in a wedding dress, below three icicles. Above her head is an alcove stretching across the stage, in which we see a long row of wine glasses with sets of hands poised above them, the fingers of which gently rubbed the rim of the glasses to make an ethereal tone designed to form tension and suspense. It was a wonderful and inspiring gimmick. But that was all it was: a gimmick. The aesthetic was wonderful but it jarred with the language. It was as though the idea was formed in Carroll’s head before work had begun on the play and later transplanted into the production. On the surface it looked and sounded great but it only served to confuse the direction of the production further.
Shylock is one of Shakespeare’s most controversial villains. There is a debate surrounding the play as to whether or not the text is anti-Semitic which many productions from the 1600’s to the 20th Century have played upon. The play was revived in Germany as propaganda during the 2nd World War to fuel anti-Semitism. Shylock was often depicted as a hateful Jew valuing money above all else. But in the twentieth century directors found in Shylock a great deal to sympathise with. His thirst for revenge is firmly rooted in Antonio’s cruel persecution, having spat on him and railed against his usury. As Shylock says in III. 1, “If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? revenge: if a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me, I will execute”. Shylock follows the old Jewish proverb, ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’ and as such his actions are condoned by his religion. But he also learns by example. He responds to Antonio’s anti-Semitism accordingly. His fate, come the end of the play, demands that he give up his Jewish faith and become a Christian. But his religion is all he has left. The punishment is out of keeping with a Christian’s supposed kindness and mercy. Instead of turning the other cheek Antonio demands from Shylock the cruellest of all punishments: he demands that he renounce his faith. And law binds Shylock, a law that he respects as a gentleman, to pay heed.
Carroll’s depiction of Shylock is one of the production’s saving graces. The interpretation is neither anti-Semitic, nor wholly sympathetic. Angus Wright plays him as a graceful, well-dressed (somewhat monotonous) gentleman. But the sections of text with Shylock’s cruel, unmerciful character traits showing their true colours were retained. What was left was a somewhat ambiguous character in keeping with Shakespeare’s text. A moving touch was integrated at the end of the court scene, after Shylock’s punishment is received and he is asked to renounce his religion. In response to Gratiano’s taunts Shylock gracefully approaches him and kisses both his cheeks: a very Christian act which makes Shylock something of a tragic hero. Having Shylock ‘played down’ was a brave but rewarding choice.
A brief word must be given to the set. The stage was covered in what looked like red wine stains. The associations with blood are clear, but in the context of this play one can’t help but draw links with Christianity. Shylock is persecuted by a group of Christians who have lost direction in their faith, blinded by foolhardy youth. The spilt red wine worked as a visually imposing metaphor for Christianity’s corruption.
This was very much a play of two halves. The negativity associated with the bulk of the first has already been exposed, but the latter end of the play was considerably more engaging. Given time to focus on the play as a romantic comedy between Jessica and Lorenzo, Carroll showed that he is perfectly capable of producing great theatre. A synergy between set, costume, acting and the text was formed for the first time as the two lovers courted beneath the stars waiting for the return of Portia and Bassanio. This truly touching moment paved the way for the comedy in the final scene when the men become aware that Portia and Nerissa have duped them. The audience finally felt comfortable with laughing as Carroll’s astute direction paid homage to the text. Gimmick-free, the closing moments brought the production back to basics with the onus on the relationship between the actor and the text.
|
|
Sir John Gilbert, R.A.,
The Moneylenders
Reviews
|  | Royal Shakespeare Company
April 10, 2008 |  | Stratford Festival of Canada
August 3, 2007 |  | OVO at Trestle Arts Base
April 20, 2007 |  | California Shakespeare Theater
August 17, 2006 |  | MGM
2005 |  | Royal Shakespeare Company
1998 |  | William Poel
1898 |  | Junius Brutus Booth (1796-1852)
c. 1800 |  | John Philip Kemble (1757-1823)
1784 |  | Charles Macklin
c. 1740 |  | George Granville
1701 |
|
>> next reviews
|
|
