William Shakespeare’s The Merchant Of Venice

Shakespeare, is years ahead of his time, his great humanitarianism shines through in this play—women educating themselves and saving the day with their bravery and intellect, a black suitor received with warmth and humor during a time of slavery and racism, and a Jewish man shown as a person with feelings and self worth in a time when Jews were considered sub-human “dogs” by the Christian majority.

Although a negative view of Christianity is depicted in the opening scene where Franciscan monks are shown using the actual words of Paul from the Bible and Martin Luther to bring to trial by drowning (if guilty) a Jewish man being charged with money lending as he is thrown into the Grande Canal. A more positive and inspiring view of Christianity is shown in the court scene where both the Duke and Antonio act mercifully to the unmerciful Shylock. The most famous part of the play is Portia’s “Quality of Mercy” speech tells of mercy being an attribute of God. Shylock’s fellow red-hatted Jews in the court scene were depicted as being against the horrendous terms of the bond, hoping that Shylock would relent of his vengeance and chose mercy when he had the opportunity.

I think this film adaptation has done a wonderful job of promoting religious tolerance. There was fault on both sides and grace given by both sides—in the wrong hands this play could easily become a work of anti-Semitism, the only sour note was the forcing of Shylock to become Christian or forfeit his life.

Unfortunately, the video has a lot of bare breasts and is therefore rated “R.” In Venice, at that time it, was decreed by law that all prostitutes were required to display their breasts in order to prevent young boys posing as women and participating in the business, so this was a historically accurate portrayal. This, however, may prevent high school students from seeing the movie, which is a shame as it would make an excellent background for the reading of the play as part of a language arts program.

We are reminded of the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant in Matthew 18, where the king forgives the debt of his servant but the servant refuses to forgive the much smaller debt of another. The Scripture tells us that our very hope of salvation is summed up in this parable. “Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto [this] certain king, which would take account of his servants,” we are told. We are servants of God, and He is a God who has forgiven us. And any time we refuse to show grace and mercy is to ignore the grace and mercy we ourselves are in need of.

Just so, in response to Shylock’s demand for “justice,” Portia movingly reflects the Biblical idea of grace in her rebuttal. “The quality of mercy is not strain'd, /It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven/Upon the place beneath,” she says. “Therefore, Jew, /Though justice be thy plea, consider this, /That, in the course of justice, none of us/Should see salvation.” It doesn’t get more clear than this. In this play, we have the very essence of what Christian grace and salvation is all about, in keeping with the Holy Scriptures that Christians revere. Without forgiveness, as Portia says to Shylock, none of us would ever see salvation.

And Shylock’s refusal to show mercy even after he is warned about this is what finally brings about his own downfall. “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again,” the Scripture tells us. And this is exactly the manner in which Shylock both judges and is judged in his ultimate (and foolish) assertion, “My deeds upon my head! I crave the law.” And that is just what he gets. This is an extraordinary and powerful depiction of these Christian ideas.

Lately, the play has become far more controversial, especially with the charge of anti-Semitism. This is not altogether unfounded, but we do have to be careful not to judge the standards of 400 years ago by the standards of today. Nevertheless, unlike some depictions of Jewish people by other playwrights at the exact same time as Shakespeare (e.g., Christopher Marlowe and his extremely prejudiced play “The Jew of Malta,” written only a few years before “The Merchant of Venice”) Shakespeare really does humanize Shylock, despite not supporting him or his religious beliefs. In the famous “hath not a Jew eyes” speech, Shakespeare clearly depicts Shylock as a human being with the same emotions, complexities, and human dignity as anyone else. “Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, /dimensions, senses, /affections, passions?” he demands. “Fed with/the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject/to the same diseases, healed by the same means, /warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as/a Christian is?” Shylock here is not merely a two-dimensional villain without any sympathy or emotions. Shylock clearly gives a sympathetic and insightful viewpoint into his common humanity he shares with everyone, irrespective of their religion or ethnicity.

Shylock, as a Jew, does mistreat Christians, but Christians are also clearly depicted mistreating Jews. Shylock’s revenge, in fact, is driven by the way that Antonio had spurned and spat upon him in the marketplace simply for being a Jew. All of the resentment and hatred and lack of mercy that take place in the play/film come about as a result of a sinful refusal to show compassion and grace to others. And all restoration that is able to take place likewise only comes when an extension of mercy is offered. Shylock, in his refusal to show mercy, finds himself brought to his downfall and defeat. Once the tables have turned and Shylock is instead at Antonio’s mercy, Antonio, in turn, is willing to show mercy to him in the end, despite Shylock’s own refusal to do so all throughout the play.

This contrast between the Jewish (which is to say, Old Testament/Law) Shylock and the Christian (which is to say, New Testament/New Covenant) Antonio demonstrates the difference between the strict judgment of the Law (and the way we have all transgressed the Law) and the fulfillment of the Law in the grace, forgiveness, and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. That is what is symbolized by having the Jewish character asserting that “I crave the law,`” while having the Christian Duke’s final verdict to Shylock insisting “That thou shalt see the difference of our spirits, /I pardon thee thy life before thou ask it.” The Duke himself explicitly distinguishes the difference between the Law and Grace in contrasting Shylock’s Jewish demand for justice with the Christian court’s willingness to extend mercy even to those who do not deserve it and are themselves unwilling to show it.

Granted, there is this good message to take from this contrast, but there is also an (understandable) discomfort with the nevertheless still anti-Semitic depiction of this character. According to Christian theology, Jesus Christ did in fact fulfill the Law, but the idea of forgiveness and mercy in the Hebrew tradition did not begin only when Jesus Christ came to earth. These ideas of forgiveness were already present and prophesied in the Old Testament and fulfilled (not done away with) in the New Testament. While Shakespeare’s symbolism has a lot of merit here, it is also worth critiquing this perspective by asserting that the Jewish tradition and scriptures (of which Christians also adhere) are not in themselves devoid of these ideas of mercy and grace. It is therefore, arguably, not accurate to depict Judaism as strictly symbolizing the presence of unforgiving judgment while depicting Christianity as the completely different and distinct presence of grace and mercy over and against the former. Christianity should not be understood as a new religion but rather a continuation of the religion given to Jews such as Abraham and Moses. While the history of Jewish/Christian relations have often been plagued with hatred, division, and strife, this is not necessarily a reflection of the religions themselves in their essence.

I am not saying this is something Shakespeare himself fails to do or a sin of which he is guilty, but the prejudices of characters within Shakespeare’s play is part and parcel of these cultural distinctions (and perhaps misunderstandings) between Jews and Christians throughout the last several centuries. I do not think, however, it is accurate to say that this play/film is blatantly offensive or bigoted against either Jews or Christians. Rather, the Great Works of Literature are so timeless and enduring because they challenge us and demand we ask these tough and universal questions and encourage respectful dialogue between those who disagree. And this is not something we should fear.

This movie, I believe, depicts all of these themes in Shakespeare’s play very carefully and in a very nuanced way, not imposing one perspective but opening it up for the interpretation and conversation the play itself has sparked for centuries.

As far as the characteristics of the movie itself, the actors are top notch, the directing is excellent, and almost everything is perfect from a cinematic perspective. My biggest qualm is with the way the text is followed but still greatly abridged from the original. I suppose this was to keep it at a normal, 2-hour film length rather than the 3 ½ the full text would have required. I can forgive that, though it would have been even better if followed entirely (as Kenneth Branagh did in his “Hamlet” in 1996). But since so few good movies come out today, it is hard for me to complain about this one aspect. This is an excellent movie.

Furthermore, while there is a distinction between what Shakespeare wrote and what Hollywood chooses to do with Shakespeare, I do not believe that this film adds anything immoral to Shakespeare’s play (as many other Shakespeare films have done in the past). The one qualm spoken about in this review is that there is some brief, partial nudity. In fact, the MPAA in America gave this film an R-rating for nudity. This, I must say, is entirely unwarranted. In the UK, the film is approved for 8 and older, and in Sweden, the film is approved for 7 and older. The MPAA, I believe, really messed up on this one, especially considering how permissive they are on other things that are far more immoral than anything that can be found in this film.

The fact that prostitutes are depicted with their bare breasts exposed is not a carnal move on the part of the film director to push unnecessary immorality or sensuality into the film. This is merely a truthful reflection of an historical reality. In the Renaissance, prostitutes were required to have their breasts bare in public to identify them as prostitutes. And prostitution was, sadly, not uncommon in the era, and this requirement for prostitutes to bare their breasts was part of the way this practice was regulated in the era.

Therefore, this film’s depiction of nudity is not pushing a modern agenda onto the past (which I am very against) but is an accurate depiction of what things were like at the time. I am obviously not saying that it is good to have one’s bare breasts exposed in public, and I would certainly never defend prostitution. However, this film is one of the very few instances where nudity is actually necessary and appropriate to the movie. Furthermore, the portrayal of this facet is not done in an explicit, vulgar, or overly close-up way. The R-rating (which absurdly restricts anyone under the age of 17 to see it) is completely unwarranted and fails to take historical context and reality into consideration. This film should be PG or PG-13 at the very worst. This film is excellent for anyone interested in Shakespeare, and the R-rating and very brief nudity should not discourage anyone from seeing it.

“The Merchant of Venice” is not offensive. This is an excellent movie. Everyone should see it.