The Merchant of Venice (1980 TV Movie) User Reviews

This was the program that first got me interested in Shakespeare

[keith_williamson · 8/10 · 5 January 2005]

I remember this play very fondly, and, while it is over twenty years since I saw it and I may be more critical of it now, any program that can turn on a cynical youth to Shakespeare can't be all bad.

I have read the comments about Warren Mitchell and would disagree, his is one of the two performances I particularly remember. Yes, it is a very unsympathetic performance, why should it be other? It is also very anti-Semitic, why should it not be? Shakespeare was amongst other things a product of his age and the politics of his age. Why do we feel that we have to tinker with the past to sanitise it and to make it what it wasn't? Surely, A lot can be learnt from looking at things as they actually were and to learn from that.

I only wish it was available to purchase now.

One Play That Has Spoiled in Storage

[tonstant viewer · 6/10 · 21 January 2007]

Jews had been banned from England in 1290, and Shakespeare and his contemporaries most likely never saw one. The story is that Christopher Marlowe had a big hit with "A Jew of Malta" and Shakespeare's company across town needed a Jewish play quickly to compete. Marlowe's protagonist was a monstrous jumble of medieval stereotypes, while Shakespeare countered with a much more rounded portrait.

Nonetheless, to give the Bard what he asked for in this script strikes modern audiences as barbaric. Videos with Laurence Olivier and Al Pacino have strategically pruned texts, and Orson Welles completely abandoned a planned production on the grounds that there's enough anti-Semitism in the world already.

It's not a question of political correctness, which as we know, is only having to be polite to people we feel entitled to be rude to. It's a question of recognizing the humanity in Shakespeare's characters, which is a major part of his genius. Surely his original audience laughed at the taunting of Shylock, and cheered his forced conversion at the end. But Shakespeare takes this cartoon villain, and gives him a tender moment to remember his late wife Leah, a chance to reproach Antonio for his loutish behavior, and getting back the reply, "I'd do it again in a minute." And the "Hath not a Jew eyes" speech is something that one could not hope to find in a British play for centuries before or after.

Warren Mitchell, his director Jack Gold and his producer Jonathan Miller, have come up with a Shylock who is by far the most interesting character in the play. Despite the inappropriate Yiddish accent (surely Shylock's household spoke Ladino), Mitchell reacts with wide-eyed resignation while receiving insults, and collapses in heated agony at his final defeat.

By comparison, the others are a milky lot, without pulse or passion or dimension, aside of course from their obsessive anti-Semitism. With all the unpalatable verbal abuse presented intact, we leave the play with the impression that Antonio is tired and a bad judge of character, Bassanio is a blank slate, Portia is a smug, doll-like, self-impressed manipulator and a racist. Gratiano and his friends are loudmouthed bullies with nothing more to offer. Lorenzo is vapid, Jessica is nasty and stupid. Gobbo plays coarse tricks on his blind father and is more idiotic and annoying than most Shakespearean clowns.

Shylock may be repellent in parts, but at least he's alive. That's not easy to say about the rest of the people here.

This is the best available performance of my favorite Shakespeare

[edavis2375 · 8/10 · 20 July 2009]

I did not appreciate the Gemma Jones recording of The Merchant of Venice until recently when I reviewed five DVD's for showing to a class of undergraduates.

While I personally prefer the 1973 recording with Laurence Olivier, on the strength of his superior performance of Shylock, I found the production to be inadequate for most of the other scenes. This is especially true in the marvelous smaller scenes that need to be explained to students in detail, such as Act II, scene v, where Lancelet reads all kinds of innuendo into telltale palm of his hand -- a fine piece of comedy which Shakespeare wrote for Will Kempe. Also there is the scene where Portia informs Nerissa that they will be dressing as men to defend Antonio (Act III, scene iv) which, here in this production, is actually acted out while the others seem to avoid it. In this famous "cross-dressing" scene, we actually get a sense of the marvelous street slang and punning that would have appealed to Shakespeare's original audience. I also found that in the final act, where the three couples reaffirm their commitments and Portia and Nerissa confront their husbands regarding the rings, the scene is most appealing to a young audience.

I believe the 1980 performance stands out from those available on DVD and should not be overlooked.

Pokerfaced Performance

[Vinteuil · 18 August 2003]

If you're looking for The Merchant of Venice on video or DVD, it comes down to two versions: Jonathan Miller's National Theatre production with Laurence Olivier, Joan Plowright, and Jeremy Brett, taped in 1973, and this BBC effort, recorded seven years later.

This one can hardly match the star power of that earlier performance.

In particular, Olivier's Shylock was simply *non pareil*. Better than his Henry V, better than his Hamlet, better than his Lear. Unforgettable--but also tendentious. Olivier simply omitted any lines that might have compromised his sympathetic portrayal of the old usurer.

Warren Mitchell's performance for the BBC Shakespeare is both more textually complete and more ambiguous. His Shylock is not just a monster--but neither is he just a victim. He is both sinned against and sinning. This creates a context in which it's easier to sympathize with Antonio, Portia and the other Christians, even when they are played less compellingly than in the rival version.

As always with the BBC Shakespeare series, it's fun to spot actors and actresses you've seen elsewhere. Gemma Jones is too old for Portia, but if you've enjoyed her as Louisa in *The Duchess of Duke Street* or as Mrs. Dashwood in *Sense and Sensibility*, you won't mind seeing her in a more challenging role. And if you liked John Rhys-Davies as Gimli in *The Lord of the Rings, or as Macro in *I, Claudius*, watch for him here in the small role of Salerio.

All in all, this production probably won't convert anyone with doubts to the cause of Shakespeare. But for those who already know and love this particular play, it's more than worthwhile.

Marvelous Production That Says What Shakespeare Wrote

[clotblaster · 9/10 · 12 January 2006]

This is much, much better than Olivier's version, of which I own a copy and have used to teach high school Shakespeare. Gemma Jones is excellent as Portia (and not too old) and Shylock is performed the way Shakespeare wrote the part. I would argue the issue of anti-semitism in this play: it's not as cut and dried as people seem to think. But it is a product of Shak's time, not ours (which can't do anything controversial unless it is left-wing politically and politically correct). I recently saw Al Pacino play Shylock and his performance and the production was absurd. Unfortunately, because of WWII and the wrong-headed (but good-hearted) people who are afraid to touch any play that shows Jews in a negative way, this play is off limits to a decent production of The Merchant.. except it seems for the BBC production. Also, the viewer who gave this production a "one" rating obviously came to the play predisposed to dislike anything that wasn't modern in look and perspective. He/she simply didn't want to watch the play Shakespeare wrote. The BBC series of all the plays did have a number of clunkers, but this isn't one of them.

Shakespeare's most controversial work

[alainenglish · 6/10 · 17 February 2010]

This popular but controversial piece about a Venetian merchant who finds himself at the mercy of a ruthless Jewish money-lender is given a reasonable enough production here. The story with the lovers Bassiano and Portia (and their two friends Graciano and Neryssa) is played gently enough but the play is ruined by it's depiction of Shylock.

John Nettles and Kenneth Cranham are earnest and enjoyable, as is John Franklyn-Robbins depiction of Antonio. Leslee Udwin is sweet as Jessica, and Gemma Jones nails the stately but streetwise Portia.

However, Shylock (Warren Mitchell) is given blatantly villainous and unsympathetic take, visibly more brutish and inhuman than the other characters. His comeuppance, where he's made to kiss a crucifix, is disgusting.

Acted well enough, but you're better off watching the film versions which are more considered and as a result more compelling.

Magnificent

[david_barnett1 · 10/10 · 18 March 2006]

One is compelled to give three very rousing cheers to any performance of this, my favourite Shakespeare play, that does not cut out words and phrases offensive to that curse of the modern age, political correctness.

As another reviewer has said, The Merchant was written in another age when sentiments that would now land one in trouble were commonplace.

Shylock is definitely not the hero of this play but it is impossible to think of him as an out and out villain either. Warren Mitchell brings out this ambiguity well.

The Olivier performance, although unmissable, omits too much to the Jew's discredit.

The recent Al Pacino production, which I bought the minute it became available, was also a great letdown with potentially racist/anti-Semitic words left out and with the text, what was left of it, horribly modernised. It was visually stunning, though.

It may have been wrong of Portia to say what she did of the Prince of Morocco when he bade her a sad farewell, but those were the words that the Bard put in her mouth and they should be left there.

The whole 37 plays, that the BBC produced in the 1970s/1980s, are now available on DVD. An excellent investment!

The King James Version

[Uriah43 · 7/10 · 6 August 2023]

Written in about 1598 by William Shakespeare, the play this film is based on essentially begins with a young man by the name of "Bassanio" (John Nettles) beseeching his good friend "Antonio" (John Franklyn-Robbins) for some money in order to court a beautiful woman by the name of "Portia" (Gemma Jones). As it so happens, Portia has just inherited considerable wealth, and Bassanio needs this money from Antonio in order to attract her attention. To that effect, although Antonio has all of his money tied up in investments, being the good friend that he is, he agrees to ask a Jewish moneylender named "Shylock" (Warren Mitchell) for a loan of three thousand ducats to help him out. What Antonio doesn't realize, however, is how much Shylock secretly hates him and, as a result, Shylock agrees to lend him the money which is payable in 3 months--at the cost of a pound of his flesh should he be unable to pay. This shocks Bassanio who pleads with Antonio not to accept the deal. However, being quite confident that some of his expensive investments will pay off in the near future, Antonio agrees--and things get quite interesting from that point on. Now, rather than reveal any more, I will just say that this original play has generated quite a bit of controversy due in large part over concerns that it is anti-Semitic with regards to the character of Shylock. Although I certainly respect these concerns, I should mention that many historians are of the opinion that it is wrong to judge certain attitudes and opinions held by those in the past to our current standards. To that extent, while we may rightly agree that slavery, for example, is wrong--that doesn't necessarily allow us the luxury of condemning everyone who accepted it as normal hundreds or thousands of years earlier. Likewise, to fully understand the main plot of this play, we also need to understand Shylock's role in the economic system prevalent during that specific time as well. Again though, I fully understand the reasons a person could object to this film and I certainly wouldn't criticize anyone for doing so. On a totally unrelated note, I should also point out that this film uses an older style of English vernacular that some viewers may have difficulty understanding. Fortunately, having been raised on the King James version of the Bible, I was able to comprehend most of it. Hopefully, other viewers will be able to adapt as well. In any case, as far as the actors were concerned, I liked the performance of Warren Mitchell who, I thought, totally stole the show. On the other hand, I must admit that I preferred Lynn Collins' adaptation of Portia in the similarly titled 2004 version of this movie, as she eluded a certain cheerfulness that I found quite entertaining. But that's just me. Be that as it may, while this film may not be of interest to all viewers, I enjoyed it for the most part, and I have rated it accordingly. Above average.

beats Larry hands down

[thetrev · 8/10 · 11 April 2007]

Warren Mitchell's portrayal is amazing. Rather than the over-playing of Olivier Mitchell shows a man who is loathed by all and yet is also obviously a product of this loathing. His shifts between pleasure and pain, glory and defeat, hatred and hurting are superb.

A previous poster comments on Mitchell's accent. fair enough, but why just pick on his. All the others should be speaking Italian. Mitchell's Yiddish accent is fine and, for the most part, resists the urge to go 100% comic.

Another poster wrote of the production failing to 'resolve the antisemitic overtones of the play'. So what? Antisemitism has never been resolved and it certainly wasn't in the play... nor, do I feel, was it meant to be. We feel little sympathy for the 'winners' in this piece. Their own virulent antisemitism has been shown and the creation of it, Shylock's twisted avenger, is also obvious.

What surprised me was how, even though I knew the play, Portia came across as the biggest, self-righteous cow in the piece. I had never thought of how the caskets could refer to her when the matter of outer beauty housing less than beautiful things. This beautiful woman has a heart of stone towards the Jew and the foreigners.

Negative, probably scathing.

[ljc3 · 1/10 · 6 February 2000]

This has to be the least imaginative rendition of a Shakespeare play I have ever seen. Actors in Elizabethan costume - w ho remain largely immobile throughout - recite Shakespeare's verse with about as much passion as if it were a shopping list. Jack Gold makes no attempt to resolve the anti-semitic overtones of the play, with Warren Mitch ell's cliched and totally unsympathetic Shylock doing nothing to help matters. Lancelot Gobbo is, frankly, just irritating. Sure, this was made by the BBC on a shoestring budget for educational purposes; it was no prime-time Friday evening piec e of television, but that is no excuse for the lack of ideas. You get the feeling that nobody was really trying, and it does not even work as an educational tool, being uninvolving that it is likely to turn kids off Sh akespeare and provides nothing for the more advanced student to comment on.

It's the best one for kids

[putzfam-828-237662 · 8/10 · 26 August 2010]

I use this version to accompany my British Lit unit. I own all of the versions and while I love Olivier, the modernization of the play makes the themes of the play more difficult to imagine. The most recent one has so many cut lines and frankly nudity that I am not showing in my classroom, that I am left with this version. As an earlier poster stated Gemma Jones is too old for the part and not attractively made up, but maybe that age gives a sense of maturity that makes her knowledge easier to accept. In addition, when Shylock is forced to kiss the cross, I and my class always discuss the uncomfortable feeling of denying someone their heritage. The play is full of conflicts but to a certain degree if it didn't, the play would be somehow condoning the very acts we find repulsive today. The limits of the Jews, women, and social class are all symbolized in the caskets. If one is to see how this can be used in a modern connotation, you only have to ask students who has the newest ipod, car, or house and they see the concept of gold, silver, or lead in a very modern light. I warn them before they see the play that they are watching a filming of a play, the costumes are Elizabethan, not the period it would have been lived and the acting is somewhat the result of BBC trying to pump out all of the Shakespeare plays on a limited budget, but all the lines are there!

Well-acted Shakespeare "comedy"

[Red-125 · 9/10 · 28 September 2014]

The Merchant of Venice (1980) (TV)

Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice (1980) (TV) was directed by Jack Gold. It's a straightforward, well-done version of the play, and I enjoyed watching it. (Well, it's not too easy to actually enjoy Merchant of Venice, because the humiliation and destruction of Shylock are hard to watch. However, I enjoyed watching the film because it followed Shakespeare's text, and it starred excellent actors in the leading roles.

Gemma Jones is a highly capable actor. However, because she was 38 years old at the time, it was hard to accept her as Portia, who is certainly meant to be in her late teens or 20's. Still, she carried it off, and you believed that she was the intelligent, ingenious young woman whom Shakespeare created.

Warren Mitchell, who plays Shylock, is a superb actor. He's well known in England, although I don't think I've ever seen him in a major film role before this one. I really liked his portrayal of Shylock—not as a stereotypical Elizabethan Jew, but as someone who has suffered, and now wants to make someone else suffer. He neither overplays nor underplays his role.

For me, the biggest problem in the movie is that Shylock's most important speech is undercut by a decision made by director Gold. This is the famous speech that begins, "Hath not a Jew eyes?" It's that speech that tells us that, although Shakespeare may have been anti-Semitic, he could also see the world through the eyes of a Jew. Without that speech, Merchant of Venice is just a play about an evil Jew, along with some comic subplots thrown in for laughs.

Of course, Mitchell gave the speech. However, behind him Salanio and Salario are pushing each other and laughing like adolescents when the teacher's back is turned. I assume Gold wanted to make the point that no one cares what Shylock says, even when he is extraordinarily eloquent. Still, I think it was a mistake to rob Shylock—and us, the viewers—of the full impact of this incredible speech.

The Merchant of Venice is like most of the BBC Shakespeare productions that I've seen— strong on acting and costumes, but very modest when it comes to sets. We're so accustomed to seeing sailing ships on the ocean when an actor is talking about sailing ships, that it seems strange to us when we don't see them. This was the way plays were performed in Shakespeare's time, because of lack of technology and lack of money. Well, BBC had the technology, but the money was still lacking, so the producers expect us to use our imagination. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

The BBC Shakespeare series was produced for television, so the movies were meant to be seen on the small screen. I've seen some of them on the large screen, and they work just as well.

Note: The Merchant of Venice is classified as a comedy because most of the characters get married, and no one dies. The problem with that definition is that it forces us to call a play a comedy, when it's tragic and not funny. ("Midsummer Night's Dream" is funny. It may have serious undertones, but it's funny. It really is a comedy.)

However, I think we can change the category of the play, and still keep the definition intact. What happens to Shylock is tantamount to death for him. Even though three couples get married, and no bodies are carried off the stage, I think of this play (and the movie made from it) more as tragedy than as comedy. It's absolutely worth seeing, but certainly not for laughs.

a good production of a disquieting play

[mhk11 · 8/10 · 21 August 2014]

Jonathan Miller and Jack Gold have chosen to accentuate the anti-Semitism of the play in this production. In so doing, they have highlighted the sheer vileness of most of the Christian characters without sweetening the character of Shylock. Shylock, excellently portrayed by Warren Mitchell, is intelligent and sharply witty and sometimes poignantly appealing; yet at other times he is ruthlessly vindictive. However, what this production makes powerfully clear is that his ruthless vindictiveness is a product of the shameful ways in which he has been treated by his Christian contemporaries. Their coarse bigotry and outright abuse -- along with their sanctimonious blindness to their own grievous faults -- have brought out the worst in Shylock (whose miserliness as a moneylender, likewise, is due to his being barred from every other profession in medieval Venice).

Gemma Jones is not beautiful, but her acting in the role of Portia is outstanding. Portia is perhaps the most repellent character of all, as she addresses Shylock with her marvelous disquisition on the quality of mercy and then proves to be unremittingly merciless and devious in her treatment of him. In addition to being a foul bigot, she plays a tiresome and cruel trick on her husband which may have seemed funny to audiences in Shakespeare's time but which seems today to be a further confirmation of her grandiose egocentricity. The only discernible aim of that trick is to establish her dominance over Bassanio and Antonio by humiliating them.

Even more tiresome than Portia's silly trick is the character of Launcelot Gobbo -- one of the most grimly unfunny clowns (and the most odiously anti-Semitic clown) in Shakespeare's whole oeuvre. Enn Reitel does a good job of portraying this rebarbative character.

Also repulsive are Salerio and Solanio, two characters who -- like most of the rest of the Christians in the play -- appear to be unacquainted with the activity of productive work. Their vicious hatred of Jews and their general decadence are brought out well in this production by John Rhys-Davies and Alan David.

The characters of Nerissa and Bassanio are less overtly bigoted and distasteful than the other Christians, and they are deftly performed here by Susan Jameson (who is beautiful) and John Nettles.

Most of the other parts in the play are likewise adeptly performed. Every production of "The Merchant of Venice" has to come to grips with the savage prejudices that are so salient in the play. By underscoring the intensity and ugliness of those prejudices, this production helps to reveal the extent to which they deform the society in which they are prevalent.

Enigmatic and suspended

[Dr_Coulardeau · 20 September 2011]

If all is well when all ends well, It is a comedy, and yet it is a pure drama in many ways. A Shakespearean drama for sure, but a drama nevertheless. And none of its value has disappeared today.

The first absolutely modern question is that of Jews, their presence and treatment in and by society. In Venice they are tolerated which creates some problems. Shakespeare describes them with tremendous accuracy. First there is the problem of their wealth that creates jealousy against them and that gives them a tremendous power since they can lend money at usurer's rates. In this play the payment, if the borrower defaults on it, becomes a pound of flesh taken from his breast. This clause is absurd in itself, barbaric in many ways, but it is a vengeance from Shylock, the Jew, for his stolen daughter who married a Christian and became Christian in so doing.

Shakespeare tries to equalize the situation with the famous and ever quoted long intervention from Shylock himself: "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?" In fact that does not equalize anything since it shows Shylock's only aim is not justice, not benevolence, just vengeance. And in this case the wrong done to the Jew is the theft of his daughter, hence the negation of his father's rights, of his condition of father. Where is the first disruption of the status quo? But the play in its entirety implies this is normal: a Jew has to be converted sooner or later to Christianity. In other words his religion is rejected and considered as both inferior and just tolerable but not acceptable. Is vengeance the normal reaction? For any human being, yes. Why not for Jews? But then it creates the sorry situation we are discussing here: the forfeiture of one pound of flesh to compensate the loss of a defaulted loan.

But the play goes a lot farther. It plays with words, laws and legal terms to destroy the Jew in the end: one pound of flesh you can take, but you must not take one drop of blood nor of course cast one drop of blood. Mission impossible. Then the request to be given that pound of flesh was a direct and indirect jeopardizing of the life of a Christian Venitian and that means three punishments: half the property of the culprit given to the endangered person; half of his property confiscated by the state, and his death penalty that can be pardoned by the Duke who imposes instead the conversion of the Jew to Christianity. This is a total full destruction of the Jew and the play does not leave one single doubt about his being utterly destroyed.

The second modernity is the freedom of women in front of marriage. Shylock's daughter marries the man she wants and chooses against her father's will. Then Portia and Nerissa marry the men they choose and select, and Portia's selection is long and very challenging for the suitors. Then the two latter women give a ring to their husbands who are obliged to swear they will never part from them, but the two women become the lawyer and clerk in the trial and they exploit the situation they create with the judgment and sentence against Shylock to, under the cover of them being men, literally force the two men to forfeit their rings. You can imagine the exploitation of this fact at the end. We will though pass on the gay innuendo which is nothing but fun and has no fundament, and was even funnier in Shakespearean times when female characters were played by male actors and Portia was thus authorized by her husband to spend the night with the lawyer, and Nerissa with the clerk, boy with boy in both cases.

Then at the same time there are some signs that Shakespeare considered this situation as not entirely solved, as if containing some danger for the future. The play ends with three marriages. Three is the number of disorder and disruption. Of course three couples make six people and we have there Solomon's number, and the judgment and sentence were typically a judgment and sentence that Solomon's wisdom could have produced, at least so far as forcing Shylock to drop his claim. After that, his complete discomfiture is in no way Solomonic. The thrice-fair lady (Act 3 Scene 2) is also more menacing than friendly, especially when we know that for Shakespeare the thrice-crowned goddess is the triple goddess Hecate-Selene-Diana, a very somber goddess. The fact that Portia has three suitors and the third one is the good one, Bassanio, competing with two "exotic" suitors: the Prince of Morocco and the Prince of Arragon.

And a remark is important because it is in a way an enormous tongue in an enormous cheek: "How every fool can play upon the word! I think the best grace of wit will shortly turn into silence, and discourse grow commendable in none only but parrots." (Act 3 Scene 5) Shakespeare is making fun of his own wit, or of one of his character's wit. It is slightly more than that when we know the witty remark has to do with the "Moor", Shylock himself, the Jewish father of Jessica. I would even say that this "wit" is slightly "sick", even in Shakespeare's times, hence his remark.

The BBC production is brilliant in many ways and has some great interest in some iconic scenes like the "If you prick us…" bravado. But the end implies that suspended unquiet, dissatisfaction, with Antonio climbing, when all the others are gone, the stairs in the garden and staying a long time on the terrace and sitting on a bench without going out. The action is in a way in mid-air.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

"All that glisters is not gold"

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 19 March 2019]

'The Merchant of Venice' is not among my favourites of William Shakespeare's plays, but in no way is that a knock. It is one of his most controversial plays, being dubbed by many as anti-semitic and sparks much debate today, not just for that but also analysing the character of Shylock (as to whether he is a villain or a sympathetic character) and there is debate frequently of whether the play is a comedy or tragedy. It is also one of his most interesting, as an overall play and when analysing the text and characters.

Due to containing some very powerful speeches, the most justifiably famous one being Shylock's Act 3 Scene 1 speech, and one of Shakespeare's most interesting and complex characters in Shylock. Antonio may be the titular character, but for me Shylock is the character that comes over most memorably. This 1980 production of 'The Merchant of Venice' is not one of the best productions of the BBC Television Shakespeare series, a series running from 1978 to 1985 comprising of productions of all of Shakespeare plays and a must, regardless of some productions being better than others. It is also not one of the series' worst. For me, it is very solid and a more than worthy representation of the play, whether it's the definitive version is up for debate but although it's problematic it's one of the better ones.

As said, personally don't consider the production perfect. Budget limitations do show in the production values, the sets especially being rather drab and perfunctory. Will say though that this was not uncommon in the series and 'The Merchant of Venice' is not even the worst case. Did find the first couple of scenes on the dull and agreed somewhat calculated side and that the drama didn't settle straight away and took a while to warm up.

Enn Reitel from personal opinion was rather irritating as Launcelot and overdoes the clownishness, but he is not helped by that the character himself is a problematic one. Although intentionally a clownish sort of character with a crude, farcical kind of humour, that still doesn't stop him from being one of Shakespeare's most annoying and crudest characters ever merely serving as not partcularly necessary comic relief. So didn't find that all the comedic elements came off as they could have done, though for a play full of it it mostly does do.

On the other hand, the Elizabethan costumes while not opulent are still appealing to look at, despite criticising the production values here the costumes weren't a problem for me. Neither was the unobtrusive and not too static camerawork. When it comes to adapting Shakespeare's text, this production is one of the more faithful ones in detail and spirit. Shakespeare's mastery of language and writing shines through all the time in the play, given with full impact from beginning to end here. 'The Merchant of Venice' is full of witty and ironic humour, a vast majority of it inducing many laughs without being overdone to the point of being cartoonish, like with Act 3 Scene 4. The more serious, somewhat tragic elements of the play are poignant while not being overly-serious that it becomes dreary.

Storytelling is always cohesive and comes to life once Shylock appears. The complexity of characterisation is dead on and yes the production shouldn't be criticised for not resolving the play's problems with its themes, when what is controversial about it was apparent at the time, has been for a long time and still hasn't been resolved and never will. The staging rarely felt static, nor did it feel too busy or do anything distasteful, also doing well with balancing the comedy and tragedy of the play adeptly. Particularly telling was the powerful Act 3 Scene 1, important for it to work when it is somewhat the turning point of the play, Act 4 Scene 1 was also emotional.

Reitel excepted, the acting is well done with Warren Mitchell on towering form as a more ambiguous Shylock, neither painting him as a villain or victim or playing him in an overly-unsympathetic or too sympathetic manner. He is especially brilliant in Act 3 Scene 1. Everybody else is good, they may not stand out in the same way but then again their characters are not quite as meaty. Much has been said of Gemma Jones being age-inappropriate for Portia, regardless of that she still nails Portia's character traits, namely her intelligence, and delivers the quality of mercy speech beautifully. The same can be said for John Franklyn-Robbins as Antonio, though he could have been nastier in his treatment of Shylock. John Rhys-Davies more than holds his own as Salerio, he rarely was this repulsive, and John Nettles and Susan Jameson make their mark too in relatively early roles.

In conclusion, very solid production. 8/10

Redeemed by Mitchell's Shylock

[chaswe-28402 · 8/10 · 27 July 2016]

Warren Mitchell described himself as an atheist, but, in his own words, "enjoyed being Jewish". As soon as he appears in this production, Act I Scene III, interest in the plot and the performances picks up. Until then, the opening scene is somewhat tedious and burdened with exceedingly garrulous and uninteresting characters, until the conversation with Bassanio. The intention with this production is scrupulous "loyalty to the text", and obviously to include every line that Shakespeare wrote, for the record. It is arguable that, like Hamlet, the play was never actually presented in its entirety, but cut and adapted according to requirement. In the hands of a highly skilled and popular clown the part of Launcelot Gobbo might possibly have been amusing, and it is said to have been written especially for Will Kempe. Otherwise the play would lose nothing by Gobbo's omission, since he is completely unnecessary to the plot, except, in passing, to demonstrate the basically unsympathetic character of his sometime master, Shylock, who is evidently also unloved by his daughter. Shylock is presented as naturally anti-social, prone to vindictive behaviour, and not necessarily typical of his people.

Perhaps the tedium of the opening scenes is deliberately calculated to throw the first appearance of Shylock into high relief. This scene is so brilliantly written it stupefies me every time I watch it. One can almost hear the clockwork of Shylock's mental machinery as he decides how he will plan to take advantage of Bassanio's request for the loan of 3,000 ducats, and how he arrives at the exaction of his "merry bond".

This production is ideal for anyone seeking to thoroughly understand the original script, or simultaneously follow it in print, but it is also highly entertaining to soak up Warren Mitchell's pitch-perfect interpretation of Shylock, a part he takes on with the utmost relish. Portia is also good, but the others are not exceptional, though the text means that not much is demanded of them. Criticism has been made of the settings. They seem to me perfectly fine, and more elaborate or exotic sets would merely distract, as they do elsewhere. In Shakespeare the words are everything, and the plainer the sets, as in Olivier's Othello, the better. Mitchell's accent has also come in for stick. Since 99% of the audience has no idea how Elizabethan English sounded, or the Italian of contemporary Venice, objections to Shylock's accent are fatuous.

There is an underlying suggestion that the Christians and the Jew are not really very different. They are equally greedy for gold. Hence the question: "Which is the merchant, and which is the Jew ?" Both are also out for revenge.

All that glistens is not gold

[AngelofMusic1998 · 8/10 · 17 December 2019]

The Merchant of Venice is not my favorite play of Shakespeare and it is quite controversial.Sets and costumes look nice,especially the costumes.Warren Mitchell plays Shylock as a man both sinned against and sinning.Gemma Jones as Portia was very good,showing us Portia's intelligence,despite being a bit too old for Portia.Basanio and Antonio are also very good.Overall,a very good production of The Merchant of Venice.8/10

The Merchant of Venice (1980)

[eparis2 · 8/10 · 14 August 2022]

The BBC Merchant of Venice might almost be described as neutral ground in the interpretive struggle over the play. Most of the text (including Shylock's asides) and all of the characters are in place.

Jessica and Lorenzo are authentic young lovers, both romantic and sexual, who hold each other as they lie under the stars.

Shylock is a villainous plotter who still deserves our sympathy.

The Venetian Christians are good and bad by turns and sometimes both together.

Portia and Nerissa can seem kind or cruel, merciful or vengeful.

The entire cast is professional, with Warren Mitchell's Shylock especially powerful, and Enn Reitel's Lancelot very likeable. However, charm can seem in short supply in this production, and Gemma Jones's Portia frequently appears unattractive.