The Merchant of Venice (1973 TV Movie) User Reviews

A compelling and enlightening production

[Greekguy · 8/10 · 2 April 2014]

This is one of those Shakespeare productions that makes the language, plot and themes all the clearer because of the exceptional acting and the very intelligent direction. Olivier has, with some justification, earned an outstanding reputation as a Shakespearean actor, and while some of his earlier work is, for me, a bit too theatrical, this is pitch perfect. There is no reason that I can discern for setting this play at the turn of the 20th Century - unlike, for instance, the very clever Ian McKellan/Richard Loncraine production of Richard III, which benefited greatly from a 1930s setting that evoked militarism and the rise of National Socialism - and yet it works well, allowing both a degree of peculiarity that the language requires and a familiarity that helps the story transcend its moment in history.

As others have commented, this version of The Merchant of Venice works very well because neither Shylock nor Antonio are wholly good or bad. Of course, it makes sense to us that Shylock is not what he seems to his Christian contemporaries, but neither is he completely free of responsibility for what happens to him. Anthony Nicholls' Antonio is likewise more gray than black or white, and more human for it, although not particularly likable, except perhaps to his immediate circle.

The surprise, even though it should not be, is Joan Plowright, who does an exceptional job as Portia. Her young woman, particularly her young woman as a man of the law courts, is outstanding and a little troubling in her zeal. All in all, this is a superior production, and one in which nearly every line is made clear and every theme is explored.

A smooth, superlative production of a "problem" play

[eschetic-2 · 8/10 · 8 February 2011]

When one of the great Shakespearean actors of the 20th Century takes on one of the great "problematic" roles of the English speaking stage, it is close to criminal that the work is not in current DVD release except as part of a hard to find Olivier "Centenary" set.

Jonathan Miller's National Theatre production moves the setting to the late 19th Century with Olivier (who had made his more traditional OTHELLO a virtual homage to the 1943 Paul Robeson performance) adopting a look geared to evoke George Arliss' renowned film portrayal of the great Jewish (but baptized into the Anglican faith as a young child) Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli. It is a brilliant touch carrying with it a world of unspoken attitude of suffering under long term bias.

Shakespeare's Shylock is one of his most problematic roles, but one remarkable for the insight given to what any other author of the time would have made a stereotyped stock villain. Shakespeare himself had almost certainly never met a practicing Jew; unconverted members of the faith having been expelled from his country before he was born in an early pogrom almost inconceivable to modern eyes. Further, there's no avoiding the fact that Shylock the vengeful money lender IS the villain of the piece - betrayed by his daughter, and plotting the downfall of a Venetian businessman (Antonio) who has spat upon him in the unthinking antisemitism of the era and undercut his lending business by lending money to friends at no interest.

(One of the great ironies of the antisemitic "money lending" liable is that the Christian church actively forced Jews into the role - frequently financed by non-Jewish rulers - with Christians forbidden by Canon Law from taking interest for loans!)

It is tempting to play the sneering villain as overtly lusting for Antonio's blood, but Olivier avoids the trap, only letting flashes of the underlying malevolence peek through in unguarded moments but they are there, as they must, be for an audience to accept the inevitable fall. Modern (post-WWII) Antonios have to work harder to keep sympathy from swinging to Shylock for the injustices he suffers under, especially so when the Shylock is played with as civilized patina as Olivier creates. Anthony Nicholls' calm demeanor manages this almost perfectly - this is very much a "gentleman's MERCHANT..." from all hands.

The centerpiece of the "comedy" - far more than the famous but shallow and just a little unbelievable "Suitors' Caskets Scene" in Act II - is the brilliant trial scene in Act V, here with Joan Plowright - Lady Olivier - the "insider" fun is doubled with real life husband and wife playing off each other at the height of their powers - overcoming the supposedly evil Shylock as Portia, passing herself off as a learned male judge, traps him into a position where his scheme to reek revenge on Antonio is turned on the Jew bringing his total, unregretted downfall...and yet...

And yet, Shakespeare is not content to let the audience laugh at Portia's cleverness and the destruction of the villain. He makes the whole scene actually dangerous by giving Shylock the most powerful speech of self defense and against mindless bigotry in all English literature ("Hath not a Jew eyes?" etc.). It is akin to the marvelous perverseness by which Iago drives his victim, Othello to madness and murder with a rain of eternally quotable GOOD advise given from bad motives ("Oh beware, my Lord, the green eyed monster!" etc.). With a great Shylock, and Olivier is a decidedly great Shylock, one is forced to see the real pain and injustice which drives him to his destructive acts - and forgo at least a little of the fun Shakespeare's audience expected in the bear bating-like joys of seeing the "monster" vanquished.

Director John Sichel ups the ante by having a musical score play Kadish (the Jewish prayer for the dead) over the final moments of the play while Jessica, Shylock's daughter who has robbed and abandoned him and her faith for a Christian lover, reads of being left the part of her Father's estate not confiscated by the State following the trial scene.

It is a powerful work, powerfully played, and worth seeing and discussing by as broad an audience as possible. 'Well worth tracking down a copy.

Name your own collateral

[bkoganbing · 7/10 · 26 January 2017]

A chance to see Lord and Lady Olivier in a work of Shakespeare is never to be passed up. Laurence Olivier is the enigmatic Shylock whose interpretation has changed over the century and Joan Plowright whose hand all the young folk in Venice but one seems to want.

Of course I came into watching The Merchant Of Venice expecting to see Laurence Oliver doing his patented mittel-Europa accent best known for use in The Boys From Brazil. Instead we got a most cultured Shylock not someone you'd otherwise might think of selling from a pushcart on the Lower East Side.

I think Olivier did it this way because Shylock the money lender is trying his best to assimilate into Venetian society as far as he can and still be true to his culture. He only goes so far, daughter Jessica would sooner convert and marry Lorenzo who really is a fortune hunting snake. They are played by Louise Purnell and Malcolm Reid.

The main plot however revolves around young Basanio who is Jeremy Brett looking to marry Portia who is the wealthiest young woman around and she's got many suitors. Brett's a nice kid but kind of a spendthrift with his money. He's got an old indulgent friend in Antonio played by Anthony Nicholls who is both a merchant and a moneylender as well in competition with Shylock. He charges a lot less interest and undercuts him in business. That gives Nicholls a lot of pleasure because he doesn't like Jews at all, he's one proud anti-Semite.

So Brett needs a backer and Nicholls would like to, but as we would say today he's got a cash flow problem as all his money is tied up with goods at sea in his mercantile business. For past and present slights. Olivier names as his collateral a pound of Nicholls's flesh.

For those who've never seen the play these disputes are arbitrated by the Duke Of Venice. And the Duke who is Benjamin Wittrow has a novel interpretation.

Over the years as anti-Semitism has become more odious Shylock has become a more sympathetic figure. For centuries he was given the crooked nose, the funny way of speaking and was considered the blackest of villains who gets his in the end. As I said before Shylock is in fact trying to assimilate as best he can, but the people's prejudices are smug and self serving. And his is a natural reaction of a father who doesn't like his daughter's choice of a husband. After all she's marrying a Shegetz in his culture.

Even if you're not liking how Olivier sees Shylock he certainly is always interesting and to watch. As this well cast ensemble doing The Merchant Of Venice.

Portia's show

[mrsdanvers · 25 March 2002]

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.

"I like not fair terms and a villain's mind"

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 12 February 2021]

'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, especially for Shylock's Act 3 Scene 1 speech and Shylock himself.

It's a play that has a mostly solid DVD competition (that includes the 1980 BBC Television Shakespeare production, 2004 film and the one with Jonathan Pryce as Shylock), with the only disappointment in my view being the 2015 Royal Shakespeare Company production for primarily the under-cooked stage direction (as a result of trying to put more emphasis on Antonio and not doing enough with everything else) and an out of his depth Shylock. This 1973 film is not perfect but overall it is one of the better available versions of 'The Merchant of Venice'.

Am going to be another person that felt that Charles Kay and Stefan Greif resort too much to clownish mugging. Often it is Launcelot that's the annoying character but not here.

More perhaps could have done with Antonio's conversion to mercy.

However, there is so much to like about this version of 'The Merchant of Venice'. Even though updated, here than Victorian era rather than the Elizabethan one, the setting is very handsomely and handsomely designed captured beautifully by the photography. Carl Davis' score is suitably rousing with also some truly ravishingly orchestrated parts. Jonathan Miller's direction is intelligently done and tasteful, with no pointless or gratuitous touches that make no sense (a bugbear of mine for non-traditional productions of operas, ballets and plays). The characters of Shylock and Portia are especially well directed.

Furthermore, 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 generally. The more serious, somewhat tragic elements of the story are poignant while not being overly-serious that it becomes dreary. Act 3 Scene 1 is the play's turning point and handled beautifully. The story is never static or too busy, while always being compelling.

Laurence Olivier is superb as Shylock, it was a complex suitably ambiguous portrayal that didn't make him too sympathetic or too much of a villain (getting that balance right and not falling in either extreme is what is difficult about the part). The other standout is Joan Plowright as a very intelligent Portia while Jeremy Brett is a strong presence as Bassanio. Personally liked Anthony Nicholls' Antonio, it was a subtle portrayal while successful in showing the nastier side of Antonio in his treatment of Shylock (without going too far on that). Denis Lawson manages to achieve the near-impossible feat of not making Launcelot, one of Shakespeare's most crude and obnoxious characters, annoying while still having personality.

Overall, very well done version to be seen for Olivier. 8/10

And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?

[GusF · 9/10 · 5 August 2015]

Based on the acclaimed 1970 National Theatre adaptation directed by Jonathan Miller, this is an excellent adaptation of William Shakespeare's classic tale of love, friendship, justice, avarice and hatred. This was the first Shakespearean play that I studied at school back in 2003. I just wish that I had appreciated the Bard's work then as much as I do now. It has been quite some time since I last read it but I don't think that there are any major omissions from the play. On the negative side, I can't say that I had any interest whatsoever in the scenes after Shylock's defeat concerning Lorenzo and Jessica and the rings. As far as I was concerned, the story was over as soon as Shylock left the stage. The remaining scenes were rather boring and unnecessary, I'm afraid.

Laurence Olivier, perhaps the greatest actor of the 20th Century, is never less than compelling as Shylock, one of the most fascinating and enigmatic characters in all of Shakespeare. Over the last 400 years, interpretations of the character and his actions have changed with the sensibilities of the audience. He may be the antagonist of the play but I think his vindictive nature has come about as a result of the oppression that he has suffered as a Jew in a predominately Christian state. This is best illustrated by the "And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?" speech. In that scene, he says, "If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me, I will execute." He is emulating the behaviour of his people's oppressors in demanding Antonio's pound of flesh in payment of his debt. I do not think that his own mistreatment excuses his vengeful attitude and actions but it does serve to explain them and to make him a tragic figure, after a fashion. Like many other characters, Portia accuses him of dishonesty but this is deeply hypocritical as she resorts to legal trickery to rob him of his wealth when she has no right to judge him in a legal sense in the first place.

The question arises as to whether Shakespeare intended the play to be anti-Semitic or to be sympathetic to the plight of Jews. On the one hand, Shylock seems to be a negative Jewish stereotype of a kind that was common in Europe when the play was written and, unfortunately, for centuries afterwards. On the other hand, there is the aforementioned speech which gives us insight into not only the character but the suffering of Jews as a whole. Does Shylock's forced conversion represent the saving of his soul or does it represent further vindictiveness on the part of the Christians? I think that there is ample evidence to support either theory but I am inclined to give Shakespeare the benefit of the doubt as he created many multi- faceted characters designed to provoke different reactions in his audience. In any event, the producers of this television version clearly intended it to be sympathetic towards Jews. This is best illustrated by Shylock's anguish when Portia defeats him. It is not the reaction of a defeated villain but that of a victim. His agonised wail after leaving the "trial" is heard by Portia, Antonio and Bassanio, all of whom adopt guilty expressions, perhaps indicating some small measure of regret at their treatment of him. I think that the fact that the setting was updated to the late Victorian or Edwardian era was meant to serve as a reminder that antisemitism was as widespread then and now as it was in Shakespeare's time.

Other than Olivier himself, the strongest performer is his wife Joan Plowright as Portia. She is excellent throughout but she is at her best in the "trial" scene with her husband. The couple pretty much dominated the proceedings! That said, it has a very strong cast, particularly Anthony Nicholls as Antonio, Michael Jayston as Gratiano and Anna Carteret as Jessica. However, the usually very good Stephen Grief's performance as the Prince of Morocco is rather embarrassing. He puts on a deep voice and uses a silly supposed African accent which makes his one scene fairly painful. Malcolm Reid and Louise Purnell are pretty forgettable as Lorenzo and Jessica but Denis Lawson has a nice cameo as the Cockney-accented Launcelot Gobbo.

Overall, this is an extremely well acted and staged Shakespearean play with lovely sets and costumes.

Mediocre production of a great play

[aldiboronti · 6/10 · 2 March 2017]

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!

Masterful and Witty

[chaswe-28402 · 8/10 · 23 July 2016]

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.

Watch Out for Big Spoiler

[aramis-112-804880 · 7/10 · 26 September 2014]

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.

The Merchant of Venice (1973)

[eparis2 · 7/10 · 14 August 2022]

If The Merchant of Venice were a tragedy and Shylock its protagonist, this would be a perfect production. Since it is a comedy, and Shylock is the villain, there are problems.

This British National Theatre version cuts Shylock's asides, Jessica's scene in male attire, Old Gobbo, and much of Lancelot Gobbo.

Set in Edwardian England, it adds voice-overs (an off-screen scream after Shylock leaves the court and a Jewish requiem - the "Kaddish" - at the end of the play) and photographs of his beloved wife and daughter to make Shylock seem more sympathetic. As part of this process, Jessica and Lorenzo become unsympathetic characters who do not appear to be in love with each other. The romantic, "in-such-a-night" scene (5.1) is played with the two standing as far apart as possible, with the cold, presumably fortune-hunting Lorenzo smoking a pipe. The production ends with a guilt-stricken Jessica alone.

The cast, though a bit old for the parts, is uniformly and undeniably charming, and Olivier ranges from excellent to superb.

This reinterpretation of the play is by no means unusual or unjustifiable in a post-Holocaust world, and it makes an effective film.

Disappearing into a role makes you forget you're watching a master of the Bard.

[mark.waltz · 7/10 · 4 August 2022]

I'm not as familiar with "The Merchant of Venice" as much as I am with other Shakespeare plays, and recall the difficulty in the effort to obtain tickets to the now legendary performance of Al Pacino for the Shakespeare in the Park production of the mid 2000's and the subsequent Broadway transfer. So outside of memories of reading the play in High School (and to be honest, there was a lot of skimming), this is my first experience in seeing it.

I was amazed by the decision to make this more of a modern interpretation of a troubling play (set around the turn of the 20th Century), which diluted many of the problems in the character of Shylock to tone down some of the anti-Semitic characteristics in his personality although he's still a ruthless merchant in demanding a pound of flesh in exchange for debt left unpaid, a very troubling aspect that can't be removed, otherwise there'd be no play.

It's easy to feel sorry for Shylock's general situation as the structure of this production makes him a victim of anti-Semitism with obvious slurs within his own ear. As played by Laurence Olivier, there's a charm to him, but he's not without major faults even outside of the agreement of that pesky pound of flesh. He's a domineering father who loves his daughter but doesn't let her live her own life. So there's not only racism within the play's themes, but chauvinism as well, especially when he goes up against the strong willed Portia (Joan Plowright) in court.

Of course, students of Shakespeare will be out to hear the two memorable speeches, one by Shylock and the other by Portia. It's in understanding the motivations for these soliloquies that they are more potent, with Plowright quite moving in her "Quality of Mercy" speech and the hurts of Shylock openly revealed in his "Hath not a Jew eyes?" speech.

Good support by Jeremy Brett as Bassanio and Anthony Nicholls as Antonio whose flesh Shylock demands for more reasons than just debt, mainly anger over racial slights. That agreement completely changes with the demands of the court that flesh can only be removed without the shedding of Christian blood, and with Shylock's daughter intending to convert to Christianity, questions arise to Shakespeare's motives, even though this could easily be his vision of what he saw as injustice during his lifetime. The use of a different time frame doesn't confirm that, so students and Shakespeare purists might seek out a more traditional rendition of this play.

Oh my ducats!

[loki_dk · 2 February 2006]

I agree Portia's suitors were a bit over the top, but one has to remember that this is a comedy, and must be taken in context. Elizabethan comedy was a bit more crude than a lot of people today can appreciate, as it focused on baser jokes concerning sexuality and exaggeration. I felt that the suitors were amusing, especially the Prince of Aragon. His portrayal of a feeble old man exemplifies the purpose of these characters being in the play: to contrast Bassanio and show what the other extreme of the spectrum was: how unsuitable a suitor can be. The ridiculosity of the idea of an 80yr old man courting Portia is part of the joke. I esp like "blinking fool" from the silver casket.

If you thought this was over the top, stay well away from the BBC version, as it's Morocco and Aragon are even more flamboyant and obnoxious.

Excellent Adaption with Solid Performances

[jol-4 · 20 August 2000]

This version was set in the early 1900's to give the book a more different feel. The Merchant of Venice would have to be my favorite Shakespeare book and this TV movie would have to be the best out of all the movies I've seen on the Merchant of Venice. It should be noted that the main roles in the film are of top calibre Actors who really perform well, especially Laurence Olivier who did a fantastic job of playing Shylock the Jew.

The only over acting would have to come from Prince Arragon and Morocco who definitely go over the top (and I don't think anyone whose read the book would imagine Prince Arragon to be 80 years old)

Apart from that slight hiccup from the Slump duo the film is worth watching and is ideal for anyone who wants to study the book or rehearse The Merchant of Venice

excellent record of the NT production

[didi-5 · 13 August 2003]

Laurence Olivier's run at the National Theatre included this gem which cast himself as Shylock, with his wife Joan Plowright as Portia. Originally staged in 1970, the cast transferred with ease to this TV version (the only major substitution being Michael Jayston for Derek Jacobi as Gratiano).

It moves along quite well and is definitely buoyed up by its starry lead duo. The rejected suitors have a comic aspect which sits well with the 'pound of flesh' seriousness of the remainder. Glad it was recorded for us all to enjoy.