威尼斯商人 The Merchant of Venice review by James Berardinelli

The great Shakespeare renaissance of the 1990s is over, killed when the leader of the movement, Kenneth Branagh, was skewered by critics and art-house patrons over his musical adaptation of Love's Labour's Lost. Since then, Branagh has vowed never again to do Shakespeare on screen, and adaptations of the Bard's work have been few and far between. But someone of Shakepeare's status cannot be kept down for long. And, as 2004 comes to a close, director Michael Radford (responsible for both Il Postino and Dancing at the Blue Iguana) has chosen to bring us the first big-screen talkie adaptation of The Merchant of Venice. The comedy, long dogged by allegations of anti-Semitism, has undergone a number of television treatments, but this is the first straight movie version since the silent film era.

The problem with approaching the film is, of course, how to treat the antagonist, Shylock. He's not the play's main character - that honor goes to the heroic Bassanio. But, because Bassanio is such a drab, na飗e, and uninteresting individual, no one remembers him. Those who have read (or seen a production of) The Merchant of Venice recall Shylock. He has most of the good scenes and lines. If there's any doubt about whom Radford considers to be the draw, consider the cast. Second-rate actor Joseph Fiennes plays Bassanio, while the legendary Al Pacino is Shylock.

Yet there are serious problems with this production. Shakespeare's version of The Merchant of Venice is a farce, and Shylock is an overblown caricature - a cartoonish, clownish Jew. That might have been amusing in the 1590s (when Jews were technically banished from England), but it would be a disastrous approach 400 years later. To surmount this obstacle, Radford transforms Shylock into a tragic, sympathetic figure. It's a move that might work, but for two problems: the text of the play calls for Shylock to be humiliated and defeated, and the character does not appear in the final twenty minutes (Act V of the play), resulting in a gaping hole that an inane misunderstanding about rings cannot plug.

In brief, for those unfamiliar with the play, the story centers around Bassanio, a young man who is seeking to woo Portia (Lynn Collins). In order to do so, there are two obstacles he must surmount - he needs money, then has to successfully solve a riddle to prove himself worthy of her hand. Since he has squandered his own fortune, he must borrow 3000 coins from his good friend, Antonio (Jeremy Irons), a man of some means. Unfortunately, since Antonio's fortune is currently tied up in shipping ventures, he is forced to go to the usurer Shylock, who secretly despises Antonio. When disaster strikes and Antonio's fortune is lost, Shylock loses no time in pressing his claim - if he can't get his money, he intends to get his "pound of flesh" (literally).

The film's greatest asset is its look - it's easy to believe that the action is transpiring in 16th century Venice. Radford's historical research was meticulous, and, except for an occasional, very minor slip, the result is astonishing. Unfortunately, the script is not up to the level of the production values. Part of this is that The Merchant of Venice is among the most dated of Shakespeare's oft-read plays. Radford's solution to the Shylock question is not satisfying; the ending is not only anticlimactic, it feels like a slap in the face. Since we have developed a grudging sympathy for Shylock, it is galling to watch the people responsible for his downfall enjoy happy endings while he is being forcibly converted to Christianity and has become an outcast.

There is also one instance of unpardonably atrocious editing. At a point during the film (immediately after Bassanio and Portia have become engaged but before the message has arrived from Antonio explaining his dire situation), there is such a jagged and abrupt change in scene that I was momentarily convinced the projectionist had missed a reel. This is the kind of thing that can take a viewer out of the moment. It's unnecessary and unfortunate. I can't ever recall a major motion picture exhibiting such sloppiness.

The choice of Al Pacino as Shylock is interesting, but only partially successful. There's nothing wrong with his performance - in fact, much of the film's pathos derives from his portrayal - but his accent is a constant source of distraction. None of the other actors stand out. Irons' approach is listless, Fiennes proves to be in over his head, and Collins fails to deliver the majority of her lines with conviction.

The most likely audience for The Merchant of Venice is Shakespeare buffs, and they will probably be divided about the film's merits. For my part, I found it intriguing but ultimately unfulfilling, and I doubt it will have much crossover appeal. Seeing an effort like this makes me sadder that the best modern interpreter of Shakespeare's plays has retired. I am glad of The Merchant of Venice because it keeps the Bard alive on the big screen, but disappointed because of the uneven manner in which it does so.

*小建议*如果你喜欢这篇文章,可以顶上去;或者Copy下这篇文章的链接发给MSN或QQ上的朋友; 我们永远相信,分享是一种美德,Great People Share Knowledge... (130影萍网谢谢您的关注和支持！)

上一篇：威尼斯商人 The Merchant of Venice review by TIM KNIGHT
下一篇：霍顿与无名氏 Horton Hears a Who review by Ethan Alter