SHAKSPER 1999: Re: MV
From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@ws.bowiestate.edu)
Date: 12/29/99
- Next message: Hardy M. Cook: "Re: Goofy Test Answers"
- Previous message: Hardy M. Cook: "Re: Iago's Name"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.2298 Wednesday, 29 December 1999.
[1] From: Sean Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
Date: Thursday, 23 Dec 1999 10:13:25 -0800
Subj: Re: SHK 10.2292 The Merchant of Venice
[2] From: L. Swilley <lcsswill@pdq.net>
Date: Thursday, 23 Dec 1999 13:26:17 -0600
Subj: A Different Shylock
[3] From: Robert Peters <RobertPeters@t-online.de>
Date: Thursday, 23 Dec 1999 21:13:47 +0100
Subj: Re: SHK 10.2292 The Merchant of Venice
[4] From: Dana Shilling <dshilling@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Friday, 24 Dec 1999 10:22:12 -0500
Subj: Re: SHK 10.2292 The Merchant of Venice
[5] From: Tim Richards <parallax@wire.net.au>
Date: Saturday, 25 Dec 1999 22:37:44 +1100
Subj: Re: SHK 10.2292 The Merchant of Venice
[6] From: Carol Barton <Cbartonb@aol.com>
Date: Sunday, 26 Dec 1999 12:06:55 EST
Subj: Re: SHK 10.2292 The Merchant of Venice
[7] From: Joanna Hindle <jhindle@hpa.edu>
Date: Sunday, 26 Dec 1999 16:17:57 -1000
Subj: Re: SHK 10.2292 The Merchant of Venice
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sean Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
Date: Thursday, 23 Dec 1999 10:13:25 -0800
Subject: 10.2292 The Merchant of Venice
Comment: Re: SHK 10.2292 The Merchant of Venice
Allan Blackman observes:
>The _The Merchant of Venice_ gets little attention in this group. Is it
>because, in this age of political correctness, the play makes some
>uncomfortable? Is it true, as Bloom contends, that "the Holocaust made
>and makes MV unplayable, at least in what appears to be its own terms"?
>
>Can one teach or direct MV today & be faithful to "its own terms"?
I suppose that that depends what one means by "its own terms". Almost
all the discussion of MV seems to do with anti-semitism, which I suppose
is to say that it's discussed in terms forced upon us by the meeting of
the play text with twentieth-century history.
I actually feel that we discuss MV quite a bit in this group-certainly
more than, say, Henry VI, Part 1 or Two Noble Kinsmen-but almost all of
the discussion centers around its anti-Semitism. The real question
isn't whether we can discuss MV, but whether we can talk about anything
other than its politics.
Cheers,
Seán.
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: L. Swilley <lcsswill@pdq.net>
Date: Thursday, 23 Dec 1999 13:26:17 -0600
Subject: A Different Shylock
Alan Blackman wrote,
"Is it true, as Bloom contends, that "the Holocaust made and makes MV
unplayable, at least in what appears to be its own terms"?
MV's "own terms" are largely what the director and actors make it. Play
Shylock as a cool, dignified, superior, sophisticated 19th century
gentleman-banker, taunted by dog-like "Christians" and see for
yourself. The character's tragedy is that he surrendered to the
temptation to descend to the level of those beneath his dignity.
Shame on Olivier for playing Shylock as a whining, hand-wringing nutter.
L. Swilley
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Peters <RobertPeters@t-online.de>
Date: Thursday, 23 Dec 1999 21:13:47 +0100
Subject: 10.2292 The Merchant of Venice
Comment: Re: SHK 10.2292 The Merchant of Venice
There was a terrific German production of The Merchant by Peter Zadek
some ten or so years ago. Shylock was a ruthless, soulless broker
surrounded by other ruthless, soulless brokers. That he was a Jew was
rather unimportant. He was just a Jewish shark in a pool with mainly
Christian sharks, all his partners in crime. Shylock´s humiliation in
the end is taken most coolly by him as just a minor business breakdown.
You ended disliking everyone in the play: Shylock, the Christians - they
are all users, money zombies. It was a tremendous production and it
worked astonishingly well. This Shylock was just a Jew by accident.
Robert Peters
[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dana Shilling <dshilling@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Friday, 24 Dec 1999 10:22:12 -0500
Subject: 10.2292 The Merchant of Venice
Comment: Re: SHK 10.2292 The Merchant of Venice
I've seen MV twice in off-off-Broadway New York City venues in the past
three months: first the Frog & Peach Company, then a new company called
Ensemble Shakespeare Company. Actually, I think MV is performed fairly
often in large part to grapple with political problems. The Ensemble
Shakespeare production was more or less modern-dress. Because of Erik
Sherr's excellent Antonio, the play really did seem to be about the
titular Merchant. Caleb Sekeres' Shylock was good in large part because
of taking Shylock more or less on his own terms, rather than playing
villainousness or even victimization. There were some interesting
blockings (Gabe Samrock directed)--and once the trial scene started to
go wrong from Shylock's perspective, he seemed to be considering killing
Antonio even without the authorization of a legal system he had ceased
to believe in. Even though I'm a Jew, I tend to overlook Antonio's
anti-Semitism and bond with him as a person with lousy taste in
boyfriends. Correspondingly, I find Bassanio the most despicable
Shakespearean character this site of Bertram. However, this time I felt
at least a little sympathy for Bassanio (Jeff Bearden, in this
production) who was slowly realizing that Fate had awarded him as the
Grand Prize in the Jewish Mother Olympics as two skilled professionals
tried to make him feel guilty. (He's sort of the First Boy for whom
Antonio and Portia play stake down for a thousands ducats.) Frog & Peach
seemed to follow a strategy set out by Leslie Fiedler in his essay
"These Be the Christian Husbands!" by pointing out what a horrible bunch
the Venetian/Belmontian Christians are, with a memorably vile Gratiano.
(I can't find the program so don't know the actor's name.)
But more of this anon.
Dana (Shilling)
[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Richards <parallax@wire.net.au>
Date: Saturday, 25 Dec 1999 22:37:44 +1100
Subject: 10.2292 The Merchant of Venice
Comment: Re: SHK 10.2292 The Merchant of Venice
Allan Blackman wrote:
>The _The Merchant of Venice_ gets little attention in this group. Is it
>because, in this age of political correctness, the play makes some
>uncomfortable? Is it true, as Bloom contends, that "the Holocaust made
>and makes MV unplayable, at least in what appears to be its own terms"?
I saw the Bell Shakespeare Company's recent production of Merchant, and
what struck me is how intolerant and unpleasant both the Christians and
Shylock are to each other. Shylock is not an attractive character, but
neither are his enemies. You might see this as a director's
interpretation, but why then the "If you prick us, do we not bleed"
speech? Watching it, I felt Shakespeare was commenting on intolerance in
a way that does make it playable today, that Shylock is too human to be
seen as just a stereotype. But maybe these are my modern perceptions at
work?
Tim Richards.
[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carol Barton <Cbartonb@aol.com>
Date: Sunday, 26 Dec 1999 12:06:55 EST
Subject: 10.2292 The Merchant of Venice
Comment: Re: SHK 10.2292 The Merchant of Venice
Allan Blackman observes:
>The _The Merchant of Venice_ gets little attention in this group. Is it
>because, in this age of political correctness, the play makes some
>uncomfortable? Is it true, as Bloom contends, that "the Holocaust made
>and makes MV unplayable, at least in what appears to be its own terms"?
>
>Can one teach or direct MV today & be faithful to "its own terms"?
Allan, I suspect that one reason why MofV is not often addressed is
that, like Troilus, it is a "problem" play, a tragicomedy that is
neither/nor and both, and something the PC crowd is loath to prod with a
ten-foot pole, lest accusations of anti-Semitism or some other equally
distasteful "j'accuse" result. To be fair to the list, we have had long
threads on various aspects of the play in recent memory; but juxtaposing
it to the spectre of the Holocaust, the second part of your inquiry ("Is
it true . . . that "the Holocaust made and makes MV unplayable, at least
in what appears to be its own terms"?) comes in at a slightly different
angle.
The answer to that part of the question is, very simply, "it depends":
do you as a teacher/director/player have the courage to play it as it
lays, and point out to your students that the Christians in this drama
behave in a most un-Christianly manner, because their society sanctions
(and the Church promotes) active anti-Semitism? Do you have the backbone
to tell them that, once you have objectified a human being (as a "kike"
or a "mick" or a "geek" or a "kraut" or a "nigger" or a "slant" or a
"queer" or a "broad") it is easy to dismiss him or her as "not one of
us," and therefore not entitled to protection under our laws, or to the
same perqs, privileges, honor, and respect we demand for ourselves? Can
you teach the play from Shylock's perspective, and look at his "if you
prick us, do we not bleed?" soliloquy as holding a mirror up to the
nature of Christianity, and finding the brand of piety practiced by
Antonio, Bassanio, and Portia wanting in moral terms, though perfectly
"Christian" by their society's standards? "My ducats, my daughter" is a
stereotype that evokes immediate justification for what Shylock has been
made to suffer: but would we be sympathetic to a Christian man robbed of
his daughter and his assets for keeping his end of a fairly struck
bargain with a competent merchant? There are no easy answers, but I for
one think the Holocaust made staging of this play that much more
imperative-if, and this is a big "if," you see it the same way I do.
Shakespeare may not be valorizing Shylock, but he is certainly not
sympathetic to Antonio and Bassanio's treatment of him, either. If the
play makes the viewer uncomfortable, that is probably just as it should
be. Man's inhumanity to man is not a soothing thing.
Happy Christmas to all from Chelsea in the rain,
Carol Barton
[7]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joanna Hindle <jhindle@hpa.edu>
Date: Sunday, 26 Dec 1999 16:17:57 -1000
Subject: 10.2292 The Merchant of Venice
Comment: Re: SHK 10.2292 The Merchant of Venice
I work with Merchant of Venice in an English class of high school
juniors and seniors. We had an interesting time with it last year-I
enjoyed it as a teacher and as an eternal English student. We had good
discussions about anti-semitism and it's effects in past and present
societies. Further, the students wrote some very interesting journal
entries about whether the anti-semitic elements of the play were
essential to a complete reading or whether they were simply a way to
display the personalities of different characters. The students had a
variety of opinions on how to approach literature that, with our
changing social attitudes, is now deemed inappropriate or less-academic
or less-worthy.
As we will beginning it at the start of the upcoming semester (the
students are reading the play during their winter break), I am very
interested in how others respond to this question. Further, I am
intrigued to hear some definitions of "its own terms."
Sincerely,
Joanna
A site that might be interesting to other teachers considering using
MofV -
http://www.shakespearemag.com/spring97/dakin.asp
- Next message: Hardy M. Cook: "Re: Goofy Test Answers"
- Previous message: Hardy M. Cook: "Re: Iago's Name"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |