A brilliant film that helped define a genre

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

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.

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.

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.

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