|
The Merchant of Venice
By William Shakespeare
Directed by Barbara Gaines
At Chicago Shakespeare Theater
Navy Pier
Chicago, IL
Call 312-595-5600, tickets $48 - $65
Tuesdays at 7:30 PM
Wednesdays at 1 & 7:30 PM
Thursdays at 7:30 PM
Fridays at 8 PM
Saturdays at 4 & 8:30 PM
Sundays at 3 PM
Running time is 2 hrs, 50 min with intermission
Through November 12, 2005
The Merchant of Venice a primer on prejudice
Shakespeare’s controversial, yet popular play, The Merchant of Venice is presented with minimalist staging---a rehearsal style on a bare stage with actors sitting just off the set on the near and far ends when not involved in the scene being presented and in modern dress. This works to underscore the play’s powerful themes. The Merchant of Venice deals with matters of love, money, prejudice and the fear of those different from us. Add the rule of law, a peculiar bequest and a unique loan agreement, revenge and pleadings and you have a play about extremes.
The Merchant of Venice is one of the earliest plays to have a Jewish main character, Shylock (in an emotional wrenching performance by Mike Nussbaum), referred to as ‘...the Jew.’ I agree with director Barbara Gaines who states that it isn’t anti-Semitic but anti-Christian and quite anti-savagery.
In Shakespeare’s time the Jews were long gone having been expelled two hundred years earlier from England. Shakespeare was dramatizing people’s fear of those different from themselves and he was mocking the ignorant Christian prejudice against the Jews. The play certainly isn’t favorable to the gentiles anymore than it is to “the old Jew.”
Shylock lends money to Antonio (Scott Jaeck) who needs cash to help his close friend Basssanio (Timothy Edward Kane) travel to Belmont to court Portia (Kate Fry) the ravishing beauty. Shylock remembers Antonio’s insults so he agrees to lend the money if Antonio agrees to pledge “a pound of his flesh” if he defaults. Antonio agrees.
Portia, in a completely captivating performance by the charismatic Kate Fry, must adhere to the terms of her father’s will stating she can only marry the man who solves the riddle of the three caskets (one gold, one silver and one lead)—the one that contains Portia’s picture will be the winner who gets her and her wealth. We see Scott Jaeck as the arrogant obnoxious French prince try the gold casket to no avail. He is followed by the Prince of Morocco (Bruce A. Young) whose regal manner turns Portia off. He falls pray to the silver casket. It is Bassanio with hints from Portia and her cousin Nerissa (Rengin Altay) that picks the lead casket and Portia’s hand.
Back in Venice, Shylock is further embittered when his daughter Jessica (Bethany Caputo) steals money and elopes with a Christian. So when Antonio is unable to pay his debt, Shylock seeks his revenge in terms of his “pound of flesh.”
When Bassino and his friend Gratiano (Kevin Gudahl) go to Venice with Portia’s money to save Antonio, Shylock refuses payment and wants his recourse form the agreement. Portia travels disguised a young man-judge accompanied by Nerissa dressed as a male clerk to the trial in Venice. Portia arbitrates the trail and asks Shylock to forgive Antonio. He refuses and the trial takes several interesting twists. Shylock is defeated, Antonio saved and the two young couples learn lesson of love. Antonio ends up remorseful.
Mike Nussbaum’s Shylock goes from a witty, self-assured businessman to a bitter person consumed with revenge. Nussbaum leave everything out on the stage in his brilliant performance. Kate Fry steals act two as Portia and the judge. Terrific work from Timothy Edward Kane, Kevin Gudhal, Scott Jaeck, William Dick, Bruce A. Young, Jay Whittaker and Matt Hawkins with quirky work from Blaine Hogan make this show a complete ensemble piece.
See The Merchant of Venice as The Bard’s warning about the prejudice, hatred and revenge. It shows we’ve not progressed too far since Shakespeare’s time.
Recommended
Tom Williams
Tom99@chicagocritic.com
September 9, 2005
Review by Eric Tanyavutti
Modern Shakespeare
There are many reasons to recommend a piece. A stellar individual performance. Beautiful set, lighting, and costuming. Artistic and inspired material. Yet at the same time there are many reasons to not recommend a piece - bad performances, poor choice in set, lighting, and costume choice, and obtuse or offensive material. But what do you do if you get a combination of these qualities in the same play - where many aspects of a play are so wholly outstanding, so wholly exceptional, save for a single flaw independent of these previous qualities? This is my struggle with Chicago Shakespeare Theater’s production of The Merchant of Venice.
First, what’s good? Nearly everything. Director Barbara Gaines’s vision of The Merchant of Venice is a modern minimalist’s dream. The main stage is thrust into the audience, and the props are nearly nonexistent, with simple chairs and glass tables alone painting a picture of a restaurant or a courtroom. The beautifully austere lighting does the heavy work on stage with gently lit scenes - busy street represented with a single thick stripe of light or an evening promenade simply shown with a gentle blue washing the stage. Adding to the modern minimalist feel is the costumes, which don’t look much like costumes at all. The players eschew, instead, for very modern city dress - wearing leather jackets, collared shirts, suits and ties, and sunglasses. It’s all very slick and lends contemporary sensibilities to the material.
 |
This minimalist slant does cast well, forcing (justifiably) all the players to carry the material on their more than capable shoulders. And it shows in each and every performance. The pure strength of the talented cast to superbly perform Shakespeare speaks volumes of the pedigree involved. Every member displays great range by playing multiple roles (a conscious decision made by the Gaines). Scott Jaeck, for example, plays Antonio, confident friend of Bassino in one scene and the French prince vying for Portia’s hand in marriage in the next, complete with thick French accent and limp wrist. Also of great note is Mike Nussbaum, who does a wonderful job as the difficult Shylock, turning in a very nuanced and pained performance. Nussbaum’s Shylock, like many so modern Shylocks is a performance fueled by anger and vengeance rather than simple clownish villainy.
My struggle with The Merchant of Venice lies not in the production values or the cast or the interpretation, but with the material, with Shakespeare himself. I had never seen this particular play before Friday night, but I had heard the controversies surrounding it – one of Shakespeare’s most famous plays steeped in anti-Semitism. I didn’t want to believe it. I wanted to see and judge it for my own eyes. And at the end, unfortunately, my fears were proven correct. While director Gaines does an admirable job in attempting to take the “edge” off of the play’s biases by presenting a more dramatic grittier, more urban setting, lessening the comedic aspects, Shakespeare’s biases still manages to come through.
Some would point to the Shylock’s famous speech (“Hath not a Jew eyes?”) as reference to a character more deeply painted than just a simple villain. And this is true. In one of his most eloquently written monologues Shakespeare manages to create a complex character, a character torn by his desire for revenge. At the same time, however, this complexity is diminished, practically thrown out the window at the play’s most anticlimactic moment - the courtroom scene - and renders most of the previously dramatic themes irrelevant. After entirely casting aside the character of the Shylock, after stripping him of everything - his wealth, his pride, his daughter, and his religion - the play stumbles by focusing on the lighter, almost farcical aspects of the play, turning from a complex study on prejudice into a romantic comedy. Poor Shylock is forgotten. The lone Jew is reduced to simple villainy, while the heroes are represented in the Christians, showing only mercy and virtue with little flaw or conflict.
Yet I’m at a loss for words, because Shakespeare is Shakespeare. At his best, his writing is the most transcendent and eloquent things you’ll ever hear in the English language. At his worst, his plotting and his values are questionable in this era. They are most assuredly a sign of the times in 16th Century England. Is The Merchant of Venice anti-Semitic? Yes. But is it also a work of art? Yes. Should I judge Shakespeare for having a set of values, however antiquated they are, that are different from mine, perhaps most people today? No, that would be unfair. At the same time, it would also be unfair to expect perfection of character, like I did before viewing The Merchant of Venice. As in any work of art, when viewing any controversial piece, be prepared - you will struggle, you will contemplate, but most of all, you will think.
Somewhat Recommended
Eric@chicagocritic.com for comments
September 9, 2005
|
