Webbready

The following entry from my journal contains a review of a production of William’s Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice. Even more than my previous words, this review is quite inaccurate. Nevertheless, I include it for completion’s sake.

I must also add that I have since writing this review have read the The Merchant of Venice, and I cringe at the ill-formed opinions and untruthful words I wrote in ignorance.

January 19, 2000

This afternoon at 1:30 p.m., the Nationial Theatre Production of The Merchant of Venice began. This adaptation of Shakespeare;s play was directed by Trevor Nunn and is currently showing at the Olivier Theatre.

The Merchant of Venice is a play about honor and debt, revolving around the title character, Antonio, who was played by David Bamber. Antonio takes a loan from the Jewish usurer Shylock (played by Henry Goodman) in order to give a friend, Bassanio, enough money to court Portia (Derbhle Crotty). This loan takes a turn for the sour when one of Bassanio’s friends, Lorenzo (Daniel Evans), elopes with Shylock’s daughter, Jessica (Gabrielle Jourdan). Soon this loan becomes an instrument of revenge and with a stroke of misfortune falling upon Antonio, Shylock has an opportunity to exact his payment.

Set in what appears to be the 1920’s, this production of Shakespeare’s work is done in a tone which neither neglects the serious nature of the debt, not leaves out some of the humorous details. Although I have never read the actual play, the dialogue, while Shakespearean in nature, seems to have been trimmed from the original. For instance, mythological references, common throughout the plays of Shakespeare, were few and far between. Under Nunn’s direction, the words are delivered in a very natural manner, sounding more like sophisticated conversation than “grand” speech.

The set is somewhat mobile, with walks that can easily be turned so they can give the impression of being in Portia’s house one moment and the beach the next. Lighting helps to enhance this feature, allowing one to see a scene under the light of the moon or a bright, artificial court light. One drawback of the lighting was, until one got used to it, it was somewhat dark for the earlier scenes. It was only when the actors behaved with more levity did this cease to be a distraction. The costuming appeared accurate for the time period that was portrayed, but then again, I know little to nothing about the 1920’s.

The primary question one must ask is does all of the changing of the era, addition of scenery lighting and mobile scenes — does this work? I believe it does. The actors all do wonderful jobs convincing me of their characters. Normally, bringing Shakespeare “up to date” has mixed results, but since this is set in a period where the general plot elements (such as ships carrying merchandise) can still work, then I feel this production is very good. Add to this to the fact that the dialogue is not as difficult as in other plays, and I recommend it for any theater-goer.