202105227

[202105227aws2022]

Antisemitism and the character Shylock in The Merchant of Venice

I am a student at the University of Hull blogging as part of my assessment for the module All the World’s a Stage. All views expressed here are my own and do not represent the University.

The Merchant of Venice is a play written by William Shakespeare, c.1596-1598. Its first performance was in 1605 at The Theatre in London. This blog will focus on the occurrence of antisemitism and religious separations in the play, specifically against the character of Shylock. The Merchant of Venice handles many themes, that are still relevant today, those include money loaning, personal gain, religious victimisation, as well as antisemitism. In this comparison, I will look closely at Shakespeare’s depiction of antisemitism, in the play, twinned with how it is shown in the Royal Shakespeare Company’s 2015 performance, with a close analysis of relationships between characters for the play to function. Firstly, it must be understood that the overall narrative of the play functions by the characters Antonio, Bassanio, Portia and Shylock. Each character has a form of personal gain through a transaction placed by Shylock to loan Antonio money for Bassanio’s benefit.  This transaction sets the play and follows the play as it progresses.

Click here for the RSC trailer of The Merchant of Venice’ 2015 production by Polly Findlay: [Fig. 1]

Act 1, Scene 3 of the play shows the first transaction taking place, between Shylock and Bassanio. In both the RSC production and the written version this is a key scene in the play. Firstly, the RSC production, shows the stage as very dark and sombre, with the use of low lighting to show this mood. This presentation of the stage has changed from its light form that is in Act 1, Scenes 1 and 2, but this also hints to the audience that something drastic may happen in the following moments. The scene begins with Bassanio, and Shylock standing opposite each other and begin negotiating the loan. “Three thousand ducats and Antonio bound.” (The Merchant of Venice. 1.3.8-9) Shylock then brings Antonio into the loan contract. Later in the scene, Shylock then demands, “let the forfeit be nominated for an equal pound of your fair flesh, to be cut off and taken.” (The Merchant of Venice. 1.3.144-145). The two occasions of Shylock exploiting the pair could explain why he faces the abuse later on in the play. Shylock acts as a representative on stage for his religion in this play. Similarly in the RSC production, Shylock’s presentation is strong-willed and scarily determined meanwhile, Antonio and Bassanio are shown to laugh and ridicule Shylock while he speaks. This sets up the debate for the play as a whole on whether it is pre-meditated antisemitism or the persecution of Shylock because of who he is.  Both of these debates have a link to Shylock’s religion, Judaism, which in society today would be described as discrimination/antisemitism. Rosenshield (2002) suggests, in his article, that in this scenario Shylock is not the problem, more that it is Antonio’s wrongdoing. This suggestion unfolds a new view of the dynamic of the play also on whether it is classed as intentionally antisemitic by Shakespeare. Rosenshield also conveys the possibility that “The play may be seen as an experiment, metaphorically testing the viability in the contemporary world of a marriage of capital and Christian ideals.” (2002:29) This observation from Rosenshield can also be linked to the RSC production of this play. In both the RSC production and the written play, the marriage of capital is shown through the marriage of Bassanio and Portia. However, it is remembered that all, except Shylock and Tubal, characters in this play are Christian; this statistic as part of the play does highlight how it could be discriminative from the very start. We know that any religion that wasn’t Christianity was discriminated against which then leads to the debate on Shylock’s discrimination of his personal beliefs on the side of his job, as a money lender. An earlier argument by Rosenshield that The Merchant of Venice exists to show ‘a compromise of new and old age.’ (2002:29) this could show a change in how people viewed different religions, and it could even be a hidden plea by Shakespeare to progress in the acceptance of Jews in society.

Further on in the play in Act 3, Scene 1, we see Shylock labelling the behaviour towards him that he has received down to him being a Jew. Straight away in the RSC production, the staging is tense and dark and has an eerie mood, much like earlier on in the play in Act 1, Scene 3; this perfectly encapsulates the scene as a whole.  Solanio and Salarino are shown to be in a mode of aggression towards Shylock, though not physical this section of the production can be hard to watch due to its nature of bullying towards Shylock.  It can also be noted that in the RSC performance has a lead sphere at the back of the stage, it is on stage throughout and can be seen moving side-to-side. Lead is a symbol of acceptance and allowance in this play. Lead is the material that allows Bassanio to marry Portia, due to her Father’s wishes. However, In addition to the theme of allowance, this scene shows Shylock’s justification of his position in Venice and blames his discrimination on the fact that he is a Jew. “I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew's eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? (Merchant of Venice. 3.1. 52-54) This line from Shylock is very emotive. It’s the start of his justification of himself for who he is and the beliefs he has in relation to discrimination. In the RSC production, it is easy to observe that Shylock, performed by Khoury, is emotional. The emotion is in his language and his tone of voice, for the audience this really sets the tone and puts the dynamic of the relationships between the characters in the play into perspective, it did for me. “If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example?” (Merchant of Venice. 3.1.52-58) This is an important part of Shylock’s justification but also reveals parts of his identity. It is true that he has faced antisemitic comments made towards him and it is clear that these comments from other, Christian, characters have affected Shylock and his behaviour as the play goes on. Shylock uses discrimination as a reason for him to expose Antonio for borrowing money from him. The RSC does present this scene very skilfully, Khoury sets the tone perfectly to present Shylock as the figure he is. Shylock’s (Khoury) expression really helps to show a revelation in the play of how Shylock can be cunning and deceitful, yet this was interpreted by me as anger for what he has received. Khoury’s acting from Act 3, Scene 1 can be seen below.

 Furthermore, Cooper (1970) examines the view that “Shylock is the result of an opposed but unresolved conception of him in his creator's mind.” this view is paired with the suggestion that, “Shakespeare intended only a comic villain reflecting his Elizabethan prejudice against Jews” Cooper’s examinations are interesting, particularly when we see Shylock still being performed to this day, the RSC production performed in 2015. Cooper’s suggestions build the impression that Shylock’s character can be shaped to fit the character needed in this play, particularly when comparing it to similar plays like The Jew of Malta (c.1589) or Il Pecorone (1558). In relation to the RSC production, Shylock is presented as a powerful yet undermined character. It is understandable why Shylock acts like this as the play progresses because he has been subjected to antisemitic comments made about him due to the demands, he has made to loan someone. The RSC production handles this subject well, through elements of staging and lighting in difficult scenes, to give a representation of abuse.

Overall, the RSC production handles the difficult themes very well in their production of the play. Findlay perfectly creates a representation of antisemitism in the sixteenth century, but in a way that is appropriate for a twenty-first-century audience to understand.

Word Count:  1352.

References:

-       Cooper, J.R. (1970) Shakespeare Quarterly: Shylock’s Humanity. Vol. 21. No.2. pp.170.

-         Glendinning, H. (2015) Makram J. Khoury as Shylock. [Photograph]. Available online: https://www.rsc.org.uk/the-merchant-of-venice/past-productions/polly-findlay-2015-production/production-and-rehearsal-photos#&gid=1&pid=2 [Accessed 30 October 2022]

-       Rosenshield, G. (2002) Deconstructing the Christian Merchant: Antonio and “The Merchant of Venice.” Shofar. Vol. 20. No. 2. pp 28-29.

-       Shakespeare, W. (2000) The Merchant of Venice. Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Classics

-       The Merchant of Venice: Royal Shakespeare Company, 21:00 19/07/2020, BBC4, 130 mins. https://learningonscreen.ac.uk/ondemand/index.php/prog/16776669?bcast=132394042 (Accessed 11 Nov 2022) [video]

-       The Merchant of Venice. 2015. Royal Shakespeare Company https://www.rsc.org.uk/the-merchant-of-venice/past-productions/polly-findlay-2015-production#&gid=2&pid=0 (accessed 10 November 2022) [Trailer]

[202105227aws2022]

Staging, Emotion and Exploitation - Brecht’s  ‘Mother Courage’

I am a student of the University of Hull blogging as part of my assessment for the module Drama, Conflict and Identity. All views expressed here are my own and do not represent the university.

Mother Courage is a classic piece of Brechtian theatre, also known as Epic Theatre. In summary, Mother Courage is a criticism of large corporations profiting out of the effects of war. This message is shown by the main character in the play Mother Courage, also known as Anna Fierling, who doesn’t care on which side of the war she is on as long as she is making money, she is satisfied. Overall, Mother Courage as a play is both politically and socially critical of society during the Thirty Years War (1616-1648).

It is recognised that theatre evolves through time to reflect social and political identities in society, often theatre recognises the problems in the societies it is set in and is critical of them. Mother Courage is an example of this. Alongside the new Brechtian theatre, Mother Courage is a symbol within the play to represent how war is exploited to make money. This criticism from Brecht works successfully to create the character of Mother Courage, but importantly her character stands out. I find Mother Courage a perfect example of the new Brechtian theatre as a representation of the morals and rules that Brecht wanted the theatre to follow, these being lacking in emotion and leaving the audience to depart with a new concept of the world surrounding them. This is one of the epic theatre’s purposes, to force the audience to see the world. However, this form of theatre was not a recent form when Mother Courage was published, it had been around for around twenty-one years at this point. An interesting article where levels of Marxism, audience and the Brechtian practice is explored is from; N. Velmani. This can be accessed here.

I think that the staging in Mother Courage, particularly the use of (or lack of!) props used in scenes where they could be explicitly used, is particularly interesting, especially as an aspect of Brechtian theatre. It is important to consider upon reviewing Mother Courage how Brecht’s aims of this new form of the theatre were achieved in Mother Courage. For example, themes of war, death, and family, which can be quite emotive, act as normality within the play itself; as a viewer, I find this a key point to understanding Brechtian theatre as these can often be things in everyday life with much emotion behind them. This also stands as important due to an audience's understanding of the Thirty Years War, which is referenced within it. Despite the war being mentioned, the play doesn’t have emotion revolve around it. As a reader, I found this profound, how War and loss don’t have an emotive standing point in the play. But, then this plays to the idea of Brecht’s idea of isolating emotions in theatre.

When reading/ viewing Mother Courage it is obvious that it is an embodiment of Brechtian theatre. As discussed, the lack of explicit emotions is a clue as Brecht thought it wasn’t appropriate for the theatre. Another clue that Mother Courage is Brechtian, is the lack of prop usage. The play features one key prop, the wagon. The wagon proves significant in many cases, but mainly, in my opinion, it could be to deflect the focus of it from audiences to keep the focus on the main message. This theory would allude to Brecht’s ideas of theatre and what it should consist of. It’s also important to remember that the wagon modifies over time, representing how capitalisation is always increasing for these companies that Brecht is most critical of.

Identity and Conflict are key themes in the play. Brecht’s intentions with Mother Courage are clear to use metaphorically to criticise society. However, moral identity is a clear parallel with Brecht’s intentions. I think that the aspect of morals and conflict is a key part of this play, this stems from Mother Courage’s everchanging standing point to capitalise on war. It is understood that Brecht was highly critical of corporations benefitting and profiting from war, but it can be debated that Mother Courage’s character is the embodiment of that. Adding to the idea of Mother Courage being the embodiment of Brecht’s argument for why society is corrupt, there is also a discussion that the identity of Courage is interrogated throughout with regards to her being a ‘mother’. The clash between her being a ‘mother’ and also a corrupt section of war conflicts against each other. From a Brechtian audience, this would be highly unusual in theatre. Importantly, the themes of femineity, war, corruption and being a mother joined together.  Mother Courage is a torn character throughout the play, she could capitalise on the war, or she could protect her children from it. The presence of War in the play would profoundly impact the audience of that time. In 1941, when the play was first shown on stage was during the second world war, and also only twenty-three years post-World War One. This significance plays a huge role in understanding Brecht’s intentions and how to hit his audience the most.

With relevance to Mother Courage as a character and a theme but also with elements of key Brechtian staging; here is an example of a production of Mother Courage in 2006, with Mother Courage being portrayed by Meryl Streep. This production was performed at ‘Shakespeare in the Park’. 

Comparing the play and a produced version, it is clear that Mother Courage is a dominant character but is also a part of my earlier examinations of Mother Courage as a character being the embodiment of Brecht’s criticisms of society. It must be said that this version of production may have been altered to cater for a modern audience, but typical Brechtian theatrical elements are consistent with what was expected in twentieth-century Brechtian theatre.

Overall, my verdict on Brechtian theatre and its relation to Mother Courage is that they are both intriguing to evaluate and contrast against each other as examples of theatre but also as a part of the history of theatre.