Thursday, March 24, 2011
Posting: The Whole of Merchant (Required)
This is the place to put your reflection about the whole play. We broke the seal on this subject last class when we began talking about where the comedic elements were placed in the play (Act 4). Yes, the play resolves in marriage as a comedy should, but as we also noted last class, both Shylock and Antonio are left out in the cold at the end. You have some perspective, but now that you've finished the play, what are you thoughts about the comedic aspects and the "loose ends"? Remember that "comedy" doesn't mean laughs, and that characters who don't "fit" in the end are found in other plays as well (12th Night, As You Like It among others). If comedy/tragedy doesn't float your boat, take your turn to weigh in on the issue of anti-Semitism in the play. Last class you heard the play called an "anti-racist response" to the hanging of Rodrigo Lopez, a man accused of sodomy and suspected of being a Jew as well, that took place a short time before the first production. Where do you land, finally, in the question of the portrayal of Shylock (and Antonio) in the play?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
For me this play was one of extreme and bizarre emotions and full of mistrust. I think that at the end of the play we are left with a happy couple and two out casts who have let there desires and emotions get the best of them. In Antonio's case he let his emotions get the best of him with his love of Bassanio. He lets his love for Antonio ruin him financially and emotionally. By the end of the play he is left with nothing and I believe he would have been better off if he did not ever meet Bassanio. I Think this can be looked at as Shakespeare's view on one sided relationships. Having Antonio being weak emotionally shows the audience what happens when one gets walked over. Shylock is also in a bad situation at the end of the play. I read this as him loosing everything he loved because he worried about money too much rather than what was really important about life. I saw this when he showed no mercy towards Antonio. Shylock showing no mercy gave me more incite to why his daughter chose to run away. I think Shylock let his greed take over his life and that it in turn ruined it. My thought as a reader is that Shakespeare thinks that one must not put all of one's chips on one bet (that's not the phrase but I cant remember it right now) and one with diverse interests and love will prosper.
ReplyDeleteI think I'll leave the discussion of "Racism and Homophobia in The Merchant of Venice" in this posting to everyone else (for the most part), because it has been quite a while since I last read it and each reading is like consuming a rich piece of cake: necessitating that I consume it in small portions and that I take a good deal of time in the process of consumption, else I should make myself sick.
ReplyDeleteThe play ends rather oddly, with all of the characters exiting while laughing off Portia's and Nerissa's fabricated infidelity without pausing to consider the implications of the women acting in Antonio's trial. Either Portia is severely peeved by Bassanio's apparent willingness to part from their ring, or she has a perverse sense of humor - one which Nerissa seems to share, or at least seems to go along with. In addition, Portia seems to have gained a very strong sense of the sort of relationship that exists between Bassanio and Antonio: 5.1.149-150 Portia (to Bassanio): "You should in all sense be much bound to [Antonio],/For as I hear he was much bound for you." (see notes p. 190) And at the end of the scene, Bassanio continues to express homosexual feelings: 5.1.304-5 "Sweet doctor, you shall be my bed-fellow:/When I am absent, then lie with my wife." I read this as Bassanio expressing an attraction to Balthasar, Portia's male lawyer alter-ego. (Or maybe I'm just reading too much into this because it's the day before spring break and proper, logical analysis is beyond me.)
While there are outsiders and trickery in other Shakespearean comedies (and indeed, these are some of the most common and most hilarious modes of comedy in his plays), this play certainly seems to want one of the outsiders to be very sympathetic, and much of the trickery to be malicious or emotional. Portia though not a Venetian, represents the "anti-Semitic and homophobic" ideals of Venetian society, and is quite vindictive and malicious toward Shylock, an alien in Venice, despite speaking about "The quality of mercy" (4.1.190) not 100 lines earlier. She willingly (and perhaps maliciously) frightens her husband into believing in the possibility of her infidelity, in order to drive home the point of the sanctity of their marriage and any associated symbols. Both Shylock and Portia seem far too developed for standard comedic characters, and Shylock, as we have been discussing throughout the course of this play, is far more sympathetic than necessary in a play where the audience could easily dislike him merely because of his ethno-religious background. Though Antonio ends up perhaps "better off" than Shylock, I feel that the Merchant of Venice, in both his actions and his affections, is far more condemned in the play than any of the other characters (and especially Shylock). Overall, I'm still unclear as to what to make of this play, or what I *should* make of the play as a whole.
And Dylan, the phrase that you were looking for is "putting all of one's eggs in a single basket."
I agree with Dylan that this play was full of mixed emotions and distrust, and I also think that it is extremely strange that Antonio and Shylock were as you say "left out in the cold" at the end. I feel like Shakespeare may have made this choice because he felt that he had portrayed their characteres fully, but at the same time I think that there was definitely a lot of story development that could have happened, and would have made the play more fulfilling. Maybe a comedy has to end lightly, and therefore bringing back Antonio and Shylock would do a disservice to the genre, but I think it is doing a disservice to the play to not bring them back.
ReplyDeleteAfter looking back on the play I think that it was definitely an anti-racist respose. Shylock was made human and understandable, in that he was the most open and sensitive person in that play. He felt everything to a degree that made him crazed with anger, and he let that anger take him over like any human being. Shakespeare also wrote him a couple great speeches that talked about Jews having all the same qualities as a Christian. If Shakespeare had just been making a joke of the Jews then there is no way that he would have written such a complex and sensitive character with such powerful dialogue.
All in all I was left a bit unsatisfied with the ending and felt that a lot was left unsaid by Shylock and Antonio. What happens with Antonio and Bassanio? That is something I would really like to know that is completely left behind...very strange.
After finishing the play, I am unsure how I feel about it. It is hard to interpret the play in a modern context, when the subject of anti-Semitism is so archaic. It is also hard for me to try to imagine how the intended audience would understand this play.
ReplyDeleteEven trying to see beyond this historical setting, the play leaves me feeling uneasy. Shylock's role in this play is complicated and misleading. I get the feeling that Shakespeare himself was unclear on his feelings about the character and that translated to the text. For me (a modern reader and a Jew), Shylock is more the victim than the culprit. He can be pitied for his cruelty and his actions can be understood because of all the racism he has been affronted with in his life. I think it is a common pattern for oppressed people to feel strongly about getting their revenge on others, so Shylock's actions and adamant feelings about the pound of flesh are understandable. At the same time, it is hard to believe that anyone would stick to such barbaric conditions.
I am very unsatisfied with the way the play has ended (very different from my feelings at the end of Macbeth). This play seems to have left open many loose ends. The change in seriousness from act 4 to act 5 is jarring. I am at a loss to understand what the meaning or purpose of this play is. With Macbeth, I came away thinking I had learned about greed and self-obsession. With this play I just feel confused and left abruptly.
I think that the "Merchant of Venice" was indeed a comedy for 16th century audiences, but the genre has changed quite a lot since then. Racism, sexual identity, and tragedy are all common within the play, thus making audiences wanting to scoff at certain characters and scenes. What occurred over the past century or so is an analysis of these themes, such as the Gale Group essay on anti-semitism. People are beginning to question Shakespeare's morals versus his fictional writings. One clear example of this is seen in Shylock, who is essentially despised throughout the play. He is built up to be this trader and lover of wealth, and the turning point in his story is when he loses everything - his wealth, his pride - to Antonio. I can see why Shakespeare introduced the play as a comedy then because people could pity him and be proud to feel safe with their wealth, but after a while this "comedic" aspect turned into tragedy.
ReplyDeleteOn a different note, a comment that Dylan made that is fascinating is what if Bassanio and Antonio had never met? One feature that Shakespeare includes in The Merchant of Venice is sexual uncertainty, seen between Bassanio and Antonio. Yes, they love each other, but is one "in love" with the other? I'm glad that these two characters met and developed such a tense relationship, for not clarifying what it was added to the story-line and to Shakespeare's motives. I was also intrigued by the removal of Antonio and Shylock from the end of the play, for this lack of resolution added to the tension.
I did not feel unsatisfied with the end of "The Merchant of Venice." On the contrary, the fact that the end of the play did not provide full closure plot-wise was meaningful to me. I think that Shakespeare purposefully ended the play with Antonio and Shylock unsatisfied and the couples on shaky ground. The play seemed to be neither a comedy nor a tragedy to me given the cultural context that I come from. There aren't really any funny moments that come to mind, and the play is certainly not a stereotypical tragedy. However, I do recognize that an audience in Shakespeare's time would have found the play amusing, maybe even hilarious. It is interesting to consider that Jews and homosexuals were clearly not included in the contemporary Shakespeare audience.
ReplyDeleteAs for Shylock and Antonio, I thought it fitting that they were not particularly included in the ending. Shakespeare was not writing the play to address social justice issues. He was just capturing a bit of a story, funny at times and tragic at others.
As for Nerissa, Gratiano, Portia, and Bassanio, I viewed the ending of the play as a commentary on the superficiality of marriage and love in the 16th century. The motives for marrying are questionable throughout the play. In the end, Bassanio chooses to marry Portia because of money and social acceptability, not true love. Both he and Gratiano admit during the trail that their wives are not as important as Antonio. In the end, this issue of commitment and love is swept under the table with jokes and banter.
The loose ends were certainly not tied up at the end of "The Merchant of Venice". I enjoyed this effect, as it gave me much more to ponder in the end.
I believe that modern audiences are dissatisfied with the ending of the play because it is, at best, a side note to the play’s climax: Shylock and Portia’s confrontation in 4.1. Shylock and Portia are the only complex, “human” characters in this play. The rest of the characters, Bassanio particularly, lack distinct personalities and seem to function simply in supplying the circumstances under which Shylock and Portia come into contact. What makes the confrontation between Shylock and Portia so interesting is that the two are in important ways more alike than different. Jews and women are two groups on the fringes of Venetian society, trapped by forces beyond their control. Shylock must suffer the collective hatred and scorn of the Venetian Christians because of his religion, while Portia’s gender and position deny her the independence that she so desires. The rebellion of both characters against the roles imposed upon them by society allows us to glimpse their strength, intelligence, and cruelty. We can hate them and we can sympathize with them, often at the same time. These characters are thought-provoking on their own, but they are even more so together. The powerful dynamic between Shylock and Portia in 4.1 leads the audience to question its own sense of justice and fairness.
ReplyDeleteI was extremely disappointed by the fact that Shakespeare chose to fill his ending with stock characters and to reduce Portia to the role that she clearly opposed just a scene earlier. For me, the message that followed 4.1 was “Just kidding! Look––it’s a comedy! Really!” Shakespeare’s slapped-on ending is superficially “good,” but there are many unresolved problems and uncertainties if one considers it more deeply. Aside from the fact that Antonio is completely pushed aside, the romances between the couples do not feel at all sincere or believable. Shakespeare does not develop strong connections between Bassanio and Portia and between Gratiano and Nerissa as he does, for example, between Beatrice and Benedict in Much Ado About Nothing. For this reason, along with Bassanio and Gratiano’s history of disloyalty to their fiancées and Portia and Nerissa’s comfort with deceiving their men, I doubt that either of the romances will ultimately last.
It is possible that Shakespeare ends the play as he does because he fears offending the conventions of his time and feels that he must somewhat satisfy the expectations of his audience. Shakespeare pushes the religious, sexual, and social limits of his society, but then pulls back at the end. Maybe he had already communicated what he wanted to in the body of the play and must focus finally on protecting himself from criticism for the rest of it.
In my opinion, The Merchant of Venice is not only a comedy because it resolves in marriage, but also because it offers comedic relief to its
ReplyDeletereaders. Although comedies do not necessarily have to be 'funny,' I still think The Merchant of Venice was intended to be funny and would cause its audience to laugh. Launcelot, 'The Clown', initially plays tricks on his father by giving him confusing directions and convincing him that his son is dead. Also, in act 3 scene 5 he lightens the mood of the play teasing by Jessica for becoming a Christian. Act 4 scene 1, when Portia is disguised as a man unknowingly to her present husband would be considered funny as well due to Shakespeare's clever use of dramatic irony. Especially when Bassanio states that he cares for Antonio's life over any other, specifically his wife's, and the disguised Portia responds with "Your wife would give you little thanks for that / If she were by to hear you make the offer" (4.1, 300-301). This moment of comedy comes during the climax of the entire play, which, I feel, emphasizes Shakespeare's use comedy throughout the play.
Although I am (along with many of you) unsatisfied with how many lose ends are left, I am not entirely surprised that Shakespeare didn't answer everything. Authors often wish to leave questions unanswered in order to leave it up to the imagination of the reader.
Due to the fact that all of the previous posts have described how we, as a modern audience, have reacted to the conclusion of this play, I will attempt to describe how an Elizabethan audience would react to the fate of Shylock and Antonio.
ReplyDeleteIt is important to note that, in the 1600s, Christians believed that any individual who did not believe in Christ would go to hell. Therefore, at the time, the trial scene resolves the dispute between Antonio and Shylock perfectly. Shylock's conversion saves him from an eternity of damnation, and at the same time forces him to surrender his (supposedly) ill-gotten gains. This was not an era which espoused the ideal of multi-culturalism. Although Shylock was depicted in a very human light, a true racist will see what he wants to see. While we may see Shylock's desire for revenge as justice for the wrongs committed against him, an Elizabethan audience may see it as a manifestation of his evil nature.
Furthermore, I can't imagine that the audience would approve of a gay relationship between Antonio and Bassanio. Although the audience would accept that it is plausible for Antonio and Bassanio to be gay, because they are Italian, they still wouldn't approve of it. It's a happy ending because these two never engaged in such a "horrific sin", and Antonio still had his livelihood.
Therefore, I believe the play can be called a comedy. From an Elizabethan perspective, every character has a happy ending.
To continue off of what Alex has said, I think it is both interesting and important to consider how the events in the play were meant to be interpreted. As this play is listed as a comedy, it was hard for me at first to understand how it could end so tragically for a number of characters. Shylock losing entirety of his property, specifically to the man who took his daughter, and his conversion, as well as the inability that Antonio and Bassanio now have to be together seemed a little too grim to laugh at. However, given historical context, especially through the article regarding England’s view of Italians, it made much more sense.
ReplyDeleteThe main characters exhibit stereotypical characteristics of their background, Shylock through the greed and usury Jews would be labeled with and Antonio through the hints of homosexuality that may be viewed as more accepted by the sexually promiscuous Venetians. The display of this behavior may be considered comedic to a 1600s English audience. However, the three-dimensionality that Shakespeare has given these characters has been brought up many times. As the audience that the play was written for would be very quick to take delight in the suffering of the caricatured Jew and Venetians, they may have a hard time sympathizing with them despite Shakespeare’s attempts to make the characters human. As Alex discussed, the trial may well have been viewed as “salvation” for Shylock, forcing him to accept Christianity and do away with his gains made through usury. In addition, Bassanio’s heterosexual marriage could be viewed as “saving” him and Antonio from the sin of homosexuality. The safety of Antonio’s ships, while it may have seemed a little tacked-on, ensured that while Antonio lost his forbidden love, he can go on to live a prosperous (and heterosexual) life.
While at first I felt that the different layers we saw in Merchant of Venice were more the product of over-analysis rather than the intended message of Shakespeare himself, I have over time changed my opinion. I believe Shakespeare wanted to confuse the audience watching Merchant in the 1600's: the play is labeled a comedy, and through the viewpoints of people in England at that time, it lives up to to that title; however, I think that by proclaiming a piece about Jews and Venetians (both looked down upon by British society) a comedy, he gave himself a greater lens with which to portray these two groups. Even if the audience is consciously unaware of many of the things that one can implement through art, doesn't mean they aren't affected by it on some level. While any stage actor can make Shylock a vile, evil human being through interpretation, the raw text does paint a sympathetic (albeit corrupt) character who in the end loses everything. The same goes for the homosexuality undertones in the play: while Antonio and Bassanio could have been played for laughs in the original version, Shakespeare left the text open to make them serious, emotionally strained people. So in my final thoughts, I am going to assume that Shakespeare was more clever in his layering of the play than some might think. Merchant of Venice is a comedy, and simultaneously an incredibly tragic play in which no character is fully satisfied by the end. If I were in that first crowd of people watching when the play premiered, I'm not sure if I would know what to think. Or would I myself, being an aspect of such a prejudice society in this scenario, simply laugh at the misfortunes of homosexuals and non-Christians, like our analysis of the play's time has led me to believe? The uncertainty of this, as well as the whole play itself, is why I've found it to be one of Shakespeare's most fascinating to discuss.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of reading this play I was uninterested in the lives of the characters, and the only character that had personality layers was Shylock. But when we finished the book and the movie I believe I came a conclusion that the comedy/tragedy play was made to push the boundaries of Shakespeare's society.Writing about such a controversial topic as homosexuality and antisemitism I believe could only get written in a play during that time. I think the fact that Shakespeare's writing was well known for being light and funny the audience knew that if they went their would be some laughs. I believe, at the time, a play a work of fiction from a well-respected author was the only place the general public could hear opposing information or see a different side to a hushed topic through the characters of Shylock and Antonio. I do not think Shakespeare would have taken the time to write about either topic if he did not want to make a point or give his audience something to think about. The "loose ends" both with Antonio and Shylock was a way to give the audience control over their perception of both antisemitism and homosexuality. Is it so bad that Antonio is in love with Bassanio because he sacrificed himself? Or is sympathizing with Shylock such a bad thing? These are the questions he left his audience, maybe as a way to give the decision to the people instead of having the decision made for them by the church or Queen/King?
ReplyDeleteThough the play as a whole was okay, I still have some questions though like his role of women in the play and ending the play with Gratiano. Shakespeare might have just written the play as is with no real intent to give meaning to what people, particularly what the women are saying or doing but then why have women characters in the first place?
For example, the cross dressing aspect I thought was a way to get a laugh but as I writer I would think that the Portia's character in the courtroom scene would play at the laughs more but instead it talked about mercy not a laughable subject. Why have male to female back to male cross-dressing in a comedy and have such a in depth conversation about life and death?
Secondly, with Gratiano having the last word seemed a little safe, ending the play with a light talk about sex with the "blabbering fool" does not make sense to me. His words meaning nothing like Bassanio said but they do. Gratiano was the taunter the silly fool and was the only person that decidedly made fun of both Antonio and Shylock; he is the general opinion but his views are stated in a way to make you confused to beg the question "do you agree?"
I agree with those who have said that the conclusion of the play is rather unsatisfying. Similarly to Lila though, I do not think that it is unsatisfying because the plot is left incomplete.
ReplyDeleteRather, I think that the moral dilemma of the play's treatment of Shylock leaves me uncomfortable and unsatisfied towards the end. Shakespeare's insistence on Shylock's complete humiliation and devastation seems cruel and unnecessary. The fact that the last page of the book brings up the inheritance of Shylock's money by the man that stole his daughter is a painful twist of the knife already securely lodged in Shylock's back.
Although Shakespeare does a very good job of portraying Shylock as a multi-dimensional, human character with whom the reader can sympathize, his defeat comes as a painful even rather than a comedic or vindicated one.
The whole book also seems to be a condemnation of Judaism. Shylock's downfall seems to serve as an example of the devastation that practicing Judaism can cause in comparison to the ultimate triumph of the Christian characters. Shakespeare sends mixed messages on this note by portraying Shylock as a human character that the reader can connect and sympathize with throughout the play, but ultimately defeating him at the conclusion of the play with the devastating trial scene. While Portia and Bassanio worry over the seemingly frivolous issue of Bassanio's temporary relinquishment of her ring, Shylock has been stripped of his dignity and deprived of economic or emotional compensation.
In this way, the play ends on a rather disturbing and emotionally incomplete note.
I would like to add onto Jamies comment. I would definitely classify this play as comedic. The points in which I felt like this while reading the actual book came few and far between, but now as I reflect on it I must say that Shakespeare definitely meant for it to have a degree of humor present. I mean I actually cracked up at the beginning of Act 5 when Jessica and Lorenzo were trying to "out-night" each other. To me that was hilarious. I also think that its only fitting that a comedy such as this ends in this loose, untidy fashion. It gives me a laugh that a lot of people in the class (and I'm sure in the world) are dismayed and disappointed due to that fact, and perhaps Shakespeare was laughing at that too, at the fact that this doesn't end like every other fairytale we've ever heard. I think that this accomplishment is pretty brilliant as it truly illuminates a rather profound idea: things don't usually work out in the ways we think they should and in the ways we want them to. Life flows and changes and a big lesson is learning to accept whatever you experience regardless of how it makes you feel. Bravo Shakespeare.
ReplyDeleteI just typed a 600 word response and it deleted it. So frustraing! Here we go again.
ReplyDeleteThe play's ending is unusual in its refusal to tie up all loose ends. To me, the dissastisfaction it evokes is a wonderful example of form serving content. Though the characters protest they are happy and that all has gone as it should, their lingering unease condemns their society. After all, each character has been unable to escape convention; couples get married, Jews get converted, the gay relationship remains unacknowledged. That the ending isn't perfect despite the fulfillment of convention is a subtle critique of the status quo. The fact that Gratiano commands the play's last words (and fills them with irreverent babble) intensifies the feeling that this is a fool's ending. (Or, perhaps, a situation that serves fools best of all.) Real people are not characters in a Comedia del Arte, but they often find themselves playing the parts. I find myself thinking of Antonio's observations in the beginning of the play that he is playing a part, a role, that, while sad, is his duty to perform. This theme is echoed more than once as the play continues. The play itself forces its characters to fulfill their roles, while pointing out how unsuitable these roles are. The society the character live in also conspires to keep them in step.
Shylock the Jew has flashes of humanity and true reasons for his role, but ultimately follows his villain's path to its inevitable ruin. Pushed by society to be what he is, he is punished by society for becoming what he was forced to be. (Or is he punished so badly for the very reason that he challenges his role by attempting to kill Antonio? And is Portia perhaps furious at Shylock's presumptuous overstepping of his boundaries, when she knows she will be forced to be obedient to the man currently expressing his love to another man?)
Jessica finds salvation as Lorenzo's wife. She should be happy. She has the ending she wanted. But she remains torn, unable to escape a feeling of betraying her heritage. She is insecure enough about her identity to refuse to dress as a man even for a short time. And she will never escape teasing derision about her former religion.
Bassanio capitulates to pressure to marry, knowing that marriage will ultimately allow him to continue his lifestyle much as before. He's rash and impulsive, and needs a wife to keep him financially and socially safe. Marrying Portia is not the bold, true, fair thing, but it is the societally and comedically right one. Antonio recognizes this and, despite his final words to Bassanio, is on the whole resigned to his fate. (We never see what happens to Antonio and Bassanio's relationship, but I think we don't see anything because nothing happens. Everything is as it was before, as it is supposed to be in a comedy of the era.)
Even Portia is resigned to her fate. An obeident daughter unwilling to defy her father, she becomes an obedient wife. She shows some spirit, and warns her husband that she has needs of her own, but inevitably slips right into the role of wife, like she was supposed to all along. During the trial, she becomes a sort of female goddess, the symbol of female divine justice seen in the romantic literature of men. But her final capitulation underscores the point that such transcendence, in literature and life of the time, was only ever temporary.
I can't say for certain what Shakespeare intended with "The Merchant of Venice," but it seems to me a critical and serious satire of both the classic comedy structure and the normalizing power of society.