MovieChat Forums > The Merchant of Venice (2005) Discussion > Shylock is Not a Villain

Shylock is Not a Villain

posted 13 years ago by Syava
7 replies | jump to latest

Basically Shylock had two options, he could either not stand up for himself, therefore being "a weak Jew", or he could stand up for himself, being a "dirty dog jew". Either way, he will never been seen as a human in the eyes of the people around him.

99% of it he is never even referred to by his name, he is "the jew".

He is treated as an alien being his whole life, and spit on. No one has any respect for him as a human because they don't see him as one.

Antonio never should have agreed to give up a pound of flesh in the first place. Does that make Shylock evil, really?

In the end who gets screwed over?

formerly the IMDB user AnneFrankensteinn and obviouslyfake

[–] ssimon55 13 years ago

Could not agree more.

[–] eileenagusta 13 years ago

Shylock was always a villain whether you pity him or not.

Yes he was spat on and verbally abused, perhaps kicked, but chose murder as revenge. This makes him a villain clearly, to claim otherwise is willful ignorance.

[–] Zanza8 13 years ago

Shylock chose revenge, but only after years of abuse. He loaned money to Christians who talked sweet when they came to borrow, and reviled and abused him when he wanted to get paid back. The OP is absolutely spot-on, and over the years, Shylock has emerged as almost the hero of the piece. The Christians are the ones who look bad. Even in court, Portia wants Shylock to get a doctor for Antonio. Why didn't any of his friends step up and get a doctor? For that matter, why didn't they take up a collection and pay the debt themselves? It's because they would rather see Antonio die than see a "dirty dog of a Jew" get the money he was owed.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

[–] cynic2all 12 years ago

For that matter, why didn't they take up a collection and pay the debt themselves? It's because they would rather see Antonio die than see a "dirty dog of a Jew" get the money he was owed.

There is a lot of time-- close to 3 months, apparently-- that is missing in this play/screenplay. The only time his buddies taking a collection to repay Shylock had to be before the length of the contract expired, which is 3 months at least at first stated in the conversation when the deal is made. In court, that was no longer any relevant matter, for Bassanio offered him 3x the value of the loan, and Shylock refused it, saying he had taken an oath to have only his "bond." I won't be convinced that Shylock "is not a villain" considering all that. Actually something about 20x the loan is mentioned, but I forget exactly what it was-- would someone not a villain refuse 20x his already-vast money due, preferring to kill a man for spitting, insults, beard-pulling, and getting his friends out of debt, which were the reasons Shylock hated him? That has connotations of hell-- infinite revenge [death] for finite crimes.

As for a surgeon being there to stop the bleeding... that would almost surely be useless. But I don't know if the apparent absence of a surgeon can be seen as not prolonging the agony, or knowing that almost anyone else could 'stop the bleeding' as well as a surgeon at that time-- or no one thought it was 'his' responsibility to fetch [and probably pay] a surgeon to attend-- the latter is what would reflect badly on the Christians, as we can assume some of them are among those Antonio had helped out of debt and now won't help him in that way. But remember, too, that "nearest the heart" is somewhere in the dialogue, and I don't think even modern medicine can keep anyone from dying who has a deep slit in the heart [as Shylock would have unquestionably done] under unsterile conditions; perhaps not even if it happened in the operating room.

[–] cromartie890 12 years ago

The only willful ignorance is on your part! Was Portia not ready to kill him for revenge. They threatened his life and took everything he had and for what? Because one of them failed to do what he agreed.

[–] thornsthorns 11 years ago

Shylock is a villain. Just a understandable one. But a villain nonetheless. No more than the Venetians, no less than the Venetians. He wanted justice, or rather revenge, to treat the Venetians as they had treated him.

So if the Venetians are evil, then so is he. As in two wrongs don't make a right. just because he had a contract, doesn't make it right. Just as Shylock himself said, the Venetians hold slaves in drudgery, if they can demand their property, their rights over slaves, so can he over his.

It is the hypocrisy of the Venetians that you find ugly, and the tragedy of Shylock's misfortune that makes you sympathise with him. But it does not change the fact that he was twisted and evil inside.

From the Elizabethan Christian point of view, this was a happy ending for Shylock and not a tragic ending, as he became Christian, would have entered heaven, his daughter became Christian, got well looked after, and his property was even though stolen or misappropriated, was ultimately inherited rightfully by his daughter.

So whilst the means may have been ugly, from the Elizabethan Christian point of view, justice was done, mercy was done, and all ended up better off.

From Shylock's point of view, he did not get justice, he did not get his revenge, he lost his daughter, he lost everything. but if this villain had had his way, he would be worse off, and therefore the enlightened Christians who know better where justified in conning him for his own benefit. Just as the Christians where justified in torturing people into converting into Christianity.

From Elizabethan view, if Shylock had had his way, everyone would have been worse off, including himself, whilst through the Christians using trickery and legal sophistry everyone was better off.

Do the end justify the means? according to western tradition yes.

Only tradition that I have ever known , where both end and means have to be justified is the Islamic tradition. So its not surprising to see such a unsatisfying black and white ending to a story in the west.

[–] sbowesuk 8 years ago

Shylock was mistreated no doubt, but should that justify hateful revenge and the pursuit to butcher someone to death? Is murder ever the answer to mistreatment? I would say the answer to that is almost always no.

Realise that people who do bad things, almost always find ways to justify their actions in their own head. Murderers, rapists. They all do it. Shylock did it, and yet and the end of the day, he was a man willing to butcher another man, even when he had multiple offers to just take double the money he lent and walk away. As far as I'm concerned, that absolutely makes him a villain, even if the Christians in this play were flawed human beings too.