Could anyone pls clarify this for me:
When Tubal brings Shylok news abt Jessica, he says that she gave her turquoise ring for a monkey. However, at the end of the film we see the described ring on her finger. Was Tubal lying?
Or did I miss something?
He was reciting the rumor he heard about Shylock's daughter to Shylock himself. He even states that it's what he'd heard by asking the locals.
shareSo, the rumour was unfounded. What was the point of placing it in the story then?
shareTo get Shylock all worked up about his daughter.
*EDIT*
I'll also add that he doesn't tell Shylock whether it's true or not. He doesn't lend credibility to the rumor. He just makes it a point of emphasizing to Shylock that it's what had been told him. Whether the rumors about his daughter are true or not remains unknown.
When I studied the play I always took it to mean that she had run off for some romantic whim, and that the usual gossip started because she left with someone who wasn't Jewish (out of her social circle).
I think the point Shakespeare wanted to show is that he cares for his money more than for his daughter. Or he cares for both money and daughter. Because, if a normal father lost his daughter like Shylock did he would be more concerned about the daughter than he is about the ring..add to this his wandering around saying: My daughter! My ducates!
"It's Pacino. It's enough. At the very least...he'll craft a word or line of dialogue"
... he cares for both money and daughter.
Tibal is emphasizing that he only had second hand accounts regarding Jessica, supposedly from people who heard, or witnessed first hand, what Jessica had done. He doesn't say whether they're credible or not, just that he only had anecdotes of her alleged actions.
The ring to me, from a dramatic context, could symbolize her willful defiance and departure of her father and his wishes. However, I think it's up to the audience to decide what they make of the ring in this version of the play. Me, I'm thinking it may have just slipped off accidentally, and Tibal recovered it somehow, or she took it off while in a room and forgot to put it back on... again, somehow Tibal recovers it.
We just don't know enough about her and her relationship with her father to really pass judgment. And, it may be that the original author intended this as a symbolic jab at Shylock for not being more Christian in his outlook. Note that Jessica is spared her father's fate. Heck, she doesn't even come to the trial to see for herself what her father intends.
Also note that what kind of father makes such a demand on his clients for the sake of loaning money? If I had a father who was so wrapped up in vindictive finance, then I might run off too. I think this is something Radford missed in his interpretation, and something that I think most do understand when they see the full play performed.
If I had a father who was so wrapped up in vindictive finance, then I might run off too.
Marsala_lover, I remember now that Shylock refered to the ring as being a memory to him...you are right. In this case, it is would be a proof of Shylock's loyalty and love to the memory of hs wife...
Well, we have to differentiate between Shakespeare's and Radford's versions of the play. Although Radford brought the play as Shakespeare has written it but there are some hints brought up by the movie that makes the audience believe that what Shylock is doing is but a fair payback to the unjust Christians who spit at him, who wants him to forget the bond and who punished him by taking his money and forcing him to convert. May be the ring issue is one of those toold Radford has used to draw the human line of Shakespeare and at the same time to make you look at Jessica as a criminal who stole her father's money, playing with his memory.
Second thing..Jessica eloped because of her love but she felt sorry for her Dad..when he was leaving the house the night of her elopment going to Bassanio's dinner, she was worried about him and she had a look as if saying she will miss him.
"It's Pacino. It's enough. At the very least...he'll craft a word or line of dialogue"
Possibly.
I acknowledge Shylock's dissatisfaction with his station in life, but I'm hard pressed to see and sympathize with the terms of his vindictive nature. And Jessica may have loved her father, but I can't help but believe that she'd probably had enough of whatever or whoever he was in private.
I think the truth of it is that Shylock is just written as a comic villain who makes an unreasonable demand. I think the original context of the play is that Antonio shrugs at it, because being a Christian (from the outlook at the time) he can't see anyone really carrying out the terms. That's kind of the whole joke of the play. Shylock has other thoughts, though.
Err, you don't know that though. In fact we really don't know why she eloped. All we know is that she ran off, and her father is a pretty nasty character.
shareThe scene where Jessica has the ring at the end is entirely the filmmaker's invention. In Shakespeare's play after the "wilderness of monkeys" line, Leah's ring is never spoken of again. We are left believing that the story of Jessica exchanging the ring for a monkey is true.
shareThanks, it makes sense: as it's been said by sherinfg on this board, "Radford is drawing the human line of Shakespeare"
shareI think that some responses on this thread got things a bit wrong.
1. Tubal never says that he saw the ring, he says that "as I heard" Jessica traded a ring for a monkey. Shylock jumps to the conclusion that it was "my turquoise".
2. The scene of Jessica trading the ring occurs in Shylock's imagination.
3. The ring that is shown in Shylock's imagination and that Jessica is shown wearing at the end of the movie (a scene that is the invention of the director)is a medieval Jewish wedding ring, not just any ring. Most people would not be aware of this connection, but I thought it was interesting of the director to use it. I don't know if the actual ring used was medieval, most likely not, but it is definitely in the form of one. A similar ring was included in the exhibition called "Art and Love in Renaissance Italy" that was held at the Metropolitan Musuem of Art from November 2008 to February 2009. Using a detail like this ring really increased my admiration for this movie production.
4. This movie had wonderful acting and wonderful production values. I think Lynn Collins was an amazing Portia and that Al Pacino and Jeremy Irons were wonderful too. I wasn't so thrilled by Joseph Fiennes, but you can't have everything I guess.
Another aspect of the Shylock/Jessica "ring removal" is Shakespeare's use of the same device later in the play, when Portia bamboozles Bassanio into surrendering the ring she gave him earlier. I have always had a problem with this more prominent ring plot but my misgivings were magnified when I watched the film. It is significant, I believe, that Portia's fixation on the ring comes after she has heard Bassanio say before the court that he prizes Antonio's life above all others. There ensues (in her mind) a tug of war between Bassanio's devotion to her and his devotion to Antonio. She uses the ring in an effort to make him choose between his wife and his closest friend. Radford emphasizes this very cleverly, by showing us Portia's reaction to Bassanio's disclosure (beautifully conveyed by Lynn Collins' expressive face). It also builds on the earlier scene, just before her departure from Belmont, in which Portia learns of the depth of Bassanio's affection for Antonio. In a sense, the seeds of jealousy/rivalry are sown shortly after Portia learns of Antonio's existence, but this revelation is more Radford than Shakespeare.
The ring kerfuffle is not an important aspect of the play, which may be why I tend to be impatient with it. It has always seemed petty and anti-climactic, coming as it does after the highly charged courtroom scene, and it is (needlessly) duplicated in the Nerissa-Gratiano relationship. It serves as little more than a trivial extension of the loyalty/vengeance themes.