MovieChat Forums > The Merchant of Venice (2005) Discussion > No heroes in this story - I dislike them...

No heroes in this story - I dislike them all


If you read the story as shakespeare intended it, there is not one likeable character in the whole story.

Shylock = Usury eating, vindictive, gentile hating jew. A pitiful figure in the modern rendering of the stories, whilst a deserving ridiculed Jew, who reaped what he sowed, in the old renderings. One word to descibe him, Ugly.

Jessica = A ditzy girl, who betrays her father and steals his money after being swooned by a boy. Ditz.

Antonio = A anti-semitic, arrogant sod. Arrogant.

Portia = A legal, lawyer, loophole, quibble seeking, toyer of emotions. Who stands condescendingly over the Jew. And uses semantics to cheat shylock out of his wealth and his justice and his religion. Condescending.

Bassanio = A money wasting, fool who puts his friends life in danger, and takes oaths like meals. Fool.

Venice Itself = The people of Venice themselves are not much better, slave owning, anti-Semitic, hypocrites, who argue one rule for themselves, and another for everyone else. Hypocrites.

There was not one likeable, honourable, character in the film or the play.

Even the suitors, where a bunch of idiots.

A part of me wishes, Shylock had not broken down, had stood by his honour and his oath, and had taken his pound of flesh, even at the cost of his own life. Or at the very least had not begged for mercy and forced the hypocritical Venetians and condescending Portia to take his life.

No one stood by their word, no one had any honour, no one had any merit.

reply

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.

reply