Jonathan Pryce in Merchant of Venice

I just bought a ticket to see Jonathan Pryce in The Merchant of Venice at the Lincoln Center Festival this summer. I love Pryce as an actor, as well as the play itself, so I will be happy to see it regardless. But I'm curious to hear if anyone has any thoughts on this production. It doesn't seem like there is much buzz around it yet. Did anyone see it at the Globe? Anyone else planning to see it here or in DC?



It's interesting that it's playing at Lincoln Center's jazz space. Do they usually put on theatre productions in there?

OMG, JB, thank you for posting about this. Pryce is one of my favorite actors, and MERCHANT is one of my favorite plays. I didn’t even know this was happening.

I just saw this last night, and still not entirely sure what to think. As I said earlier. I'm a big admirer of Pryce's work, and was very excited to see him take on this role.

I'm warring with myself a little here, because on one hand, Pryce's performance demonstrated how capable of an actor he is. He was clearly feeling the text, and performed the role with clarity, emotion and nuance. His performance was not badly executed by any means. Still, something was missing that I can't quite put on my finger on. I saw Pryce in The Caretaker, and I found that performance to be much more interesting than his Shylock. Perhaps it is the director's fault? In The Caretaker I thought he achieved a great balance between sinister and pathetic, and I wish he had brought more of that sinisterness to Shylock.

I think the production overall was good, but kind of inconsistent. ***SOME PRODUCTION SPOILERS IN THIS PARAGRAPH *** I thought the audience participation was incredibly stupid, though perhaps I can see it working better at the Globe. The suggested homosexuality of Antonio had the potential to be interesting, but just felt tossed in. I think a directorial decision like that should feel more fully realized, and more present earlier in the show.

However, I thought the epilogue was stunning, and perhaps the highlight of the production, though I think it would have felt even better in a more more stunning production.

I'm interested in how this play works as a comedy in today's world. The director clearly wanted the play's humor to shine through, which is reasonable, given that it was written as a comedy, but the melding of the drama and comedy feels very off. Part of the fault is Shakespeare's of course, and we see that in other plays of his such as The Winter's Tale and Measure for Measure. And of course, in today's world it's very difficult to handle the comedy alongside the anti-semitism. However, the degree to which the director focused on the humor felt weird to me.

This was the first time I've ever seen this play live, though I've read it and seen the Al Pacino film. In seeing it live, I was surprised to find that Shylock really comes across as more of a supporting character than leading. In fact, the part really isn't even that big at all. Was that just this production, or is that usually the case? I also never realized that of all the male characters, Bassanio really feels like the most leading, even more than Antonio. But again, maybe it was just this production.



Anyone else here see it? Curious to hear others' thoughts.

I saw the matinee yesterday and I was surprised that it was merely a consistently workmanlike production that moved smoothly and presented most of the the text in a direct manner. Pryce was fine but did not bring any particular depth to the character. His highly emotional moments seemed empty somehow.

SPOILERS











I did NOT like the epilogue. I hate it when directors think they know better than Shakespeare. The play ends with the resolution of the ring promise, not with Shylock center stage. And the use of the Jessica character in that epilogue is nonsensical. Jessica renounces her father and her faith, and there is nothing in the play to suggest that she is unhappy with her decision or regrets joining the Christian community and loving Lorenzo. Shylock is not the main character in this play, and in fact the part is quite modest in length and the character is not on stage for much of the action. The play is about Portia, and Shylock and the bond theme represent only a third of the plot. In fact, as the play itself indicates, Shylock may not even be the merchant in the title.

Love Pryce but must confess I wished I liked this better.

Of course Shylock is a supporting character, he appears in only five scenes. On the other hand, actors like Pryce, love the role because it is a very showy part.

Shylock is in the merchant of the title. When the play was first printed in 1600, the title page read, "The most excellent History of the Merchant on Venice, with the extreme cruelty of Shylock the Jew towards the said Merchant." Shylock in not a merchant.

In the 1623 Folio, the play appears with the comedies. However none of Shakespeare's plays are pure comedies or pure tragedies. There is comedy in the serious plays and serious in the comic plays.

I have seen productions of Merchant were Antonio's attraction to Bassani is emphasized and production were it is not.

Shylock is not a merchant at all. He's a moneylender. The Merchant of Venice is indisputably Antonio. That doesn't mean Shylock is not the best part in the play...he is the star role, and always has been. Look at a few other Shakespeare plays: Cymbeline barely appears in the play that bares his name. Julius Caesar appears in only four scenes (once as a ghost) and dies halfway through the play. Henry IV takes a backseat to both his son and Falstaff. And don't even get me started on Henry VI.

You got me..."Always" is a generalization. However, I contend when talking about Shakespearian performance practice, especially of the less popular plays, what documentation we have often begins with the actor managers of the 19th century: these plays were not very well-performed in the 17th and 18th Centuries, and of course when they were it was often in highly altered forms.

We don't know whether or not Shylock was played as serious or comic in Shakespeare's day (I personally suspect the later), but we do not he was usually played as a comic ethnic stereotype in a popular adapted version beginning in 1701. The actor/manager Charles Macklin played him as a serious villain in 1749 and this was one of his signature roles. The next major actor to really make the part his own was Edmund Kean, in the 1810s and he played it sympathetically, and that's really been the mode ever since.

So, while, we're not entirely sure of the 1st 100 years of the play's existence, the vast majority of the next three hundred years have Shylock played by principal tragedians.



In any case, that's not really the point....my point was is that Shylock, despite not being the title character, has the largest, showiest male role in the play. Shylock has 352 lines, Bassanio has 334. Antonio, the title character has 188. Portia has 574, which puts her in the top five for female Shakespeare characters, outranked only by Rosalind, Cleopatra and Innogen in Cymbeline. Whoever played Shylock, Shakespeare must have had a fantastic Boy actor at his disposal.

Updated On: 7/25/16 at 02:51 AM

Why bother to go it? Christopher Isherwood revealed just about every element of this production of Merchant in his review. No need to discuss in such detail. This is why I read the critics after I see a show, and then, only if I want to. (I'm in Toronto now and won't be back for awhile, so I did read this review)