New year, new Oscars – and a „Merchant of Venice“ marathon

I quite liked the Oscars this year. I didn’t think I would, didn’t think I would even care, but then I saw both “Three Bilboards …” and “Shape of Water” and became curious about “best film” and “best actress”. At least I googled if Frances McDormand got a nomination – as she should have! And she had. As my first choice – Kate Winslet for Ginny, which unfortunately was Woody Allen AND water under the bridge – wasn’t on the menu I was pleased and gratified that Frances McDormand got it though, like Kate Winslet, she already has one. Maybe still a tiny bit more pleased that Sally Hawkins didn’t because, seeing “Shape of Water”, I realized that I STILL don’t like her as an actress. There was one scene I remember that was amazing, but Frances McDormand was terrific throughout (whereas Kate Winslet was, as she sometimes is, in an entirely different league.)

I would have liked it as well if “Three Bilboards …” had made it, but nobody gets granted every wish, not even I. And it would have been a bit much to wish for, the film being as politically incorrect as can be, with the current discussion about gun laws. And, unlike “Fargo”, we have to take it seriously. Still, there is a lot of great humour which I always appreciate. And which might be the reason why I liked it so much better than “Shape of Water”. It isn’t a bad choice because it is a great story and a beautiful and strange film. Nonetheless, I rejoiced for the umpteenth time that Guillermo del Toro had to step down as director of “The Hobbit”. It might not even have been such a different style, but at least Peter Jackson HAS a sense of humour.

So much for the Oscars … And always when I least expect it I begin to read Shakespeare again. This time I just wanted to check on Gemma Jones – who is one of my favourite actors - as I realized that the earliest recording I have of her on dvd is as Portia in the complete cycle of plays by the BBC. In this case it wasn’t worth watching because of her, but the production as such is rather better than most of the others. Good enough, obviously, to make me curious about the play. I realized that I never saw a stage production, I only got the film with Al Pacino on dvd and was very pleased to find that there is a recent production by the Globe Theatre and one by the RSC available on dvd which I bought right away. And then, of course, things began to get REALLY interesting … There is one distinct benefit to be got from the “complete cycle”, though, which became quite important in this case. They don’t leave out SUBSTANTIAL parts of the text, and this is what directors who have to deal with “The Merchant of Venice” are always very tempted to do. But, in this case, ONE sentence can change the meaning of the play.

I remember having been impressed with the film when I saw it at least ten years ago. I watched it again only after I had seen the three stage productions, and, not surprisingly, was totally disappointed even though the acting is rather good in comparison. Maybe this was the reason I became aware, for the first time, WHY EXACTLY film adaptations of Shakespeare plays cannot compete even with a mediocre stage production. (I will take up all these loose ends later when I am going to look more closely at the individual productions.)

I suppose I began to THINK about the play already when I saw the old BBC version. Anyway, I ended up asking what I apparently always come to ask myself approaching a Shakespeare play BEFORE I watched the more recent productions. It is quite a preposterous question but, as I know from constantly “approaching” “Macbeth”, I am making most progress on understanding the play when I put myself into the role of a director, asking myself what I would want to happen on the stage, and how it should look. Imagining how it might “play out” … (Probably the reason why I took Dover Wilson so seriously: because he was constantly asking, from a historical perspective, what we would have seen on the stage.) So, the question I came to ask myself was if I would be tempted to get this play on the stage and if I would be up to it.

Two questions, to be precise, and, in the beginning, the answer to both questions was, unambiguously: NO, NEVER.

I think that the answer to the second question is still no – which it should be for ANY Shakespeare play but isn’t - whereas, I think, meanwhile I would definitely be tempted. And learning the reason for this meant learning a lot about the play. I realized that, in spite of my reluctance to approach it, I never disliked the play. On the contrary: it has always been one of my favourite Shakespeare plays – even before I had seen it played! (There must have been some kind of “history” about reading it in the past which I don’t remember.) And this is not even because – as I knew a long time before “Three Bilboards …” - I am rather more intrigued than put off by political correctness issues. It is a pity that the RSC are obviously so terrified by them – though totally understandable because they certainly get all these critics and school teachers breathing down their necks whereas the Globe, with their objective of playing Shakespeare historically, gets an astonishing amount of freedom in this respect which, I think, in this case, they made really good use of. Their version is the best I have seen so far, but I could only fully appreciate it after having seen the RSC’s version which, even though it is rather bad in comparison, did most for my own understanding of the play. I could see THEN how sophisticated the Globe’s version really is.

Basically, the most intriguing feature of “The Merchant of Venice” is probably the same that made me stay clear of it so far. What is so challenging about the play, in a good sense, at one point, infallibly, gets totally frustrating. It is that you HAVE to take a stand even though it is impossible. And it is most obvious in the RSC’s version which, especially in the beginning, looks more like toothache than theatre: Even if you really DON’T LIKE the play – and NONE of the actors enjoys playing this character! – it is WORTH DOING IT.

Or, maybe, even ESPECIALLY in this case. There certainly is a reason why I asked myself repeatedly IF I liked the play. I think I always did, but not, like “Macbeth” or “Richard III”, with a passion that can make me blind for what is really happening. Instead I probably liked the text for the way it plays ME. It is one of the plays that I like because of special features, like “Romeo and Juliet” for the beauty of the language, or for the intellectual challenge they contain, like “Richard II”. (I so like it to be taken seriously as a reader!) And I realized that “The Merchant of Venice” is the most sophisticated Shakespeare play I have read so far. (Or UNDERSTOOD so far – as I’d always concede that I never understood “Hamlet” or “King Lear”.) I noticed that, every single time I read it or watched it, the same thing happened, except it never was THE SAME. At some point I started on actually making this kind of “equation” – very much like a mathematical equation - as I would have to make if I served on a jury. But, as I wanted to decide on the case responsibly, I was trying to consider all the fine points most carefully. And every time, at some point, I gave it up, thinking: IT DOESN’T ADD UP!

There is, of course, always the possibility that I am not clever enough to make it add up. That I am not trying hard enough. That - very likely in a “court case”! - I never have all the facts at my disposal which I would need to be able to decide. Maybe it is rather preposterous as well to think that I am good at this game - though, of course, I think that I am good at it because I like to play it. Rather than thinking that I failed I’d like to think that the same thing happened to Shakespeare when he had to deal with this story. That, for some reason, he couldn’t make it “add up” - or didn’t want to???