Comments on: New London Play Attacks Israeli Jews, But the Admission is Free.

By: froylein

froylein — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:30:35 +0000

Radka, thanks for the tip! I've found the article, and it's pretty entertaining.

By: Radka

Radka — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:25:38 +0000

Anyone truly interested in the portrayal of Shylock, you simply owe it to yourselves to read “Shylock in Germany” by W. Beatty-Kingston, written back in 1880 (waaaaay before the Nazis). I suck at providing links, but a simple Google search takes all of two seconds. Don’t miss this!

By: marc

marc — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 01:47:23 +0000

imagine if a someone wrote a play called “7 muslim children” and tried to present it in london.

man, i hate england right now. this liberal “tolerance” they’re trying to feed us is unacceptable.

By: BrazilianJew

BrazilianJew — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 00:01:32 +0000

I would prefer to see a play on British people trying to explain/justify what they have been doing in Iraq for the past 6 years. Any Israeli writers available?

By: froylein

froylein — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:09:23 +0000

It’s a tragedy as Shylock cannot escape his fate predetermined by a higher force (his environment in this case). Whether a character appears foolish or whatnot is not what differentiates a tragedy from a comedy. Shakespeare deliberately broke with the classic Ancient / Aristotelic unities of time and place.

By: Joshua

Joshua — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:09:53 +0000

I’m often confused as to what to think of “Merchant of Venice”. Is it a tragedy or a comedy? If it’s a tragedy, it’s certainly one that isn’t structured in the way Shakespeare’s other tragedies were. Rather, it looks much more like “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” in structure (climax in Act IV rather than in Act V, as seen in Macbeth and Hamlet). The distinction is important, as if it is a tragedy, then we can indeed see Shylock as the tragic hero. However, if it is indeed a comedy (and there is supporting evidence for that, especially with Shakespeare making Shylock look foolish when he discovers his daughter ran away with a goy, but he didn’t so much focus on that as much as he focused on her taking his money), then indeed it can only be classified as antisemitic, as it portrays Shylock (and, by extension, all Jewry) as the villain.

By: Tom Morrissey

Tom Morrissey — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:07:43 +0000

‘Anti-semitic’ is a blunt word to describe what is often a crude emotion, an irrational point of view. Shakespeare invests his plays with sufficient complexity to compel a more nuanced response. The passage quoted above strikes me as an eloquent denunciation of ethnic and religious hatred.

By: froylein

froylein — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:57:15 +0000

Middle, there’s research in drama / literature / theatre theory and history specifically concerned with stage depictions of Shylock. The performances were often used to draw an anti-Semitic caricature rather than reflect Shakespeare’s actual character. Also, there is the matter of reception: how has Shylock been understood by the audience? Since drama theory is part of what an average high schooler learns over here somewhere in either language they learn nowadays, the fate of Shylock is generally understood as that of a tragic hero (those that don’t learn such things generally don’t bother with Shakespeare either). Things certainly were different when Shakespeare served as entertainment for the plebs as well, but at that time, at least in Britain, the Bard’s influence on directing / directors of the play was still strong. Cromwell, as you certainly know, brought about a discontinuity in theatre performances in Britain in general. Shakespeare was as little anti-Semitic as Chaucer, as in consciously anti-Semitic. What Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales reflect was “common sense” anti-Semitism that prevailed in his society. What he probably could not foresee was that through the popularity of the Tales, anti-Semitic stereotypes got spread even farther, but there’s no evidence whatsoever that Chaucer was deliberately anti-Semitic or driven by relgiously motivated anti-Judaism. His Tales sufficiently mock the complacency and shallow piety of much of the clergy of his times.

By: themiddle

themiddle — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 11:08:58 +0000

Froylein, I’ve read essays similar to what you’re saying about the intent of the play and they sound lovely in theory. When I’ve seen the play, it struck me as plainly anti-Semitic. That’s just me and I understand if you disagree, as do many others.

By: Tom Morrissey

Tom Morrissey — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:25:03 +0000

‘He hath disgraced me, and
hindered me half a million; laughed at my losses,
mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my
bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine
enemies; and what’s his reason? I am a Jew. Hath
not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with
the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, healed by the same means,
warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as
a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison
us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not
revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will
resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian,
what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian
wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by
Christian example? Why, revenge. The villany you
teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I
will better the instruction.’