I would've loved to have seen that, Pryce is a remarkable actor. How did he play him- as a villain, a dignified victim of persecution, or something else?
The show began with some Venetian faggotry where a bunch of people in masks were dancing around to clarinet and drums and having a jolly time until two Jews happened to walk by them, then they spat on them and shoved them. It was fawwwkin brutal. So the whole theme of anti-semitism was stressed from the very beginning. Pryce played Shylock sympathetically, the worst you could say was that he came off as a stingy, curmudgeonly old man. The other leads really came off as a bunch of jerks in the play.
There was some blithering old cunt a few rows behind me who kept talking during the second act. I wanted to punch her very badly.
Modern stage directors should all be killed in a fire. They always feel they have to add a thousand things to the text.
The truth is Shylock is neither moustache-twirling villain nor a noble victim- he's a complex figure that has elements of both, and also has a lot of self-deprecating humour and he's also embarrassed at times. But modern directors are afraid to show Shylock's bad side even though it's in the text- so now we're back to the era of 2d heros and 2d villains instead of shaded characters that were common over 400 years ago. Because they're afraid of being called anti-semitic.
Even Shakespeare is politically correct now. I want to die. And Opera productions are even worse.
Well I didn't think it was a bad production. Although I did find the juxtaposition between light-hearted comedy and the intense prejudice a bit jarring. Like you'd see Antonio and Bassanio joking around when five minutes ago they'd been spitting in Shylock's face. There were some liberties definitely (point in case the beginning, but that was mostly to set the mood, it's not like they inserted any heavy-handed dialogue - "get out of here you fucking kikes!"). I don't know what the pussy who wrote that review saw that triggered him so hard.
When I read The Merchant of Venice in school I always thought Shylock got stiffed. He gave the guy a loan and wanted to be paid back, then got screwed in a fake court case. This makes Italians look bad.
I fucked up the title, I thought the two characters confronting Shylock in this scene were Antonio and Salarino, it's actually Salanio and Salerio. Fucking guinea names...
12 comments
2 ActualTourettesGuy 2016-08-07
The Merchant of Venice in 2016? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
(I attended that production within the last week or so. Pryce was vurry good as Shylock.)
4 CoolerKing37 2016-08-07
Well, that article was irritating. At least 99% of the comments called him out on it.
2 [deleted] 2016-08-07
I would've loved to have seen that, Pryce is a remarkable actor. How did he play him- as a villain, a dignified victim of persecution, or something else?
Also, I want whoever wrote that article to die.
3 ActualTourettesGuy 2016-08-07
The show began with some Venetian faggotry where a bunch of people in masks were dancing around to clarinet and drums and having a jolly time until two Jews happened to walk by them, then they spat on them and shoved them. It was fawwwkin brutal. So the whole theme of anti-semitism was stressed from the very beginning. Pryce played Shylock sympathetically, the worst you could say was that he came off as a stingy, curmudgeonly old man. The other leads really came off as a bunch of jerks in the play.
There was some blithering old cunt a few rows behind me who kept talking during the second act. I wanted to punch her very badly.
4 [deleted] 2016-08-07
Modern stage directors should all be killed in a fire. They always feel they have to add a thousand things to the text.
The truth is Shylock is neither moustache-twirling villain nor a noble victim- he's a complex figure that has elements of both, and also has a lot of self-deprecating humour and he's also embarrassed at times. But modern directors are afraid to show Shylock's bad side even though it's in the text- so now we're back to the era of 2d heros and 2d villains instead of shaded characters that were common over 400 years ago. Because they're afraid of being called anti-semitic.
Even Shakespeare is politically correct now. I want to die. And Opera productions are even worse.
3 ActualTourettesGuy 2016-08-07
Well I didn't think it was a bad production. Although I did find the juxtaposition between light-hearted comedy and the intense prejudice a bit jarring. Like you'd see Antonio and Bassanio joking around when five minutes ago they'd been spitting in Shylock's face. There were some liberties definitely (point in case the beginning, but that was mostly to set the mood, it's not like they inserted any heavy-handed dialogue - "get out of here you fucking kikes!"). I don't know what the pussy who wrote that review saw that triggered him so hard.
2 Tom_Stall 2016-08-07
When I read The Merchant of Venice in school I always thought Shylock got stiffed. He gave the guy a loan and wanted to be paid back, then got screwed in a fake court case. This makes Italians look bad.
2 Really_Big_Dummy 2016-08-07
Shakespeare called Shylock "a dog jew", which proves he's not anti-semitic. To an anti-semite 'dog jew' would be redundant.
1 [deleted] 2016-08-07
But the question is does a dog even have money? Can a dog lend 3000 ducats?
2 Really_Big_Dummy 2016-08-07
You're uncovering more holes in an anti-semite's logic than a jew-claims he has in his pockets when someone asks for spare change.
1 [deleted] 2016-08-07
I fucked up the title, I thought the two characters confronting Shylock in this scene were Antonio and Salarino, it's actually Salanio and Salerio. Fucking guinea names...
1 eastriverdriveII 2016-08-07
Belissima! Grazie.
2 Really_Big_Dummy 2016-08-07
You're uncovering more holes in an anti-semite's logic than a jew-claims he has in his pockets when someone asks for spare change.