CPG, you did not like the play??????? Please explain that one!!!

I'm stunned. You did not like the play itself -- The Merchant of Venice??????

OK. I will attempt to be brief. To me theater is personal and contextual.

First the production:

I love Shakespeare. I've studied it and taught it. But I am no expert. I had never seen MOV before nor had I read the entire play. I did read about it in "Tales from Shakespeare" by Charles and Mary Lamb before going (does anyone have that book?). Just a quirk of mine: I prefer my Shakespeare as he wrote it when it comes to setting. I find it a detraction when a production is set in a later time with garb to match. Actually, I think most productions that I've seen of Sh's plays have not been faithful in that area. Additionally and unfortunately, Lily Rabe who was to play Portia was out due to the death of her mother, Jill Clayburgh. The understudy, who is a good actress, was at least 15 years too old for the part. Had I been sitting in the back or upstairs, it probably wouldn't have mattered. But we were close and she is no young girl! The actor playing her love, Bassanio, was the weakest link in the cast. He just couldn't do it for me. I didn't care for the background music, but that is minor. As for Pacino, he is a master craftsman. His performance is nuanced in his inflections, body language, etc. It's all so seamless and consistent. I cannot compare his Shylock to another, but I certainly enjoyed him and as I said earlier, I'm glad that I had the opportunity to see him on stage.

The play:

I know that many of you may feel differently, but this is how I feel. And it has to do with the portrayal of Shylock as a Jew. The play is certainly accurate with Jews being excluded from most business that men conduct; it is part of the staging where 'fences' on stage are used to exclude them. And it is certainly accurate that many went into money lending because they weren't restricted from that. Shylock is called a cur, a dog, spat on, etc. because he is a Jew. And he is also a bad guy seeking revenge. What bothers me (and not only in this play - I felt it in 'Scottsboro Boys' and 'Caroline of Change') is the stereotype about ALL Jews, not just the individual character in the play. This can be very powerful as well as dangerous. I think some audience members, in any era, can leave thinking that someone like Shylock can be typical.

Did you see the movie version with Pacino? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379889/

If you are bothered by groups portrayed as stereotypes, your love of theatre must be very limited indeed. There are few plays in which individuals do not represent groups and therefore become stereotypes. Fiddler on the Roof, Legally Blonde, Hairspray, La Cage aux Folles, West Side Story, Macbeth, Othello, Death of a Salesman. . . well the list is endless. . . all could be termed exactly the same. The audiences could all leave thinking that a character in any of them can be typical.

NP - I'm not going to dissect your whole list, but they are not the same. We learn that Elle Woods in LB, for example, is NOT what her stereotype appears to be and she prevails in the end and is quite a sympathetic character. You have a lot of knowledge about theater and I do enjoy reading your views, but comments like "your love of theatre must be very limited indeed," are not only unnecessary, but detract from the points you want to make about theater. I say this most sincerely: please leave the personal stuff out and just share your thoughts about theater.

mclaurie - No. I didn't see it, but now I'm curious about it.

In today's NYTimes a protest about the Scottsboro Boys:

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/20...t/?ref=theater

I had read M of V in college and was pretty appalled at the time. Fast forward umpteen years later and I saw the Pacino movie. It was OUTSTANDING, but the story is still the same and still pretty upsetting. The movie is in period and I urge you to rent it.....after you've had a bit of time to think about the play.

Separately....have you or anyone else seen La Bete?

Gee, and here I thought this thread was to DISCUSS theatre, meaning that we can each offer opposing viewpoints. Guess not.
I won't get into the argument since you apparently don't want anyone to explain why Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice is considered a great play (not by me, but my most of the world) -- including the part about how Shylock changes and grows -- moving out of the stereotype much like Elle. OMG, are we really comparing Legally Blond to a true masterpiece here? LOL

But if you want me to avoid any discussion other than saying "yes, you are right, Merchant of Venice really isn't a very good play" then I'll try to restrain myself from honest comments. Sorry I offended with the "limited" comment, but I will maintain that theatre is theatre and mainly stereotypes of characters is what it is all about. So if a person is offended anytime a character is portrayed as a sterotype, a whole lot of plays are instantly removed from his list of plays he can appreciate. I honestly thought that was what you were saying -- that you didn't like Shakespeare's play because Shylock is too much of a stereotype.

I sensed some uneasiness on your part before when I tried to rationalize about Scottsboro Boys and what some other viewers were saying and again I got the feeling you only wanted to hear total agreement with your opinion. If you want me to stay off your threads if I happen to have an opposing viewpoint then please say so, and I promise I will. I apologize for offending you.

I'll add another dimension of disagreement into the Shakespeare "discussion": The simple fact that his plays can be portrayed in a different time period than originally written and be effective and meaningful only adds to the greatness and universality of Shakespeare's works!

And after having some time to think about the above comments, I'm still kind of scratching my head.

cpg, you said "I say this most sincerely: please leave the personal stuff out and just share your thoughts about theater."

How does one express his own personal thoughts about theatre and leave the personal stuff out? I suppose I could have said something like "in my humble opinion I feel that stereotypes are common in theatre so if one doesn't like to see stereotypes in a play then his choices of plays are limited." Would that have seemed less personal? Basically it is exactly what I said, I just don't go around sugar coating things and why must anyone keep saying "it's only MY opinion", when of course that's what all of this is. Shouldn't that be obvious and not every comment be considered a personal attack because it conveys a different opinion from someone else? If this is an opinion thread (and I thought it was) then certainly people will identify or not identify with comments made about specific plays and plays in general. I'm really not sure how one avoids that. If someone says something like "I hate musicals because they are generally for those who only want light fluff" then why should someone be offended because they happen to like musicals? It's just two opposing opinions. If you are hurt when someone makes a comment which seems to oppose what you believe in, then I honestly think you need to develop thicker skin or else make clear you don't want to hear any opposing opinions on your personal threads.

Patrick and Howard, I haven't seen this latest MoV (I will in January), but will ask this question -- might a modern dress performance of this play feel more offensive to some theater-goers than a traditional piece? By virtue of placing a piece of history into a modern framework, it can feel somewhat confusing to the senses. The context makes it seem too immediate and therefore an assault to our sense of right and wrong in today's world. We like to think we've matured beyond these stereotypes, are able to watch it as history, but don't care to see it set out as a road map for the world we live in today. JMHO....what do you think?

TC, my initial reaction to your question is this: The fact that it can have such relevance and strong reactions today reaffirm the validity and strength of the play itself, that it can resonate so strongly after several centuries!

TC, yes I agree that a modern dress performance can make it too immediate and therefore "hit a little too close to home" to some, and then indeed it might offend more than setting it in the distant past. And interestingly Shakespeare was often doing just the opposite. He set plays in far away places and sometimes far away times so that they wouldn't seem so "immediate". It's even likely that he set Merchant of Venice in far away Italy as making them "London characters" would have been too offensive to some. But then they took far away and distant Romeo and Juliet and made it into West Side Story -- and it actually hit a little too close to home for some. I had an English teacher who was shocked when West Side Story came out because it was so offensive -- putting Shakespeare in the setting of New York gangs and murders. Duh? Wasn't that the point?
I guess my basic comment about MOV was that I didn't understand "I didn't like the play" and not just "I didn't like the production" -- two very different concepts. It seemed to me to suggest that possibly if there is something that really offends or raises eyebrows in a production then it's "not a very good play" or that has given a reason not to like the play, while my thought is usually that that is exactly what makes it a good play and one to like.

NP - I started my post with the statement that I know that many may feel differently. A discussion is an expression of DIFFERENT view points and I'm never put off by that as long as people are respectful of one another. I have many friends who I discuss theater with and we have different opinions more often than not. It makes life interesting and we each learn other points of view - whether we ultimately agree or not. It's not your opposing view point that I object to (and I did also say that I enjoy reading your views - did you read that?). I don't know how to be clearer than that. Maybe reading someone else's viewpoint may enlighten me and I welcome that, but what I oppose to on ANY thread is the putting down of someone (in this case me) to make a point.
> This is judgmental, unnecessary and insulting. That's the 'personal' that I refer to. I think it may be your style; maybe you don't realize that it's insulting, but it is. As for this thread, it's open to everyone - theater lovers, the curious, whomever.

mclaurie - I'm not sure when, but I definitely will view it at some point. Thanks for the suggestion.

btw- I wouldn't say the dress in MOV was modern - more like 19th century. I prefer the original. One of the worst I've seen - for many reasons - was Denzel Washington in 'Julius Caesar' in modern army fatigues.

CPG, thanks for clarifying. I never even realized that you were taking "you" to mean YOU specifically. That was not meant as a putdown. But when I said "If you are bothered by groups portrayed as stereotypes, your love of theatre must be very limited indeed" I guess I should have said "if a person is bothered. . ." so it wouldn't seem aimed specifically at you? I was certainly intending to mean "anyone who is bothered by stereotypes. . . " and not aimed at you as some sort of personal slam. I'm really not sure how I could make the point that limiting plays a person likes to only those that don't stereotype people would limit the number of plays they like without offending people who feel that way. That's not "judgmental" exactly, it's simply stating a logical conclusion!

But the way you're now sarcastically saying things like "did you read that" shows that you clearly have a much more difficult time accepting opposing opinions than I do. I never deliberately meant anything I said to be sarcastic -- you clearly did. And maybe YOU don't realize that was insulting, but it WAS! And I think much more deliberately insulting than my comment which was not meant to be a personal slam. Again I fully apologize for stating that I feel most plays contain stereotypes, and I'm sorry that such a statement made you take personal offense or that I was judging you. It was not intended that way. It was simply a thought, and I still have no clue how I could have expressed that thought without your taking offense since you felt it was aimed specifically at you personally.

NP - It's not unusual to interpret 'you' as 'you' in a post written as a response to someone. You (meaning NP) seem to enjoy this endless hairsplitting game of semantics and insulting banter. I do not. There was not one sarcastic comment in anything I wrote and I was totally cordial to you. I am interested in theater and civil discussions. Say what you will - in a monologue - because I am done with responding to this.

CPG, this is your fourth post about this issue -- count 'em. Clearly you DO enjoy this hairsplitting game of semantics -- more than I do. There was no "insulting banter" until you started it with your snide "did you read that?", but I will NOT continue it. For the fourth and final time -- I am sorry I offended, insulted, or embarrassed you with my thought or comment that those who don't like plays with stereotypes are limiting the plays they like. I apologize. Get it? Do you now want my pound of flesh too? Please, could we go back to discussing theatre? As much as you want to rant, it is clear you DO and DID take offense that I disagreed with your opinion about stereotypes in plays. That is clear. It was only my opinion. I can't apologize enough that it is different from yours and therefore has so greatly upset you. Please try to get over it.

I didn't understand "I didn't like the play" and not just "I didn't like the production" --

Patrick, I hear you. However, don't you think many theater goers use these two terms interchangeably? I know I have to watch my words when discussing the production vs the play. Hopefully its a forgivable mistake. In casual conversation we do reference current productions as "the play I saw last night", so its not too far out of line. That's all I have to add.

TC, yes of course you are right, and it is often hard to know if a person simply didn't like the production or if he really didn't like the play as well.

However in this particular case, the poster clearly said, "I did not like the play nor the production", so it was clear she was talking about not liking the play itself as well as not liking the production. That's fine and her right of course.

cpg, thanks for your thoughtful comments and sharing your personal observations. It is very much appreciated.
The link is very interesting reading.