THE MERCHANT OF VENICE
Directed by Michael Radford
In theatres
(***)
Subscribe to Hollywood North Magazine
Written By: John H. Foote
     Something happened to Al Pacino’s acting after the failure of Revolution (1985). The revered thespian of the seventies took three years off before returning to film with work in Sea of Love (1988), The Godfather Part III (1990), Dick Tracy (1990) and Scent of a Woman (1992) for which he won an Academy Award as best actor. There was something larger about Pacino’s performances, in both the presentation and the volume, as though he was trying to hard to reach an audience. In Scent of a Woman (1992) he gives a wildly over the top performance that somehow earned him an Oscar and since then he has been portraying variations on the same role. His acting is louder and obvious; for the first time in his career, over these last ten years we can see him “acting”. Perhaps the only exception to this was his work in Donnie Brasco (1997) in which he shared the screen the screen with Johnny Depp, the most subtle of actors and perhaps Pacino saw that in Depp and recognized if he went over the top, the performance would become ridiculous. Much was made of his performance in Heat (1995) opposite Robert De Niro, yet again Pacino yells his lines with one notable exception, his sequence with De Niro in the diner. De Niro plays the scene quietly and pulls Pacino down to his level of realism making this the finest scene in this over praised film.
 
  Just because he is Al Pacino does not give him the right to go into the upper ranges of hysteria and get away with it. I know several critics who worship at the feet of Pacino and will rant and rave about anything he does, which is their right to do so. However, they simply know nothing about acting. The art of acting is something organic, ever growing, ever evolving, and Pacino has simply not grown these last ten years. He is locked into this mode and that seems to be that. Gone forever it seems is the introspective Pacino of The Godfather (1972), Serpico (1973), The Godfather Part II (1974), his finest work incidentally, and Dog Day Afternoon (1975).
 
  I remember watching him as Satan in The Devil’s Advocate (1997) and wondering why the Devil, why this all powerful being would have to roar every single line of dialogue? Watching Viggo Mortenson in The Prophecy (1996) portray the Devil and whisper every line was vastly more terrifying…what was Pacino thinking? Or is it that young directors simply stand in awe of him and refuse to give him direction allowing him to indulge himself with these overly energized performances?
  
Just when one thinks there is no hope, as seems to be the case with Robert De Niro, a performance comes along that reminds one of what a wonderful actor Pacino can be.
  
Al Pacino’s love of the works of William Shakespeare is well known within the film and theatre community as the actor has given himself over to many roles on stage in plays written by the Bard. Most famous is his Richard III which electrified audiences first in the seventies, and again in a remount, and yet again in Pacino’s fine self directed documentary Looking for Richard (1995).
  
His performance as Shylock in Michael Radford’s film of Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice is a breathtaking performance, sly and cagey, bold and courageous. I daresay this is simply the finest Shylock I have ever seen. The veteran actor brings to the role everything the Bard required of him allowing him to be shrewd, vengeful and eventually humbled and humiliated, all of which Pacino captures to utter perfection in his great soulful eyes. His face covered in a graying and bushy beard, his eyes bright and alert though wounded by life, he resembles an aging lion at war with the society around him.
  
Shylock has grown wealthy by money lending in old Venice, yet still faces danger or indignity when he leaves the Jewish quarter of the city. In this same city lives Antonio (Jeremy Irons), who borrows from Shylock money to stake his young friend Basinio (Joseph Fiennes) so he may win the hand of the lovely Portia (Lynn Collins), the stage is set for a battle of the wills, and a revenge plotted by Shylock that will ultimately blow up in his face. Secretly Shylock hates Antonio and wants him to default on the loan so he may claim his pound of flesh (literally).  Wanting his revenge he instead suffers loss upon loss, humiliation upon humiliation, until he reaches his breaking point. Stripped of being a Jew, is forcibly converted to Christianity and made an outcast, while those who have done him wrong, (oh how they do him wrong) end up living happily ever after. Yet Shylock, whom we have grown to admire and develop sympathy for, loses all he holds dear for all the wrong reasons.
 
  Pacino is brilliant in the role of Shylock, bringing to it a humanity one does not expect. This is a man who has fought and put up with racism, made a healthy living and when he is able to make money by loaning it he does. However, he expects to be paid back or the borrower shall pay a steep price. When Antonio is unable to pay the loan, Shylock lands in the courts convinced the law will back him because he is morally right. Instead he receives a vicious lesson in how the justice works when there is prejudice at work. Pacino’s face throughout the courtroom sequence is a mask of tension he slowly realizes he has no chance of seeing justice, and in fact, it was all decided before he entered the court because of his race. Pacino burrows deep under the skin of the character and creates a living breathing person as opposed to the caricature Shylock often is portrayed as being. This is a man who has been ill used, who has worked to have a fortune against the odds, and when he loans money he expects it to be paid back. Yet nothing is in his favour, including the law because he is a Jew.
  
Radford does a brilliant job keeping the film alive, which is important when adapting Shakespeare to the screen. Far too often many of us have sat through stage productions of the Bard’s work that were little more than recitations of the lines as opposed to being a play with action. Shakespeare’s work is alive, it has humour, it can be erotic and violent, and for the most part is altogether brilliant. When brought to cinema it is important the director recognize that audiences want to see a story and not just actors reciting the lines. The greatest Shakespearean works brought to the screen include Richard III (1956), Macbeth (1971), and Kenneth Branagh’s massive Hamlet (1996). While this The Merchant of Venice is not quite among the greatest, largely due to the weaknesses in the supporting cast, Pacino’s towering work makes it one of the better adaptations.
  
Considering Radford has a strong supporting cast, I am surprised he fails them as a director and that they find nothing in the characters to give over to the audience. Joseph Fiennes is dreary and drab, Jeremy Irons (who is vastly over rated) weak and Lynn Collins simply lacks the experience to do this sort of thing, leaving the stage open for Pacino to steal the film, which he does.
 
  Considering the film was shot on such a miniscule budget, I was astonished at the manner in which Radford recreatesVeniceof the 1600’s. The production values are superb, plunging the audience back to the time flawlessly.
  
This film premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival and drew Oscar chatter for Pacino; while I do not believe that will happen, it did bring back some admiration for his work.









© Copyright 2004 Hollywood North Magazine Inc.