Al Pacino and Jeremy Irons command the screen in this adaptation. Although Pacino uses his hands too much, at time laughably excessive, he still makes it quite clear what he says and he gives a brilliant portrayal of Shylock. We see everything that one looks for in Shylock: aggression, pity, etc. The contradictions are all seen are done beautifully by Pacino. And Irons does a great job as Antonio. As always, whenever I see him on screen, I don’t want to look at anyone else, even Pacino. His body language, his voice, his very presence and aura just command attention and this film is no different.
The other actors are good, Joseph Fiennes for one. He, like his brother, is a great Shakespearean actor who knows how to give the lines and knows how to tell the viewer his goals and his thoughts distinctly. He also starred in one of my previous reviews, Shakespeare in Love. Then there is Lynn Collins (can be seen in John Carter), who also is quite amazing as Portia.
Other than these actors, there really isn’t much great about this film adaptation. The sets are well built, but there is constant nudity. There is no point to most of the objects and people that are seen on screen. Scenes that take place in the market are ones filled with prostitutes and sexual acts. Also, the director doesn’t seem to fully connect the entire story together. It is realistic of the times, but it just seems pointless to the story that they are telling. In many times of the film, it feels like Michael Radford wants to focus on other things and themes rather than on the story by use of symbolism or emphasis on lines.
The great acting is the only thing that saves this film. Almost everything else in this film falls short, in terms of storytelling, the editing of the play text, and the mise-en-scene and the direction of these all work against the film and the story.
**
No comments:
Post a Comment