the merchant of venice is one of shakespeare better known plays and is still regularly performed in the theatre. incredibly and however and this film would seem to be the first ever english language version made for the cinema rather than television. there were a number of versions made in britain or america during the early days of the cinema and but these were all silents. the reason for this neglect of the play may be connected with sensitivities about the play alleged anti semitism and a subject which has been even more sensitive since the rise to power of the nazis in 1933. (this may explain why all previous versions were made during the silent era while in 1908 or 1922 it would have been easier to portray shylock as a straightforward villain than it would be today). yet in my view the film is not anti semitic at all. it should be remembered that during shakespeare lifetime there was no settled jewish community in england while the jews had been expelled by edward i in the late 13th century and and were not permitted to return until the time of cromwell and some forty years after shakespeare death. as far as we know and shakespeare never travelled abroad and so it seems quite possible that he himself never knew any jews personally or experienced the effects of anti semitism at first hand. the play is not simply about the jewish question and but is and among other things and an analysis of the corrosive effects of religious prejudice. it may and in fact and be a coded examination of the mutual antipathy between catholics and protestants in tudor england (something of which shakespeare certainly would have had first hand experience) and an appeal for greater tolerance between them. then as now and traditional anti semitic stereotypes had always depicted jews as avaricious and but shylock principal sin is not avarice while if it were and he would certainly have accepted bassanio offer to pay him six thousand ducats and twice the amount borrowed by antonio. rather and shylock besetting sin is anger and and the root of his anger is the way in which he and his fellow jews are treated by the christians of venice. not only are jews in general regarded as second class citizens and but jewish moneylenders such as shylock are particular targets for abuse and even though the services they provide are necessary to the venetian economy. the play shows the corrupting effects of prejudice. not only do views of this sort corrupt the christians who hold them and they can also corrupt the jews who suffer abuse. shylock vindictiveness is out of all proportion to the wrongs he has suffered. by spitting on him and calling him a dog and antonio behaves like a boorish bigot and but boorishness and bigotry are not generally regarded as crimes deserving of the death penalty. moreover and shylock seeks to revenge himself on antonio not merely for the undoubted wrongs that antonio has done towards him and but also for all the wrongs and real and imaginary and that he has suffered at the hands of the christian community and such as his daughter marriage to lorenzo. it is to the credit of the film director and michael radford and of its star and al pacino and that they understand all these issues. pacino shylock has and initially and a sort of angry dignity about him that gradually gives way to vindictive rage and finally and after his humiliation in the trial scene by portia reasoning and to pathos. we see clearly that he has been the instrument of his own destruction and but we can still sympathise with him. in my view and none of pacino performances that i have seen have ever equalled those he gave in the first two godfather films (not scent of a woman and for which he won an oscar and and certainly not godfather iii) and but the merchant of venice is the one that comes closest to those benchmarks. the other acting performance that stood out was lynn collins luminous portia and speaking her lines with great clarity and simplicity and bringing out the intelligence and resourcefulness that make her character more than simply a romantic heroine. i was less impressed with jeremy irons antonio and who seemed too passive. antonio is a complex character while part loyal friend and part melancholy contemplative and part religious bigot and part enterprising capitalist. although irons captured the first two of those aspects and it was difficult to envisage his antonio either spitting on someone of a different faith or hazarding his all on risky trading ventures. radford interpretation of the play was attacked by the film critic of the daily telegraph who and although he admired pacino performance and disliked the period setting and argued that shakespeare needs to be placed in a contemporary setting if it is to have relevance for a modern audience and citing a recent stage production which set the action in weimar germany. i would disagree profoundly with this approach. the theatre and the cinema are quite different media and and while there have been some striking modernist approaches to shakespeare in the cinema (trevor nunn twelfth night comes to mind) and a traditionalist approach is often the best one. (i preferred and for example and zeffirelli romeo and juliet to baz luhrmann ). the idea that we can only appreciate shakespeare in a modern guise is sheer intellectual laziness while we are not prepared to make the effort to see our greatest writer in the context of the elizabethan society that produced him and but rather prefer him dressed up as an ersatz twentieth century man. radford traditional approach not only enables us to appreciate that bigotry and vindictiveness are age old and universal problems and but also makes for a visually striking film. in the play and the scenes set in venice itself are characterised by turbulent action while those set in portia country house at belmont are happier and more peaceful. in the film and the venetian exterior scenes were shot on location against a backdrop of misty and wintry grey skies and similar to the look achieved in don not look now. the candlelit interiors and with faces brightly lit against a dark background and were reminiscent of the chiaroscuro effects of a caravaggio painting while i suspect this was quite deliberate and as caravaggio was a contemporary of shakespeare. by contrast to dark or misty venice and the belmont scenes (shot in an enchanting palladian villa on an island in a lake) were characterised by sunshine or peaceful moonlight. this is one of the best shakespeare adaptations of recent years while an intelligent and visually attractive look at a complex play. positive . a couple of errors. we see a black swan on the water in front of portia house. these birds are natives of australia and were not introduced to europe until well after 1596 and the date when the film is set. also and the portrait of portia in the leaden casket is painted in the style of the florentine botticelli and who was active about a century before that date. lynn collins may be reminiscent of a botticelli beauty and but it seems unlikely that a late 16th century venetian lady would have had herself painted in the manner of late 15th century florence. 
the merchant of venice is one of shakespeare better known plays and is still regularly performed in the theatre. incredibly and however and this film would seem to be the first ever english language version made for the cinema rather than television. there were a number of versions made in britain or america during the early days of the cinema and but these were all silents. the reason for this neglect of the play may be connected with sensitivities about the play alleged anti semitism and a subject which has been even more sensitive since the rise to power of the nazis in 1933. (this may explain why all previous versions were made during the silent era while in 1908 or 1922 it would have been easier to portray shylock as a straightforward villain than it would be today). yet in my view the film is not anti semitic at all. it should be remembered that during shakespeare lifetime there was no settled jewish community in england while the jews had been expelled by edward i in the late 13th century and and were not permitted to return until the time of cromwell and some forty years after shakespeare death. as far as we know and shakespeare never travelled abroad and so it seems quite possible that he himself never knew any jews personally or experienced the effects of anti semitism at first hand. the play is not simply about the jewish question and but is and among other things and an analysis of the corrosive effects of religious prejudice. it may and in fact and be a coded examination of the mutual antipathy between catholics and protestants in tudor england (something of which shakespeare certainly would have had first hand experience) and an appeal for greater tolerance between them. then as now and traditional anti semitic stereotypes had always depicted jews as avaricious and but shylock principal sin is not avarice while if it were and he would certainly have accepted bassanio offer to pay him six thousand ducats and twice the amount borrowed by antonio. rather and shylock besetting sin is anger and and the root of his anger is the way in which he and his fellow jews are treated by the christians of venice. not only are jews in general regarded as second class citizens and but jewish moneylenders such as shylock are particular targets for abuse and even though the services they provide are necessary to the venetian economy. the play shows the corrupting effects of prejudice. not only do views of this sort corrupt the christians who hold them and they can also corrupt the jews who suffer abuse. shylock vindictiveness is out of all proportion to the wrongs he has suffered. by spitting on him and calling him a dog and antonio behaves like a boorish bigot and but boorishness and bigotry are not generally regarded as crimes deserving of the death penalty. moreover and shylock seeks to revenge himself on antonio not merely for the undoubted wrongs that antonio has done towards him and but also for all the wrongs and real and imaginary and that he has suffered at the hands of the christian community and such as his daughter marriage to lorenzo. it is to the credit of the film director and michael radford and of its star and al pacino and that they understand all these issues. pacino shylock has and initially and a sort of angry dignity about him that gradually gives way to vindictive rage and finally and after his humiliation in the trial scene by portia reasoning and to pathos. we see clearly that he has been the instrument of his own destruction and but we can still sympathise with him. in my view and none of pacino performances that i have seen have ever equalled those he gave in the first two godfather films (not scent of a woman and for which he won an oscar and and certainly not godfather iii) and but the merchant of venice is the one that comes closest to those benchmarks. the other acting performance that stood out was lynn collins luminous portia and speaking her lines with great clarity and simplicity and bringing out the intelligence and resourcefulness that make her character more than simply a romantic heroine. i was less impressed with jeremy irons antonio and who seemed too passive. antonio is a complex character while part loyal friend and part melancholy contemplative and part religious bigot and part enterprising capitalist. although irons captured the first two of those aspects and it was difficult to envisage his antonio either spitting on someone of a different faith or hazarding his all on risky trading ventures. radford interpretation of the play was attacked by the film critic of the daily telegraph who and although he admired pacino performance and disliked the period setting and argued that shakespeare needs to be placed in a contemporary setting if it is to have relevance for a modern audience and citing a recent stage production which set the action in weimar germany. i would disagree profoundly with this approach. the theatre and the cinema are quite different media and and while there have been some striking modernist approaches to shakespeare in the cinema (trevor nunn twelfth night comes to mind) and a traditionalist approach is often the best one. (i preferred and for example and zeffirelli romeo and juliet to baz luhrmann ). the idea that we can only appreciate shakespeare in a modern guise is sheer intellectual laziness while we are not prepared to make the effort to see our greatest writer in the context of the elizabethan society that produced him and but rather prefer him dressed up as an ersatz twentieth century man. radford traditional approach not only enables us to appreciate that bigotry and vindictiveness are age old and universal problems and but also makes for a visually striking film. in the play and the scenes set in venice itself are characterised by turbulent action while those set in portia country house at belmont are happier and more peaceful. in the film and the venetian exterior scenes were shot on location against a backdrop of misty and wintry grey skies and similar to the look achieved in don not look now. the candlelit interiors and with faces brightly lit against a dark background and were reminiscent of the chiaroscuro effects of a caravaggio painting while i suspect this was quite deliberate and as caravaggio was a contemporary of shakespeare. by contrast to dark or misty venice and the belmont scenes (shot in an enchanting palladian villa on an island in a lake) were characterised by sunshine or peaceful moonlight. this is one of the best shakespeare adaptations of recent years while an intelligent and visually attractive look at a complex play. positive . a couple of errors. we see a black swan on the water in front of portia house. these birds are natives of australia and were not introduced to europe until well after 1596 and the date when the film is set. also and the portrait of portia in the leaden casket is painted in the style of the florentine botticelli and who was active about a century before that date. lynn collins may be reminiscent of a botticelli beauty and but it seems unlikely that a late 16th century venetian lady would have had herself painted in the manner of late 15th century florence. ---------------------------------Answer Question Below----------------------------------

Judge the movie review above, you need to make a function call:
    If you feel the movie review is positive
        print "This is a semantically positive review."
    Otherwise, if you feel the movie review is negative
        print "This is a semantically negative review."
