Review of the movie 'The Merchant of Venice'

The Merchant of Venice – Michael Ratford

This is a cinematic adaptation of the Shakespearian classic. Unlike contemporary movies on other books like Macbeth, the narrative remains faithful to the original and is not adapted to the present age. The Shakespearean dialogues sound a bit incongruous, as they are being mouthed by well know actors (Al Pacino, Jeremy Irons), but the sets and props are evocative of an era bygone.

The movie begins with a chaotic scene of Venice and a voice - over narrating the antagonistic relationship between the Christians (the dominant community) and the Jews (the much hated and maligned usurers). The scene depicts Jews being heckled by the Christians and the stage for the movie is set when Antonio (Irons) spits on the face of Shylock (Pacino). The look on the Shylock’s face is priceless – a combination of impotent fury and malignance. The movie moves on two tracks – the main story of the bond between Shylock and Antonio and the somewhat subsidiary love story of Portia (Lynn Collins) and Bassanio (Joseph Fiennes). Shakespeare had written the story on these two tracks – one morbid and the other light – so it is inescapable in the movie. However, I suspect, the movie would have been much tighter and gripping if it had only the Shylock – Antonio incident. (Blasphemous thought I guess.)

The star of the movie is undoubtedly Al Pacino. He elevates the character of Shylock, from a mere moneylender, to a man consumed by the demons of that age. He craves recognition, love and respect of his peers. He seethes with righteous indignation at the injustice meted out to the Jewish clan. He, indeed, seems to have an almost love – hate relationship with Antonio. One suspects that his morbid and dastardly action at demanding Antonio’s pound of flesh has more to do with his frustration at not being accepted as an equal. The movie and more poignantly the original play seems to be very prescient in outlining the irrational racial prejudice and the resultant ‘clash of civilizations’ argument that are so much in vogue in today’s troubled times. Indeed the crux of the story can be probably encapsulated in the following monologue of Shylock:

“To bait fish withal: if it will feed nothing else, it will feed my revenge. He hath disgraced me, and hindered me half a million; laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies; and what's his reason? I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villany you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction”

To me, Al Pacino is the star of the show. He is the chief, indeed, the only reason that is sufficient to see this movie. He makes excellent use of his gravelly voice, his eyes and the half mocking, half cynical look on his face and manages to create as much sympathy as a purely dark character like Shylock can possibly evoke. Antonio’s character too is very complex and is competently essayed by Jeremy Irons. He is a product of his times – a paradoxical person – a Jew baiter yet a person with a sense of justice and fair play. The rest of the actors have been aptly cast and lend credible support to the narrative.

The length of the movie is a shade too long and that is probably keeping in tune with the leisurely pace in which stories/plays were meant to be woven in the Shakespearean era. Me, an imbecilic viewer (nay consumer) of typical Hollywood fare would have preferred a tighter, edited script and a shorter running time.

Contributor - Sachin Desai

Pragmatic Mathematic

Why is Mathematics a most unpopular subject amongst students ? Maths as taught in schools and colleges is best confined to sterile, fusty, obtuse textbooks – it is rigid, unwieldy and outdated. There is an over-abundance of rules, infinite theorems and each with a chain of at least 3 lemna ! Maths that could be relevant in one’s daily life, that too in Kalyug, needs to be far more flexible and adaptable.

Maybe Maths in junior classes could continue to be taught the current way – with a fixed set of rules, minimum number of variables and fixed outcomes. After all, young minds cannot grasp too much complexity and uncertainty would only confuse them.

But in later years, once a strong foundation had been laid, the teaching model to follow should be different, it would be more like macroeconomics classes – where all kinds of microvariables impinge upon the outcome and anything at all could happen depending upon the relative proportions and strengths of the various variables.

The most simple instance of this could be the basic equation ‘2+2=4’, which one has been taught to accept as the gospel truth. But could ‘2+2’ not be equal to 5 for infinitely large values of 2 ? Alternately the value could perhaps be less than four for infinitesimally low values of 2 ? It is perhaps naïve on our part to assume that 2 has a fixed value. There could even be a set of social, environmental and moral conditions which make the two 2’s antagonistic and the value of ‘2+2’ equal to zero. The possibilities are endless and could have weighty implications for mankind.

Review of Bihari song

Bihari Song :
saasooji tera laadlaa love you, love you kehta hai
saasooji tera laadlaa love you, love you kehta hai
saasooji tera laadlaa love you, love you kehta hai
saasooji tera laadlaa love you, love you kehta hai
saasooji tera laadlaa love you, love you kehta hai
saasooji tera laadlaa love you, love you kehta hai
saasooji tera laadlaa love you, love you kehta hai

Review :
Fascinating.
Notice the formal incantatory structure, with it's hint of temple chants and sacred ritual, so reminiscent of Nietszche's idea of infinite return, and a wonderful allegory for the mindless repetitiveness of life in the late 20th Century. Notice also the abrupt changes in language, signifying the essential confusion of the narrator and his struggle to find identity in a rapidly changing multi-cultural world, where traditional norms are collapsing like nine-pins in a bowling alley. Finally, note also the brilliance of that comma, deftly inserted between the two "love you"s - a simile for the essential division between man and man, for the impossibility, even in the face of true love of uniting two human souls and the consequent necessity of some distance, if only a heartbeat of a punctuation mark, between them.

The other interesting thing about this song is the similarities between the form here and traditional folk songs / ballads from elsewhere in the world. I'm reminded for instance, of the classic Edwardian hunting ballads ("With a heigh ho! the wind and the rain" type stuff) or of how a favourite conceit in classical music (both choral music and Indian classical) is the repetition of the same line, though with different stresses. Think Bach cantatas. Admittedly, the song does suffer a little from the lack of a punch line (I'm reminded of this episode ofJeeves and Wooster where Stinker Pinker is singing a hunting song at the village festival which consists of the single line "A hunting we will go" repeated over and over again), but it more than makes up for this with the wonderful alliterations of the s and l sounds.

Review of ' The feast of the goat' by Mario Vargas Llosa

This semi fictional semi realistic novel recaptures the dictatorship of Trujjilo (the ‘Goat’) who was the brutal dictator of the Dominician Republic from 1930 until his assassination in 1961. The novel unfolds with the visit of Urania Cabral, a successful New York lawyer and the daughter of one of the chief lackeys of the Goat. Her unbridled hatred of her father and the recounting of crucial events during the dictatorship, the assassination, the reprisals and the political machinations post the assassination make for a fascinating and insightful study into the ‘mind’ of a dictatorship.

This novel works on several levels – it’s a powerful subject, handled with intensity. Inspite of being written as a series of flashbacks, the story never loses its fluidity and keeps you involved to the very end. The most important takeaway from the book, for me, is more on a micro level. While many books deal with the effect of dictatorship on the country at large, this is the first novel that I have read dealing with the shattering effect of a dictatorship on the people closest to the dictator and their families. Also Trujjilo’s skilful handling of the people around him - keeping them on tenterhooks and playing one off another - is a classic lesson for politicians of all hues. The language is taut and the description of the events leading to the assassination and the actual deed inspire a rush of adrenalin and literally explode on the pages. The torture and reprisals of the population, complete with the mock trials, is brutal and eerily reminds me of the various riots and atrocities that have taken place in India over the last few decades.

This novel is a must read for all people living in democracies who sometimes lament about the bumbling nature of progress in a democratic system and pine for dictatorial rule. Dictatorships and authoritarian rule of any sort breed pure evil. Denying dissent is but a mere step away from denying the right to a life itself.