This is the board where I'm gonna find Shakespeare people, right? Listen, I wanna watch (or listen to) Merchant of Venice. I'd prefer the text not be altered and Shylock be portrayed as sympathetically as possible. Tell me what version I'm going to watch (or listen to) tonight, be it audio book/drama, film adaptation, or whatever.
Pic related, I'm gonna have to default to this if I don't get a recc.
>just read the script
No. Shakespeare's dialogue can't be read. It has to be performed.
>I'd Shylock be portrayed as sympathetically as possible
Go back to leftypol
Shakespeare was a Catholic who hated democracy, women, and Jews, had homoerotic tendencies, and appreciated a good cuck joke. He was redpilled, just like me, and wouldn't stand for such bullshit
>Shakespeare's dialogue can't be read. It has to be performed.
ironic shitposting is still shitposting
I'm only being half-ironic. I'm also being neo-sincere, because to pretend that Shakespeare wanted Shylock to be seen exclusively in a sympathetic light robs his work of all nuance and artistry. It makes the play more palatable to progressive tastes, and thus dumber and more superficial
time to take a break from the internet for awhile, my dude.
I could be wrong, but since there is not any comma after altered, I think he's specifically saying he doesn't want a version making shylock anything other than a villain
His best plays were about sympathetic people doing awful shit, but it's hard to tell how Merchant of Venice was made to be played because of the time period it was written in.
That's absolutely retarded. A sympathetic antagonist is far more nuanced than an unsympathetic one. Go watch some more Marvel movies.
I know it was a bait post, but Shakespeare was an Anglican Protestant.
>Shakespeare's dialogue can't be read. It has to be performed
kill yourself you fucking idiot
If you're not acting out the play with accents and gestures then it's not an authentic reading, and you can't claim to have understood it
This is the type of guy who has to show all of his work in math.
>Shakespeare's dialogue can't be read. It has to be performed.
Nigga, do you think I can actually understand that Elizabethian dialogue without someone placing emphasis on every correct part?
I can't believe I'm 11 posts into this thread without any kind of recommendation. I heard Veeky Forums was for patricians, but you guys are just as bad as /tv/. I guess I'm gonna have to watch the movie version, which almost certainly cuts things out for "time."
It's not about authenticity. It's about my inability to actually understand what I'm reading.
nigga just read the script. Most editions nowadays have explanatory notes if you cannot understand the early modern English, which are much more of a help than dramatic emphasis of a performance. While there is merit in watching an actual play, it is usually better to read the source material first to get a better understanding of how the direction of the particular rendition differs from the Shakespearean plot and alters its elements. Your query of which one is better, or unaltered, ect. can easily be assuaged with a quick google search. You ran the risk of shitposting when you made the thread.
Dude, learn to read.
You are for some reason purely dealing with extremities.
You don't know what you are talking about. For your sake and others', stop posting this instant.
Don't be such a close minded individual. The odds are you have the ability to read Shakespeare. There's no worry or wont about pronunciation because in all odds it'll sound a hundred stranger to hear someone else say English of antiquity than just naturally pronouncing it in your head. And everytime you see a stage play or movie you have to be worried about constraints such as budget or acting ability. It is also worthy to note that any version you see will be inherently different than the original as it will be inevitably staged at least 250 later after the initial publication. The only way to experience it in authenticity now is to just read the original, which again, is not hard.
user said he didn't want Shylock to be exclusively seen in a sympathetic light. The "Hath not a Jew eyes" speech exists, but Shylock is still pretty ravenously vengeful.
>go watch some Marvel movies
Aren't Marvel movie villains sympathetic? Let's see, off the top of my head: James Spader's robot character has a good motive and is the good guy in his own world. Green Goblin is sympathetic (all I really remember is him going crazy). Fucking Tony Stark in Civil War is pretty sympathetic.
Now, literature villains. Satan. Oh wow, que comprensivo! Mephistopholes? I'm not gonna pretend I know the ins and the outs, but sympathetic? Eh.
So, how about Iago? Ooooh, okay. We're getting somewhere. Sure he's sympathetic, but not exclusively sympathetic. How Shylock may or may not be, but as a villain, should tend to the more evil attributes
.
Lmao
If you give it an honest try and read the play 3 or 4 times, you'll get it user. Or you can watch the movie and wake up 20 years later regretting your inability to commit.
Recently got this on DVD. Highly recommended
I haven't seen this but I did watch the Globe on Screen production of Macbeth and it was great. OP would be far better off watching this than some shitty movie.
I havent read this particular play, sorry. But the Archangel versions are quite good, as are the ones on Spotify. Also, I believe the royal players (I don't remember what they're called) might have a professional recording or a recording of a performance.
You'll know in the first 5 minutes how it's gonna go, so just pick one and get started.
I highly recommend the Jeremy Irons and Al Pacino film adaptation. Also, watch the extras for interviews with the cast. It is very insightful.