I'm Diffident, Modest, and Shylock
G&S/Bard mashup FTW!
One of the difficulties of editing or playing a trimmed-down version of Shakespeare is the need to keep as much of the character arcs as possible. In this case, a 40 minute version of TMoV means that Shylock (who is only in five scenes, even in the full version), unless you play him as a monster from the start (a fairly uninteresting choice, IMHO...or is it? See below) has to clearly evolve pretty quickly and demonstratively, without a lot of text for support.
If you play his first scene (taking Antonio to task for past slights and current hypocrisy, then suggesting the terms of the fateful bargain) as too negative, there's nowhere for him to go once Jessica's disappeared. Well, he can vary from frantic to stone-cold chilling, but he's still fairly static (spiteful, etc); the change is more effective if he starts out simply sardonic and even a tiny bit conciliatory (he's not thrilled about his position vs the Christians, but he's forced himself to accept it; his one consolation is that he can be sarcastic to them), which is why I put back the lines about him not actually charging Antonio for any usance, and showing his friendship. If you play Shylock as not really serious at first about the terms of the deal - that he actually is trying to give him an interest-free loan in the spirit of friendship [actually trying to meet Antonio halfway and play it his way, for once], or is perhaps just tweaking Antonio's nose - only to have his religion cruelly spat back in his face, plus the loss of his daughter and his wealth (including late wife's ring - note the parallel with the Bassanio/Portia's ring later on), is it any wonder that he snaps?
The difficulty lies in finding how to play this with only 1/3 of the text.
The real difference if you instead play a monster Shylock, IMHO, is in what it does to Antonio's character: in agreeing to this bargain with such a spiteful enemy in the first place, he becomes either idiotically cocksure or very desperate. Is this really someone who deserves to be saved? He stupidly played with fire, got burned, and lucked out at the last second. (Actually, that's not fair. He's willing to risk his life for Bassanio's sake, even though he doesn't see it as much of a risk. Still, he's an idiot, IMHO)
But if this weakens audience sympathy for Antonio, does that imply that we should feel for Shylock-the-monster, and his fate?
In Period, becoming a Christian probably read as attempting to redeem him. I suspect it was played as a morality play, e.g. By becoming Christian, perhaps he'd learn how to forgive and be more charitable, as the others do in the course of the play. He's Scrooge being shown the error of his ways. It's a rebuke of Shylock's "Prick us, do we not bleed" speech, where he says that he's taking this action because that's what Christians would do to him if the roles were reversed. (It is, of course, very hard to sit in the audience today and watch that interpretation of the character and his fate; that is *not* the conclusion we'd come to. Then again, I don't think that's a legitimate reason to eschew that interpretation)
But let me put it this way...Suppose the Jessica subplot doesn't happen (or, at least, it doesn't come to a head at the exact time that the bargain is about to come due). Does Shylock still demand the pound of flesh? If he's a monster, then yes he does, and Jessica is superfluous, but in the other case, he does not; it's only the confluence of the events results in Shylock's tragedy.
(Still, this play is not all about Shylock - he's not even in the final act!)
The more I think about it, the less I'm convinced by my choices for the performance. I thought this through many times prior to the performance, but now, writing this down, I'm not so sure. OTOH, the audience seemed to like it, and I got several compliments, including one from....I think A said one of the co-founders of SSC/SCS. (Fortunately, she told me this afterwards, otherwise I would've probably squeed). But maybe it would have been bolder to make them more uncomfortable. I'm still not sure.
Oh well, live and learn.
I had a blast. I love the challenge of (and original motivation for) putting on a show like this in such short notice, and it's The Bard, dammit! I also got to play a non-fool (though, don't get me wrong, I'd play another one in a second), and one of the most interesting characters in the canon, IMHO. And the UCSC theatre world feels so very different from Stanford, Lyric, etc, and gets me away from the usual Silicon Valley atmosphere (both literally and figuratively).
And I want to do it again :)
One of the difficulties of editing or playing a trimmed-down version of Shakespeare is the need to keep as much of the character arcs as possible. In this case, a 40 minute version of TMoV means that Shylock (who is only in five scenes, even in the full version), unless you play him as a monster from the start (a fairly uninteresting choice, IMHO...or is it? See below) has to clearly evolve pretty quickly and demonstratively, without a lot of text for support.
If you play his first scene (taking Antonio to task for past slights and current hypocrisy, then suggesting the terms of the fateful bargain) as too negative, there's nowhere for him to go once Jessica's disappeared. Well, he can vary from frantic to stone-cold chilling, but he's still fairly static (spiteful, etc); the change is more effective if he starts out simply sardonic and even a tiny bit conciliatory (he's not thrilled about his position vs the Christians, but he's forced himself to accept it; his one consolation is that he can be sarcastic to them), which is why I put back the lines about him not actually charging Antonio for any usance, and showing his friendship. If you play Shylock as not really serious at first about the terms of the deal - that he actually is trying to give him an interest-free loan in the spirit of friendship [actually trying to meet Antonio halfway and play it his way, for once], or is perhaps just tweaking Antonio's nose - only to have his religion cruelly spat back in his face, plus the loss of his daughter and his wealth (including late wife's ring - note the parallel with the Bassanio/Portia's ring later on), is it any wonder that he snaps?
The difficulty lies in finding how to play this with only 1/3 of the text.
The real difference if you instead play a monster Shylock, IMHO, is in what it does to Antonio's character: in agreeing to this bargain with such a spiteful enemy in the first place, he becomes either idiotically cocksure or very desperate. Is this really someone who deserves to be saved? He stupidly played with fire, got burned, and lucked out at the last second. (Actually, that's not fair. He's willing to risk his life for Bassanio's sake, even though he doesn't see it as much of a risk. Still, he's an idiot, IMHO)
But if this weakens audience sympathy for Antonio, does that imply that we should feel for Shylock-the-monster, and his fate?
In Period, becoming a Christian probably read as attempting to redeem him. I suspect it was played as a morality play, e.g. By becoming Christian, perhaps he'd learn how to forgive and be more charitable, as the others do in the course of the play. He's Scrooge being shown the error of his ways. It's a rebuke of Shylock's "Prick us, do we not bleed" speech, where he says that he's taking this action because that's what Christians would do to him if the roles were reversed. (It is, of course, very hard to sit in the audience today and watch that interpretation of the character and his fate; that is *not* the conclusion we'd come to. Then again, I don't think that's a legitimate reason to eschew that interpretation)
But let me put it this way...Suppose the Jessica subplot doesn't happen (or, at least, it doesn't come to a head at the exact time that the bargain is about to come due). Does Shylock still demand the pound of flesh? If he's a monster, then yes he does, and Jessica is superfluous, but in the other case, he does not; it's only the confluence of the events results in Shylock's tragedy.
(Still, this play is not all about Shylock - he's not even in the final act!)
The more I think about it, the less I'm convinced by my choices for the performance. I thought this through many times prior to the performance, but now, writing this down, I'm not so sure. OTOH, the audience seemed to like it, and I got several compliments, including one from....I think A said one of the co-founders of SSC/SCS. (Fortunately, she told me this afterwards, otherwise I would've probably squeed). But maybe it would have been bolder to make them more uncomfortable. I'm still not sure.
Oh well, live and learn.
I had a blast. I love the challenge of (and original motivation for) putting on a show like this in such short notice, and it's The Bard, dammit! I also got to play a non-fool (though, don't get me wrong, I'd play another one in a second), and one of the most interesting characters in the canon, IMHO. And the UCSC theatre world feels so very different from Stanford, Lyric, etc, and gets me away from the usual Silicon Valley atmosphere (both literally and figuratively).
And I want to do it again :)