MovieChat Forums > The Merchant of Venice (2005) Discussion > Shylock, An Oppressed Hero...

Shylock, An Oppressed Hero...

posted 13 years ago by sadsayeed
8 replies | jump to latest

I read the book long ago, and had so much confusions. this is not a criticism about the movie, rather the perspective of the story itself.

In the story, I think the so called villain here, Shylock, was actually not the actual villain, rather an oppressed Hero. He was the one who was seeing his fellow religious believers being oppressed, prisoned, and being thrown into the rivers, wearing always a mandatory red hat of racism; he was just following his own religion peacefully and minding his own business. he was regularly being spitted on by the dominating part of the society for being a minority member, and being called many mean names in occasions.

He was the one who lent huge amount of money, not for earning interest, rather in good faith to his 'hating spitter', to meet a man's non-surviving wants (wants of alluring a wealthy woman into marriage), and then faced complete default and forfeiture at the time of repayment; and moreover he was robbed of his precious wealth by the same borrowing group; the daughter he had and raised was taken away by them (during 1596 conservative traditions, whilst lady Portia was obligated to follow her family's 'husband finding tradition' and yet she did follow).

And after all the unjust and undepicted pains and sufferings he had gone through for so long, then he was asking for justice in a court full of that same dominating society members shouting at him with anger and despise; faced the so called legal trial by the judgement of a bias imposter in disguise of a civil doctor. After that he was forced with trickery to give up all his remaining wealth, esteem, daughter, home, and most of all his lifelong religious belief, left all alone in the street to rot in older age with humiliation and disgrace. And the dominating unjust party carried on living wealthy and happily ever after. And all along I felt a deep sigh about this entire concluding injustice.

Though for an instance Shylock acted as a merciless villain for insisting on cutting that pound of flesh; but we must not forget or disrespect all his suffered misery in the context for being raging such insanity. I also perceive Antonio to be of a moderately good manner in the court.

Finally,to derive and infer from the story, with due respect, I believe most readers and viewers need to reconsider their perceptions, and give it a good thought about what was right and what was wrong. This same story still lives in reality in our modern society in evolving fashion, thus perceptions should be at least close to just.

[–] PoppyTransfusion 12 years ago

Well ... when Shylock realises who wishes to borrow the money from him he is keen to do business to have Antonio in his debt. He also pursues that debt ruthlessly and rejects showing mercy. In his revenge he seeks to do unto his enemy as his enemy did unto him and this is his undoing.

A man chases a woman until she catches him

[–] eileenagusta 12 years ago

Antonio did not cut or attempt to kill Shylock, his revenge was unjust, making him a villain. He chose to do unto others as they did not do unto him, which is why, at the end of the movie at least, he is shunned by his own community.

[–] Zanza8 12 years ago

The Christians are the ones who look bad here. If all of Antonio's friends pooled their resources, they could have paid the debt. Instead Portia uses legal tricks and in the end, Shylock does not get paid, which is what the Christians wanted all along. He wouldn't have wanted a pound of flesh in the first place if the Christians hadn't been so abusive.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

[–] eileenagusta 12 years ago

He was offered twice the amount, before that they tried to give him what he was owed. He refused it all in favour of killing Antonio, and only when he realised he'd share Antonio's fate if he tried to claim is pound of flesh did he try to go back and say he'd take the doubled amount instead. Realising they had him, they said no.

Shylock is the villain, there is no way around it.

[–] Zanza8 12 years ago

Read the play again. Shylock was offered NOTHING until he dragged Antonio into court for defaulting on the debt. The Christians, who had been abusing Jews nonstop, did not believe a Jew would retaliate. I'm not defending Shylock's actions in wishing for revenge, I'm pointing out that the Christians were hoping until the last minute that they could somehow weasel out of paying the debt. If they had given Antonio the money even one day before it was due, Shylock wouldn't have had a legal leg to stand on. He was also forced to convert to Christianity, a sickening piece of business that was considered a sin. One of the clauses in the Constitutio pro Judaeis issued by successive popes from the beginning of the 12th down to the close of the 15th century declared that Jews were not to be forced to accept Christianity against their will. I don't know what Shakespeare had in mind when he wrote this play, but I am always struck at how badly the Christians come off.

It is also worth knowing some history. Christians were forbidden the practice of usury-they were not allowed under any circumstances to lend money and collect interest. Yet the economy demanded this practice, and so the Jews became the bankers who funded the countries where they lived. Christians despised the Jews for usury and depended on them for it. And because it was considered immoral to lend money at interest, it was almost a point of honor to not only insult Jews for being bankers, it was also quite moral and even admirable to default on debts if possible. Jews were kidnapped, tortured, and killed to wipe out debts that Christains were willing to incur and unwilling to pay. Google the Jews of York and the expulsion of the Jews from England for more information.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

[–] thornsthorns 11 years ago

Everything you say is true.

But, usury was also banned for Jews, it was not something new for Christians and Muslims. It was banned from the beginning in the Abrahamic religions.

The Jews chose usury as it was an easy way of making a lot of money, unlike farming, or mercantile, low risk, huge returns. Even to this day.

The Jews used legal trickery in their own religious laws to allow them to charge usury. The main one being that the prohibition of charging usury was on Jews against other Jews, that Jews were allowed by god to charge usury to non-jews, but not to Jews. A piece of Jewish racism against all of us non-jews.

So its not so simple as the Jews where forced into it, they actually chose the lifestyle. There where other classes and races of people, who did not choose it, who were not christians and where just as marginalised by European society.

[–] Penske_Material 10 years ago

there were no heroes here, the christians used their power to abuse the jews, and Shylock just wanted the revenge, although even if his actions made him look like the real villain, you could try and defend him by saying that a whole life of abuse could have warped his mind enough to want revenge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA5O_0Ufjwc

[–] mephistopheles93 8 years ago

What a bunch of liberal idiocy. Shylock a hero? Now I've heard everything!