MovieChat Forums > The Merchant of Venice (2005) Discussion > The court's logic and Shylock options

The court's logic and Shylock options

posted 13 years ago by iceman_of_end
5 replies | jump to latest

Here's what i dont get,

A) If he get the flesh and drop the bloods, his wealth will be confiscated and he be killed.

B) But if he don't go fort with the contract, meaning he wont take the flesh but also cant take the 3k back, his wealth will be divided between the merchant and the court, and he will also be hang.

what kind of logic is that ? Its the same ending...
The merchant's group are the one that beg Shylock for Antonio's life in the first place, and i also understand because Shylock chose to pursue the contract that's why he cant go back on it. Hence (B)

Isn't it better for him then just to proceed with (A) since the result will be the same anyway ? If he chose (A) the bitch probably gonna get shock and those smug bastards gonna start begging again instead of Shylock, and he wont have to agree with the conditions given by those in the wrong in the first place.

(I never read the book, so I sided with Shylock in this film)

[–] Pearl_Jade 13 years ago

That was my feeling exactly. The results are so devastating for Shylock that he might as well say, "Screw you. If you're going to kill me, I'll at least die with the satisfaction of killing you first."

But then I recall that Shylock's choice B came with a loophole: the mercy of the court. If he begs the court for mercy, he might still live.

This is in fact what Shylock does. He takes a chance that the court will be merciful, and he falls to his knees. His gamble paid off because he does escape with his life (although his fortune is another matter). Remember also that Shylock had to make his decision (beg for mercy or proceed with Plan A) BEFORE knowing the conditions that Antonio would impose on him (convert to Christianity, etc.)

[–] finnegansword 12 years ago

I remember the interpretation we were given when in the 3rd Form at school. According to our teacher, the original interpretation at the close of the 16th century would have been a huge joke against the detested Jew, where his cunning and love of money was rewarded by his being allowed the pound of flesh but not one drop of Christian blood. The impossibility of the situation would have had the mob in the pit of the theatre, cheering and throwing their caps in the air. Possibly, not a politically acceptable situation today.

[–] grazol 12 years ago

The reason for B to happen was that Shylock intended to kill Antonio. That is why Portia waited until the very last moment with telling about the 'no blood-condition'; she had to be sure Shylock wanted to kill Antiono. The punishment for intent to kill is the confiscation of wealth and to be hanged, which Shylock avoids by begging for his life, and he even gets to keeps half of is wealth.

[–] camelotontheavon 12 years ago

Also Balthezar/Portia gives Shylock not one not two but three chances to back out of his bond and he refuses to do so. This is what puts him in the Catch-22 position.

[–] cromartie890 11 years ago

It is because they were anti-semitic. It is ok for them to borrow from the rich Jew but when he wants his money his is seen as a villain.