"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?"

I don't normally start a book review off with a quote and no immediate context, but this famous line lies at the root of my overall thoughts of the The Merchant of Venice and bears highlighting right off the bat. The first time I read this play I was a teenager and thought it was an amazing piece that shed light on the hypocrisy of bigotry, and in this case antisemitism. I even wrote my first high school research paper on these sentiments (and got an A, so my argument was fairly well-reasoned).

Now that I re-read this play nearly half a lifetime later, I have realized just how naive that perspective was. Moreover, I realized how much Al Pacino's portrayal of Shylock, and his delivery of Shakespeare's lines significantly colored my initial interpretation of the overall meaning and tone. In the hands of a great actor who can illicit sympathy and find emotional vulnerability, morally vague dialogue can be transformed into an impassioned speech disavowing bigotry. Al Pacino did just this in the 2004 film adaptation.

That said, reading it without an actor's specific characterization in mind, the text takes on a slightly different meaning, especially when compounded with Shakespeare's treatment of Jewish characters and religion throughout the play. This is highlighted with the second half of Shylock's speech:

"...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 villainy you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction."

The first time I read this, I understood the end of Shylock's bleak speech to mean he was merely a human who had been pushed too far by society. Reading this passage in the present and in context without someone's emotional interpretation, the pronouncement came across as a twisted justification for Shylock's quest for a pound of flesh. It cemented him as a one-dimensional villain, rather than revealing a complex character.

Perhaps I am more pessimistic with age (I definitely am), but I felt that the text was not as exceptional as the first time I read it. Can the play still be moving and nuanced? Yes, but I now realize the outcome is highly dependent on the actor's interpretation of the material, rather than it being transcendent source material. Shylock will not always be played by an Oscar winning actor.

Overall, it was alright, and I guess the cross-dressing was cool. Eh.