This line in the Wikipedia article inadvertently sums up my objections to his film: "The director, Michael Radford, believed that Shylock was Shakespeare's first tragic hero, who reaches a catastrophe due to his own flaws[1]: thus the film does not show Shylock purely as a villain, but partly also as a victim."
Of course, these two lines are contradictory, though Radford never seemed to have realized this. One would never say this of one of Shakespeare's tragic heroes, one would never say that Macbeth was part villain and part victim. Victimization is not something that happens because of your own flaws. Turning Shylock into a victim, as Radford does with some skill, does not exorcise the play's antisemitism, as he seemed to hope it would. It only serves to reinforce Jewish stereotypes.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-08 12:57 pm (UTC)Of course, these two lines are contradictory, though Radford never seemed to have realized this. One would never say this of one of Shakespeare's tragic heroes, one would never say that Macbeth was part villain and part victim. Victimization is not something that happens because of your own flaws. Turning Shylock into a victim, as Radford does with some skill, does not exorcise the play's antisemitism, as he seemed to hope it would. It only serves to reinforce Jewish stereotypes.