Thesis Paper Outline

Thesis: Radford’s version of The Merchant of Venice is better than Sichel’s version.

Definition of a “better” film: The “better” film transports the audience into the times and the characters of the Merchant of Venice. It helps the audience to empathize with the characters, aids in understanding the history of the time, and gives the impression of authenticity.

I. Radford’s characters look more authentic. The more authentic the actors look, the more real they seem. The look also helps to bring a better vision of who the character is and the time period of the story.

A. The costumes in Radford’s version were more authentic looking. Shylock wore a red hat and gabardine, as Jews were supposed to at the time when outside of the ghetto. The gabardine that Radford’s Shylock wore had a similar appearance to the one shown in the book. Antonio, as a wealthy Venetian merchant, wore furs and gloves.
In Sichel’s version, the characters wore suits, bowler hats, and top hats. They looked more like English gentlemen than Italian merchants. Shylock was dressed as richly as Antonio was. I would imagine that Shylock would bear more of a mark to show that he lived in the Jewish ghetto.

B. The actors themselves, in the more recent version of the Merchant of Venice look like a more believable version of the characters. Radford’s Shylock looks like a European Jew as opposed to Sichel’s Shylock, who looks like an old Englishman. The actors in Sichel’s version had neatly trimmed hair and well groomed mustaches and beards. The actors in Radford’s version had untrimmed facial hair. Bassanio, like a young Venetian gentleman, had long hair in Radford’s film. The actors in Sichel’s film look like they belong to England, while the actors in Radford’s film could belong in Venice.

II. The acting in Radford’s version is better. The acting really sells the story to the audience, if nothing else does. Through acting, the audience can relate to the characters and understand what is happening in the film.

A. In Sichel’s film, the actors talk much too quickly, as if the loaning of three thousand ducats were a deal easily rushed over. When Bassanio pleads with Antonio to withdraw from the deal, Antonio appears to scold Bassanio. In Radford’s film, the actors sit down together and discuss the matter slowly. When Bassanio pleads with Antonio to withdraw this time, Antonio gently denies him. Radford’s Antonio sees that Bassanio cares about him, whereas Sichel’s Antonio doesn’t appear to see that at all. Radford’s Antonio also seems to realize the weight that three thousand ducats and a pound of flesh carries, while Sichel’s waves it away as an easy deal.

B. Gestures in acting play a big role. In Radford’s film, we saw Bassanio kissing Antonio to show his love and gratitude. This is a very Italian custom. We also saw Antonio spitting on Shylock to give us an insight on how Jews were looked down upon in Venice. I did not see many gestures in Sichel’s version, albeit we did see more of Radford’s film than his. However, the gestures that were in his film were inappropriate for the characters. Bassanio was rubbing his fingers on Antonio when asking him to withdraw. This was a rather awkward gesture; Bassanio should have been bold in his confrontation. Shylock was waving his cane around haughtily, as if he were above Antonio and Bassanio and not the abused Jew. The overall acting in Radford’s film appears to be more real than Sichel’s.

III. Radford’s version gives a distinct setting. The setting puts us in the same place as the actors. It tells us where these people are and how that might affect who they are.

A. Radford’s version of The Merchant of Venice filmed Venice, its distinctive beauty and legendary canals. It showed us the crowded Jewish community, and Shylock’s humble abode. Sichel’s film did not show anything that could make the audience think that the location was Italy. Shylock’s home looked like something out of Mary Poppins instead of early Venice.

B. Sichel’s film had no cutaways to give a better setting. In fact, there was very little camera movement at all. As the actors moved about the scene, the camera stayed locked in one place. This limited them to only the space within the camera’s view. The acting, in fact, was hampered by the camera’s restricted movement. I could not see the expressions on the actors’ faces very well.
Radford’s film had a lot of cutaways to give a clearer view of things. There were cutaways to the various canals of Venice, cutaways to Portia, and cutaways to money being paid. When Bassanio met with Shylock, there were cutaways to a goat being slaughtered, and Antonio coming on a gondola. I thought the slaughter of the goat cutaway was very symbolic, considering that Shylock was going to ask for a pound of Antonio’s flesh, should he not pay his debt. I thought the camera movements were also quite fluid. I got some very close views of the characters and their facial expressions.

Conclusion: Radford’s version of the Merchant of Venice is better than Sichel’s because the acting, costumes, and setting all seemed more realistic.