Suchet won that one hands down. I saw more subtlety by his interpretation, but, as the director said, it hung on Tubal's portrayal and there I found Stewart's portrayal more convincing. He gave Suchet the perfect foil on which to play his Shylock. Conclusion? It needed the greatness of both actors to bring out the quality.
Patrick Stewart is a great actor, that goes without saying. But watching him alongside David Suchet shows Suchet is the better actor by quiet a large margin. I wasn't expecting that. I thought they'd be toe to toe.
It's really interesting to see these two great actors do their versions of the role back-to-back. I'm more familiar with Patrick's work, and he's always excellent, but I must admit that Suchet seems more effective and compelling in this scene. More natural and 'sly', as the role demands. Stewart was better in the other role, in the reaction to Shylock's pain at losing his money, as well as his daughter. Also shows how different acting for the stage is from acting on film.
I like Suchet's subtler performance as Schylock as well opposite Stewart's more reserved Tubal, but I recognize these are simply different choices in performance
Shakespeare is not a science. It is an art. Which leaves open essentially the prerogative for each actor to play it in his or her own way. There was a time when actors were allowed and indeed encouraged to be a bit over the top. If you don't think so watch any dramatic film from the 30s or 40s. Shakespeare allows for different interpretations which is one of the things that has kept it fresh for all these centuries. Two actors playing a character differently does not make one better or worse. It simply makes them different. I believe that they were both good in their own way.
The difference between the two is this: Stewart: Over the top Shakespearean basically just like Kenneth Branagh. Suchet: Down to earth keeping the humanity in the character. I believed to be Jewish from the accent to the gestures, the cloths and so forth. Very old school Jewish behavior.
I'm shocked to be saying this but I think Patrick was a little intimidated by Suchet, and as a result was in my opinion was overacting. Suchet's Shylock was more subtle and he didn't seem to be acting. To me, Suchet's was very natural.
I respect the hell out of both of these men, but I cringed at both of them. Not that it’s relevant, but Pacino is still the best Shylock of his generation. Just my opinion.
I could watch David Suchet all my life...24/7...and I could never get enough of him.:)
Suchet won that one hands down. I saw more subtlety by his interpretation, but, as the director said, it hung on Tubal's portrayal and there I found Stewart's portrayal more convincing. He gave Suchet the perfect foil on which to play his Shylock. Conclusion? It needed the greatness of both actors to bring out the quality.
Patrick Stewart is a great actor, that goes without saying. But watching him alongside David Suchet shows Suchet is the better actor by quiet a large margin. I wasn't expecting that. I thought they'd be toe to toe.
It's really interesting to see these two great actors do their versions of the role back-to-back. I'm more familiar with Patrick's work, and he's always excellent, but I must admit that Suchet seems more effective and compelling in this scene. More natural and 'sly', as the role demands. Stewart was better in the other role, in the reaction to Shylock's pain at losing his money, as well as his daughter. Also shows how different acting for the stage is from acting on film.
I love that they got to smoke!
I could watch Patrick Stewart all day......
David Suchet is a great actor.
I like Suchet's subtler performance as Schylock as well opposite Stewart's more reserved Tubal, but I recognize these are simply different choices in performance
Shakespeare is not a science. It is an art. Which leaves open essentially the prerogative for each actor to play it in his or her own way. There was a time when actors were allowed and indeed encouraged to be a bit over the top. If you don't think so watch any dramatic film from the 30s or 40s. Shakespeare allows for different interpretations which is one of the things that has kept it fresh for all these centuries. Two actors playing a character differently does not make one better or worse. It simply makes them different. I believe that they were both good in their own way.
The difference between the two is this:
Stewart: Over the top Shakespearean basically just like Kenneth Branagh.
Suchet: Down to earth keeping the humanity in the character. I believed to be Jewish from the accent to the gestures, the cloths and so forth. Very old school Jewish behavior.
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Stewart is so "bad" that he won a Oliver Award Nomination for his Shylock in 1978, Suchet didn't for his take on the role in 1981...just saying...
I'm shocked to be saying this but I think Patrick was a little intimidated by Suchet, and as a result was in my opinion was overacting. Suchet's Shylock was more subtle and he didn't seem to be acting. To me, Suchet's was very natural.
I respect the hell out of both of these men, but I cringed at both of them. Not that it’s relevant, but Pacino is still the best Shylock of his generation. Just my opinion.
Yes, Pacino impressed me...
I hate to say it, but Patrick Stewart was overacting.
Would you say that Olivier overacted in Richard III, the RUclips piece, "Now is the winter of our discontent...?
This is the worst I've ever seen Patrick Stewart and I saw Charlie's Angels.
I think stewarts is better.
I'm sorry I have to disagree. He's basically that Shakespearean actor while Suchet is more down to earth and keeps the humanity in it.
Patrick is horrible. Nauseating.
Hammy.
Too forced. David is smoother in his delivery. LOVE IT!!!