This comes from a fabulous DVD collection called "Playing Shakespeare" and many of the top Royal Shakespeare Company members give their interpretations of central Shakespeare plays.
It is so interesting how different David and Patrick are in their approach, interpretation and expression of the character, while at the same time, of course, both having that essential understanding of how important the making of those choices is, and how important it is to unapologetically own the character and your way of doing it. It is a testament to the intelligence of the actors and also the holistic views that are instilled upon all budding actors in Britain from their very first grades of LAMDA certification. The latter is why even minor characters in British tv series and soaps understand and perform their craft better than many Hollywood headliners, cast mainly for looking the part.
Yes! I agree. I must admit I'm American, been here in America all my life of 48 years of age and have always appreciated British broadcasting Corporation over anything we can do in the states. For example if Poirot is playing up against law and order I'm watching Poirot. I thank BBC for BBC America and PBS for bringing us British mystery. Or any other genre. I love the story better
i suppose the arguments about whether or not Shylock is an outsider "because" he's a jew or "that happens to" be a jew boils down to whether you, the spectator, are personally related to the jewish world... not being a jew, and not living around many jews myself, i find myself attracted to the Shylock character because he is an outsider who suffers terrible injustice, not because he is a jew who does so. I think both sensibilities towards the character should be considered. than, there's the holocaust, and the kind of anti-semitic comments you see all over the place (even in this thread...) but that's another story...
I love how excited Patrick Stuart gets as he starts to describe how language was the trick for him. You can see the excitement on his face as he loves trying to talk to other craftsmen about what he saw.
Patrick Stewart recognizing that Shylock is first and foremost The Other / The Embodiment of Difference before he is a Jew is a crucial understanding. What a brilliant man. That is why Shakespeare gave him the name Shylock -- it is an English name, meaning "fair haired". Shylock is simply labeled different and so that is how he is treated. The joke is that Christians should look to themselves, as they also charged extremely high interest rates (which is another reason he is given an entirely English name). Shakespeare, who was Christian in practice, wrote this to wave his finger at other Christians and to make them feel ashamed of their behavior. This notion The Bard was anti-semitic himself is ridiculous, and goes against the entire Christian conspiracy in the play against Shylock, most evident in how his daughter was whisked away and converted. Also, Shylock has black-African heritage. The play mentions he has Jet skin, compared to his daughter's ivory. The original Shylock was a bastard who his white father had with a black woman (a Moor) out of wedlock. His daughter, who is not a bastard, had an all white mother and a half-white father, which is why she has the pale, ivory skin, and not her father's jet. Shakespeare created the ultimate "other" in Shylock -- English name, black ancestry, Jewish religion.
Not sure where you got this information from (or if it is your original view) - but *thanks a ton for posting it*. I appreciate all this information. Take care! 🙂
This is so much a play about how people use prejudice to achieve their own ends. Shylock is a heroic character, like many of Shakespeare's plays, (Othello is an outsider too, for example.) This is what makes Shakespeare great - he can look into the eyes of every human being and find humanity in that part.
I find it interesting how the mutually sympathetic in-group and out-group both interpret the character in ways shaped by their outlook. Suchet, a Jew himself, looks at the character from a Jewish perspective. Jewishness is essential to the character and therefore must shape how he's played, which includes the historical oppression they have faced as well as Jewish culture and tradition. Stewart, who is a non Jew who is sympathetic to the plight of Jews as people who suffer but not specifically because they are Jewish, looks at the character in a more general archetypal way. The Jewishness isn't what is important, it's the fact that he's an outsider to the society he (Shylock) is in, and therefore this otherness is what informs the character.
Whatever may be argued about the possible anti-Semitism, the fact remains that Shylock's disproportionate vengefulness is being mirrored today by Netanyahu and his vicious supporters. So is it a truth, a characteristic, observed by Shakespeare, whose observation of human nature is unsurpassed?
Considering that the play has the famous “do we not bleed” speech it obviously can’t be all that anti-Semitic. Whether you like Shylock or not, he’s a human being and not a stereotype.
This is not a play about anti- semitism, you only have to look at Shylocks' lines, for heaven's sake. Shylock, like Othello, is an outsider and a victim of prejudice. This is what makes Shakespeare makes so great. For heaven's sake, Shylock is the perennial victim, and nobody understood that more than Shakespeare.
Nevertheless, the utter humiliation of Shylock at the end, with him being forced to convert to Christianity, shows where Shakespeare’s sympathies ultimately lie. Not only that, Shakespeare lets his other characters off the hook in the final scene, with all the other characters (except Antonio) finding love and happiness, complete with embarrassing double entendres (“So sore as keeping safe Nerissa’s ring...”). On the other hand, Marlowe’s earlier THE JEW OF MALTA presents his Jew, Barabas, as hero and villain, while the characters he plots against are uniformally unpleasant and creepy. Also, Marlowe portrays Barabas’ behaviour as atypical: his Jewish friends tell him to renounce the vengeful path (“Remember Job!”), advice which he rejects.
@@anbillie totally agreed not to mention the comment you're responding to says "this isnt about Anti Semitism, but about being an outsider and the victim of prejudice"....Uhm......you just described anti semitism lol
He may be an outsider, but he is an outsider specifically BECAUSE he is a Jew. Regardless of why the characters have their hatred for Shylock, it all stems from the fact that he is a Jew in an antisemitic society. If he was a Christian he would not face such persecution.
You could do the play using gays, muslims, gypsies or any other minority and keep the same essence of the role. It's about an outsider being persecuted because he is an outsider
when this play was played in the early years of its conception. the role of Portia was played by a man dressed as a woman playing a woman dressed as a man. I wonder did they then use their own male voice ? or did they pretend a woman trying to do a male voice ?
💙🦋💙Hello Future Hercule Poirot💙🦋💙Thank you for recording this talk between these Masters💙🦋💙today 6-7-20covid times; 💙🙏💙murder time💙RIPGeorge and all the Others💙🦋💙BLACK LIVES MATTER💙ShakespeareSaid It First💙😷
@@zeddeka my original comment said nothing about Shakespeare's original pronunciation which I know is different. I simply meant they had good elocution.
Patrick Stewart either didn't have lunch or is being extremely rude. "Everytime David speaks, I'll help myself to a cookie and something to drink instead of listening.... because I am right."
Kat D. 杜洁 After listening to Patrick Stewart I find him a closet anti-Semitic. He doesn’t get it! I identify with David and I’m only 56% Jewish. After all Shakespeare was not a Jew and the stereotype of materialism lives on through the words and Patrick’s interpretation or prejudice. Just my opinion.
Stewart's passion comes through in everything he did. Even when he played picked :-). But it's enjoyable to hear how deeply real actors feel about the characters portrait.
This is why I feel like it’s so important for Jewish actors to play Jewish characters, native actors to play native characters , Hispanic actors to play Hispanic characters etc. Stewart is an amazing actor but he’s missing the part about Shylock identity as a Jew. It is important. Obviously he owned his choices and was thoughtful about it all. I just think suchet, being Jewish, understood the importance of Shylock ethnicity.
I don't think I agree. It can also create surprising, interesting, unthought of interpretations of Shylock. Even though I am inclined to lean towards Suchet's interpretation, that doesn't mean that Stewart can not give an interesting layer to Shylock, precisely because he isn't Jewish. That is what I personally love about Shakespeare (and others) and about the quality of the actors: you can go very different ways with the same material. And as long is you find arguments for your interpretation, I think it is fine. Let's say for example that the past 400 years Shylock would only have been played by Jewish actors, wouldn't we miss out on richness of his character then? And also: isn't it for an actor to find something in the material that adheres to his inner self.
David is so much more correct, people of the main stream culture always assume that outsiders will try to catfish 😂 them. The way I look at things, since what ever you do, if a visible minority will always be indentified as an outsider, why not exploit it and play it to it's max 😂
![Yailin La Mas Viral, @kreizyk.official - Dale 2 (Remix) [Video Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JaYHBzgqz94/mqdefault.jpg)
Dude...you need to put Patrick Stewart and David Suchet in the title of this video. It will get more hits.
IKR
Agreed! I recognised David from the "thumbnail" and clicked.
Isnt it possible that shylock is at least a little satirical?
Poirot tries to deduce the play while Picard simply engages with it.
I'll show myself out...
This comes from a fabulous DVD collection called "Playing Shakespeare" and many of the top Royal Shakespeare Company members give their interpretations of central Shakespeare plays.
SATELLITES, MOONS AND DEBRIS ORBITING NEPTUNE
It is so interesting how different David and Patrick are in their approach, interpretation and expression of the character, while at the same time, of course, both having that essential understanding of how important the making of those choices is, and how important it is to unapologetically own the character and your way of doing it. It is a testament to the intelligence of the actors and also the holistic views that are instilled upon all budding actors in Britain from their very first grades of LAMDA certification. The latter is why even minor characters in British tv series and soaps understand and perform their craft better than many Hollywood headliners, cast mainly for looking the part.
Yes! I agree. I must admit I'm American, been here in America all my life of 48 years of age and have always appreciated British broadcasting Corporation over anything we can do in the states. For example if Poirot is playing up against law and order I'm watching Poirot. I thank BBC for BBC America and PBS for bringing us British mystery. Or any other genre. I love the story better
As one of the comments here pointed out years ago. If you put Stewart and Suchet's names in the title, this would have a whole lot more views.
i suppose the arguments about whether or not Shylock is an outsider "because" he's a jew or "that happens to" be a jew boils down to whether you, the spectator, are personally related to the jewish world... not being a jew, and not living around many jews myself, i find myself attracted to the Shylock character because he is an outsider who suffers terrible injustice, not because he is a jew who does so. I think both sensibilities towards the character should be considered.
than, there's the holocaust, and the kind of anti-semitic comments you see all over the place (even in this thread...) but that's another story...
😮Very anti semitic of you!
Patrick Stewart was the poop in emoji movie. How his career has transformed for the better 💯
Suchet is a genius
I love how excited Patrick Stuart gets as he starts to describe how language was the trick for him. You can see the excitement on his face as he loves trying to talk to other craftsmen about what he saw.
The entire series is revelatory. This discussion is a model for how to discuss this aspect of this play; should be shown in class, frankly.
Yes I found myself wanting to say thank you professors Stewart and Suchet. I would definitely sign up for that masterclass
I found myself stumbling on this, watching for 7 minutes and completely drawn in and wondering wtf I'm watching.
Patrick Stewart recognizing that Shylock is first and foremost The Other / The Embodiment of Difference before he is a Jew is a crucial understanding. What a brilliant man. That is why Shakespeare gave him the name Shylock -- it is an English name, meaning "fair haired". Shylock is simply labeled different and so that is how he is treated. The joke is that Christians should look to themselves, as they also charged extremely high interest rates (which is another reason he is given an entirely English name).
Shakespeare, who was Christian in practice, wrote this to wave his finger at other Christians and to make them feel ashamed of their behavior. This notion The Bard was anti-semitic himself is ridiculous, and goes against the entire Christian conspiracy in the play against Shylock, most evident in how his daughter was whisked away and converted.
Also, Shylock has black-African heritage. The play mentions he has Jet skin, compared to his daughter's ivory. The original Shylock was a bastard who his white father had with a black woman (a Moor) out of wedlock. His daughter, who is not a bastard, had an all white mother and a half-white father, which is why she has the pale, ivory skin, and not her father's jet.
Shakespeare created the ultimate "other" in Shylock -- English name, black ancestry, Jewish religion.
Moors are not black, they are brown, from Morocco. Also, Jews on the whole were viewed as dark skinned (and therefore ugly) by Europeans.
Not sure where you got this information from (or if it is your original view) - but *thanks a ton for posting it*.
I appreciate all this information. Take care! 🙂
This is so much a play about how people use prejudice to achieve their own ends. Shylock is a heroic character, like many of Shakespeare's plays, (Othello is an outsider too, for example.) This is what makes Shakespeare great - he can look into the eyes of every human being and find humanity in that part.
>Letters from America
This explains everything
Yes, over in England, no one ever gets outraged over anything ridiculous.
I find it interesting how the mutually sympathetic in-group and out-group both interpret the character in ways shaped by their outlook. Suchet, a Jew himself, looks at the character from a Jewish perspective. Jewishness is essential to the character and therefore must shape how he's played, which includes the historical oppression they have faced as well as Jewish culture and tradition. Stewart, who is a non Jew who is sympathetic to the plight of Jews as people who suffer but not specifically because they are Jewish, looks at the character in a more general archetypal way. The Jewishness isn't what is important, it's the fact that he's an outsider to the society he (Shylock) is in, and therefore this otherness is what informs the character.
Whatever may be argued about the possible anti-Semitism, the fact remains that Shylock's disproportionate vengefulness is being mirrored today by Netanyahu and his vicious supporters. So is it a truth, a characteristic, observed by Shakespeare, whose observation of human nature is unsurpassed?
Considering that the play has the famous “do we not bleed” speech it obviously can’t be all that anti-Semitic. Whether you like Shylock or not, he’s a human being and not a stereotype.
This is not a play about anti- semitism, you only have to look at Shylocks' lines, for heaven's sake. Shylock, like Othello, is an outsider and a victim of prejudice. This is what makes Shakespeare makes so great. For heaven's sake, Shylock is the perennial victim, and nobody understood that more than Shakespeare.
yeah right. He is referenced throughout as the JEW.
Nevertheless, the utter humiliation of Shylock at the end, with him being forced to convert to Christianity, shows where Shakespeare’s sympathies ultimately lie. Not only that, Shakespeare lets his other characters off the hook in the final scene, with all the other characters (except Antonio) finding love and happiness, complete with embarrassing double entendres (“So sore as keeping safe Nerissa’s ring...”). On the other hand, Marlowe’s earlier THE JEW OF MALTA presents his Jew, Barabas, as hero and villain, while the characters he plots against are uniformally unpleasant and creepy. Also, Marlowe portrays Barabas’ behaviour as atypical: his Jewish friends tell him to renounce the vengeful path (“Remember Job!”), advice which he rejects.
@@anbillie totally agreed not to mention the comment you're responding to says "this isnt about Anti Semitism, but about being an outsider and the victim of prejudice"....Uhm......you just described anti semitism lol
He may be an outsider, but he is an outsider specifically BECAUSE he is a Jew. Regardless of why the characters have their hatred for Shylock, it all stems from the fact that he is a Jew in an antisemitic society. If he was a Christian he would not face such persecution.
This is a masterclass.
I agree with Stewart.jew could have been replaced with moore imo
You could do the play using gays, muslims, gypsies or any other minority and keep the same essence of the role.
It's about an outsider being persecuted because he is an outsider
Captivating; both of them.
God I love David:)))
when this play was played in the early years of its conception. the role of Portia was played by a man dressed as a woman playing a woman dressed as a man. I wonder did they then use their own male voice ? or did they pretend a woman trying to do a male voice ?
David Suchet is the best to ever done it when it comes to Shakspeare!
incredible. You can actually see Patrick Stewarts brain seinding impulse's to his face.
Such a dedicated shakespearian actor Sir Patrick Stewart is
WE ALL GOT LOST IN THE DISCUSSION OF THE JEWISH QUESTION. WHAT IF SHYLOCK WEREN'T JEWISH. WOULD THE PLAY BE DIFFERENT......
In the theme of the theatre traditions. This is here I think the actors or the theatre company failed us.
I’m just going to say it: Patrick Stewart was soooo good looking.
The dove bird that belongs to these has to correct the repugnat male that offends the newlywed working themes.
Poirot and Picard.
Make it so, mon ami.
💙🦋💙Hello Future Hercule Poirot💙🦋💙Thank you for recording this talk between these Masters💙🦋💙today 6-7-20covid times; 💙🙏💙murder time💙RIPGeorge and all the Others💙🦋💙BLACK LIVES MATTER💙ShakespeareSaid It First💙😷
"Shylock-actors?"
Thanks!
Dr Shea.
ditto
me 2.
Huge!
Patrick is an alpha :D
Pat being antisemitic, David through a cringe ‘I would disagree…’
Both men so well spoken. Incredible elocution.
Styles and accents change over the years. The way they are speaking is absolutely nothing like Shakespeare would have spoken.
@@zeddeka my original comment said nothing about Shakespeare's original pronunciation which I know is different. I simply meant they had good elocution.
Patrick Stewart either didn't have lunch or is being extremely rude. "Everytime David speaks, I'll help myself to a cookie and something to drink instead of listening.... because I am right."
Kat D. 杜洁 After listening to Patrick Stewart I find him a closet anti-Semitic. He doesn’t get it! I identify with David and I’m only 56% Jewish. After all Shakespeare was not a Jew and the stereotype of materialism lives on through the words and Patrick’s interpretation or prejudice. Just my opinion.
@@laurennorris-rodgers2297 are you American?
@@laurennorris-rodgers2297 56% Jewish? You've been taking those DNA tests way, way too seriously. They're notoriously vague and inaccurate.
@@laurennorris-rodgers2297off of this clip? Are you serious?
Stewart's passion comes through in everything he did. Even when he played picked :-). But it's enjoyable to hear how deeply real actors feel about the characters portrait.
This is why I feel like it’s so important for Jewish actors to play Jewish characters, native actors to play native characters , Hispanic actors to play Hispanic characters etc. Stewart is an amazing actor but he’s missing the part about Shylock identity as a Jew. It is important. Obviously he owned his choices and was thoughtful about it all. I just think suchet, being Jewish, understood the importance of Shylock ethnicity.
I don't think I agree. It can also create surprising, interesting, unthought of interpretations of Shylock. Even though I am inclined to lean towards Suchet's interpretation, that doesn't mean that Stewart can not give an interesting layer to Shylock, precisely because he isn't Jewish. That is what I personally love about Shakespeare (and others) and about the quality of the actors: you can go very different ways with the same material. And as long is you find arguments for your interpretation, I think it is fine. Let's say for example that the past 400 years Shylock would only have been played by Jewish actors, wouldn't we miss out on richness of his character then? And also: isn't it for an actor to find something in the material that adheres to his inner self.
Yes, but Stewart also gave us a fascinating and interesting take regardless.
David is so much more correct, people of the main stream culture always assume that outsiders will try to catfish 😂 them. The way I look at things, since what ever you do, if a visible minority will always be indentified as an outsider, why not exploit it and play it to it's max 😂