I like how Suchet slows it down and speaks in a more natural manner. Not all of us are Shakespeare scholars, and he makes the words more understandable by slowing it down and using his whole body to convey the emotion of his words.
And yet I had no issues understanding Stewart while he spoke. As you said it may have to do with being educated in the English language (even old English)! Both are grand performances and fascinating to watch.
I LOVE that each actor has read the same script and gotten two TOTALLY different interpretations of the same character. This is what is great about acting--every actor brings their own interpretations and nuances to a character. I like watching both of them in this role.
What I find interesting is that through both interpretations you get a different sensibility. With Sir Stewart he gets at the cold reality of Shylock's character as someone bent on vengeance. Suchet really wants the listener to hear Shakespeare's text and uses the text to convey justified hostility
I prefer Stewart's. There's a genuine feel of his being injured, a very subtle undercurrent of rage. Suchet instead is oily, an obvious villain who is just using his being insulted in the past as a negotiating trick.
I like how Suchet slows it down and speaks in a more natural manner. Not all of us are Shakespeare scholars, and he makes the words more understandable by slowing it down and using his whole body to convey the emotion of his words.
And yet I had no issues understanding Stewart while he spoke. As you said it may have to do with being educated in the English language (even old English)! Both are grand performances and fascinating to watch.
I LOVE that each actor has read the same script and gotten two TOTALLY different interpretations of the same character. This is what is great about acting--every actor brings their own interpretations and nuances to a character.
I like watching both of them in this role.
What I find interesting is that through both interpretations you get a different sensibility. With Sir Stewart he gets at the cold reality of Shylock's character as someone bent on vengeance. Suchet really wants the listener to hear Shakespeare's text and uses the text to convey justified hostility
Isn't Stewart's interpretation just awe-inspiring? I prefer it to Suchet's, but it's all a matter of taste.
With respect, I much preferred Sachet’s version.
Thank you for posting this.
Suchet inhabits the words - in a different league from Stewart.
Excellent!
I prefer Stewart's. There's a genuine feel of his being injured, a very subtle undercurrent of rage. Suchet instead is oily, an obvious villain who is just using his being insulted in the past as a negotiating trick.
Suchet is king at theatre, not many know this, Suchet is king at Shakspeare it's his bible. the best!
agreed...i think Patrick figured out thet character better than Suchet in this play
Actors have dance offs too.
You call me *misbelievaaaah* 0:17
When shylock is nagerian
abey shylock ka toh beard hai nhi toh antonio uska beard ka upar kaise spit karega
abey ajib acting hai
ajib admi ho tumlog