Re-imagining The Merchant of Venice

What does it mean to read Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice in 2023 on a rural college campus in Maine? What uses might we put this ~423 year old play to here, now? Inspired by our work reading and writing together in the course “Shakespeare and Injustice” at Colby College, we have gathered ideas, images, videos, and more as a means for finding answers to these questions. We are examining our relationships to Shakespeare, taking James Baldwin’s lead: in an essay titled “Why I Stopped Hating Shakespeare,” Baldwin writes, “My relationship… to the language of Shakespeare revealed itself as nothing less than my relationship to myself and my past.”

Baldwin’s essay invites us to read Shakespeare not for the sake of bardolotry, not in order to put Shakespeare on a pedestal, and not so that we perceive Shakespeare as one of the “architects of… oppression”; rather, Baldwin invites us to read Shakespeare as a keen observer of people in the early modern era and as a creator whose works can provide us with a means of observation, commentary, and change-making in our present. 

In studying The Merchant of Venice we have been interested in what makes a comedy a comedy: who is laughing at or with whom in this play?  Patricia Akhimie helps us to answer this question : “Comedy is serious,” she writes, and Shakespeare’s comedies “offer a library of stereotypes” in which “epithets describing religious, national, or ethnic (somatically marked, phenotypic, regional, and genetic/biological) groups are used inventively or emphatically (with verve!) to deride some person, some behavior, or some belief.” Akhimie posits that readers and audiences can also use the comedies, through careful analysis of how humor works in them and careful attention to the pain that comic characters suffer, to see how these texts “explore and sometimes critique the building blocks of race and racism,” as well as gender-, religion-, and ability-based prejudices. How do we feel when we are really made to feel Shylock’s or Jessica’s pain? Might that feeling spur an exploration of systemic biases or even actions to dismantle harmful systems?

We seek to re-imagine The Merchant of Venice by relying not just on our essay writing and close reading skills, but also on our creativity, on historical research, on comparative analyses of the many performances and films of the play, and most crucially on our guiding principle that we ought to DO something with Shakespeare, and not idolize him or let his plays speak for themselves. We hope you enjoy our [here will go some version of your short titles!] and we invite YOU, exuberantly, to re-imagine The Merchant of Venice, too.

-Professor Taff

Philip Booth - "My name is Philip and I'm an incoming first-year majoring in Classics. I have taken Shakespeare classes in the past and watched many productions in my hometown New York City. From this class, I aimed to develop more of a relationship with Shakespeare in a modern context compared to the rote textual analysis I was used to doing in high school."

Maisie Elkins - "My name is Maisie and I am a rising senior majoring in English with a concentration in creative writing. I am from Brookline Massachusetts and in my free time I love reading and going to the theater! I took this course because I am huge fan of Shakespeare's crazy plots and I also want to do more in the name of social justice. My biggest takeaway from working on this website is that Shakespeare's plays can take place in so many different worlds and contexts, not just the 1600s in England."

Kate Evans - "My name is Kate and I am a sophomore majoring in English with a minor in Art. I am originally from New York City and I love Diet Coke! I enrolled in this course because I knew that it would be both challenging and engaging. I was correct. My biggest take away from this project is that studying Shakespeare as a modern reader can and should be difficult, exciting, and fun."

Dorian Gilmartin - " "

Zaina Maist - " "

Julie You - "My name is Julie and I am a senior from Shenzhen, China, majoring in Economics and English with a concentration in creative writing. I took this course because of the course title, 'Shakespeare and Injustice': I was very curious to see how these two interact with each other. This project helped me better understand how social justice could be incorporated into Shakespeare's plays, which then could be used to help raise people's awareness for social justice."

Dyani Taff - See my faculty page!

Maisie

Should Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice ever be staged again? This is a fraught question as threats against American Jews have risen in recent years, with a hostage situation in a Texas synagogue taking place just last year. (Soloski). However, interestingly enough, directors have continued to stage this play since it was written in 1596, some of these directors being Jewish themselves. It is clear that authors, readers, and actors alike have found ways of reading the text that compel a sympathetic look at Shylock and open the play up for a productive discussion in the name of social justice.

In 2022 Arin Arbus staged an off broadway production of Merchant in which a Black actor (John Douglas Thompson) starred as the Jewish moneylender Shylock. Thompson’s critically acclaimed performance of Shylock displays how the character is continually evolving decades after Shakespeare put pen to paper. Having a Black actor play Shylock sets up a larger question of not only anti-semitism in the US but also, anti-Blackness. Thompson’s performance of Shylock resonantes powerfully such as his speech in the Venetian court where he states, “You have among you many a purchased slave, Which like your asses and your dogs and mules, You use in abject and slavish parts.” According to Soloski, this line by Thompson points to racism of the Venetian lovers and contrasts the one-sided reading where they are the “heroes” of the play. In Arbus’s production of Merchant, Shylock is no longer the one-dimensional villain he was portrayed to be in former productions of this play, such as (for an extreme example) in Nazi Germany. 

Another uncomfortable and potentially harmful moment in the play that Arbus tackles is the scene with the Prince of Morocco. According to author Patricia Akhimie, in certain productions of the play, it would be easy for the Prince to be displayed as “bombastic, bold, violent, and foreign … unsuitable.” (3). However Arbus attempts to steer clear of this racist depiction by instead highlighting Portia’s moments of racism and hypocrisy. And beyond Portia, Arbus’s solution appears to be to portray “the awfulness of everyone in Venice” (Soloski). One of the most harmful traps in staging Merchant is to highlight Shylock and the Prince as “foreign monsters” while the Venetians themselves are innocent victims at the hands of these villains. Luckily, Shakespeare’s text allows for more nuanced readings around this issue such as the ending when Portia says “This night methinks is but the daylight sick; It looks a little paler” (act 5, scene 1, lines 137-138). In other words, the lovers may not receive the happy ending the audience presumes. The line for Portia suggests something is off about their “happy ending” with the sky looking “ill.” This could perhaps represent how their prosperity is due, in somepart, to Shylock’s demise (Leggatt). 

Ambereen Dadabhoy is another director who recently staged a production of Merchant alongside her students at Harvey Mudd College in 2018. The play was a part of a larger project called “The Qualities of Mercy Project” which highlighted this play as a discussion of social justice. Framing and context seems to be an especially important part of producing an ethical version of Merchant (for example college students studying the text as a way to promote equality vs. the intentions behind the Nazi Germany productions). 

In an article written by Professor Dadabhoy, herself and the actress Lilly Freidberg who played Jessica, speak about how they went about dealing with the difficult topic of Jessica’s conversion to Christianity. This plot line opens up a whole dialogue of Jessica’s alienation from the rest of the Venetians. This alienation is glaringly obvious in some portions and more tragically hidden in others such as her line to her new husband Lorenzo at the end of the play, “I am never merry when I hear sweet music.” (act 5, scene 1, line 77). Jessica appears to still be grappling with the loss of her family and identity, despite those around her encouraging the abandonment of her Jewish faith and “villain” of a father. Dadabhoy writes that she is “perhaps exchanging one prison for another.” From this, it is important not to decontextualize Jessica’s predicament as her decision to convert is certainly not a simple one. There would have been many external factors that would have led her to this conclusion. 

I want to provide an example of how I would go about staging a scene from Merchant similar to Dadabhoy with the overall theme a “Qualities of Mercy Project.” The ending (Act 5, Scene 1) includes a rather long dialogue between Jessica and Lorenzo. At this point the closest person to Shylock, whose perspective we see, is his daughter Jessica who is now estranged. Jessica is encouraged and praised for leaving her father, by other characters in the play including Lorenzo, which also means leaving her religion. It seems like Jessica and Lorenzo receive a happy ending (they have all the typical qualities of a joyful ending to a Shakespearean comedy ie. romance), not to mention the great amount of wealth Lorenzo has now inherited from Shylock. 

However, I see a more sinister ending for Jessica’s character, which is fitting given the trauma she has been through. The loss of family, religion, and through this, a loss of an identity she once held. As a director I would want the actress of Jessica to convey the pain of her loss in her acting, to reveal that her conversion is most likely one filled with mixed emotions (and I think Shakespeare rightly backs this up in the original play as well). In the last act of MOV, Jessica and Lorenzo’s conversation reveals some potential anxieties Jessica might be facing, and the possibility that her and Lorenzo’s relationship might be a toxic one. We don’t get much of a lens into the intimate details of their relationship, but Lorenzo starts the scene off by comparing their love to Troilus and Cressida. Troilus and Cressida is a play set during the Trojan war in which the characters Troilus and Cressida begin a love affair, however Cressida is forced to leave Troy to join her father (emphasis mine) in the Greek camp. This comparison reveals that Lorenzo may have some trust issues with his new wife. For although Jessica has converted to Christianity, the comparison of Cressida going back to a different camp to join her father is eerily similar to the set up of Lorenzo and Jessica’s relationship. This also reveals that although Jessica has converted, perhaps she is not, and will never be, viewed as an equal to her (born as) Christian peers. Here, Jessica faces a difficult ending of being bound to man that will always on some level distrust and look down upon her because of an inherent aspect of her identity. 

What also interests me is how Jessica responds to Lorenzo. She states, “In such a night did Thisbe fearfully o’ertrip the dew And saw the lion’s shadow ere himself” (Act 5, Scene 1, Lines 7-9). Pyramus and Thisbe are another example of ill-fated lovers, which makes me think that Jessica on some level agrees with what Lorenzo is saying. Lorenzo then follows this with, “In such a night stood Dido with a willow in her hand…” (Act 5, Scene 1, Lines 10-11). The reference here to Dido who lights herself on fire when she realizes she can no longer be with Aeneas, further points to this being a toxic relationship. I think a lot of interesting stage directions could be added here as well. To reference Kate’s project, I really liked how she chose to stand Jessica far away from Lorenzo to emphasize the (perhaps) disgust at her new husband. Overall I think this would be a good scene to stage along with the trial scene to highlight the harmful nature of anti-semitism. 

According to Dadabhoy, “The Qualities of Mercy Project” was meant to specifically tackle “the anti-Semitic, racist, classist, and sexist terrain” of Merchant. She brings up a really good point about the play which is, “that power in Venice protects power and part of that power resides in its white supremacy.” Dadabhoy had a similar idea in mind to Arbus by casting a diverse group of actors and worked closely with the cast to “expose the insidious nature of white supremacy.” Rather than simply staging Merchant as a Shakespearean play, it became a whole new project of introducing the audience to themes that people often shut down out of discomfort, rather than opening up to a productive discussion. To answer the question, “should The Merchant of Venice ever be staged again?” I think one must weigh the benefits vs. the harms of what they are bringing to audiences and look at the successful ways directors have done it in the past for inspiration. 

Philip Booth

Should a play like The Merchant of Venice even be performed anymore? Although widely regarded as a timeless classic in Shakespeare’s archive, known for exploring themes like Mercy and Justice in-depth, it remains an unavoidably anti-Semitic work. Of course, this question remains central in all contemporary productions of the play, as the content can be deeply unsettling for its audience. Considering The Merchant of Venice’s popularity in Nazi Germany, its history is troublesome, to put it mildly (between 1933 and 1939, more than fifty productions were performed there). From the development of anti-Semitism throughout the play’s lifetime, two questions recur in the production of each adaptation of the play: first, should Merchant of Venice be performed, and if so, how should it be performed? As Maisie concluded in the Cast and Compel article, all directors of Merchant of Venice face the same obstacle of creating a performance whose benefit outweighs the harmful themes necessary to tell such a story. Often the most important role cast in The Merchant of Venice, Shylock is a Jewish moneylender, and most of the play’s anti-Semitism is directed through his interactions. Portia, widely regarded as the next most major role in the play, is instrumental in resolving the central conflicts and ultimately “saving the play.” However, her complex nature makes her a subject of debate about her perceived justice or injustice. The ambiguous nature of Portia specifically lends itself as a valuable tool for directors of the play, allowing them to take her archetype in whatever direction suits their narrative. In Jack Gold’s 1980 film adaptation and in Michael Radford’s 2004 film adaptation, although each director employs a portrayal of Portia opposite to the other, one ruthless and one pitiful, both directors still cultivate a sympathetic narrative for Shylock which is necessary for a contemporary production of the play.

Jack Gold’s adaptation lends power to Shylock, accentuating his personality while diluting the rest of the Christian cast with dull costumes and mundane backdrops (Alistair, 1). In making this film, he sought to promote the play to a wider audience while simultaneously staying resonant with the original play. To strike this balance, Gold placed the spotlight on a comical and boisterous Shylock, tilting the narrative in favor of the Christians in the role of the villains rather than Shylock. As a result, Portia takes on the role of the villain, who, in the trial scene, proceeds with Shylock rather coldly. Despite efforts to create a digestible adaptation, Gold’s film was nearly banned had it not been that both Jack Gold and Warren Mitchel (Shylock) were Jewish.

Michael Radford’s adaptation of Merchant of Venice takes a turn from Gold’s. He opts for a more intense and tragic rendition of the play, removing most of the play’s comedic elements. Radford’s goal, while similar to Gold’s goal to bring the play to a wider audience, strayed from him in that he sought to use elements of cinema to bring more depth to the characters. Portia, played by Lynn Collins, is Radford’s crowning role in the film (Magnus 8). However, to achieve this, Radford edited out the faults of Portia’s character, such as her racist attitude toward the prince of Morocco, while providing character depth by capturing her guilt from the trial.

Shakespeare’s trial scene in Merchant of Venice marks the climax of the play. Portia transitions to a man, Doctor of Law Balthasar. Upon listening to Shylock’s bond, she confirms with the Duke that they must go through with the bond. Once Antonio prepares his bosom for the Shylock’s knife, Antonio and Bassanio profess their love for one other. Just before Shylock begins to cut out his pound of flesh from Antonio, Portia interrupts with “Tarry a little” (4.1.318) and forewarns Shylock that the bond does not allow any blood to be spilled, only flesh. This line marks the shift of the prosecution from Antonio to Shylock. After nullifying the bond, Portia then accuses Shylock of attempted murder so that he loses all his valuables and is eventually forced to convert to Christianity.  

In each adaptation of the play, the renderings of the lines “Tarry a little” hold different weight, which stems from Portia’s varying confidence from one director’s choice to the next. In Gold’s adaptation, Gemma Jones plays Portia as nervous and whereas Lynn Collins plays her as confidently in charge. Gold’s Portia is nervous because he chooses for her to be unaware of the rebuttal to Shylock’s bond until the very last moment. On the other hand, in Radford’s adaptation, he decides that Portia knows how the trial will play out from the outset, choosing for her to whisper to the Duke about her plan a few minutes before her persecution of Shylock, and thus a confident air throughout the trial (Magnus 9).

By building on her confidence, Gold’s Portia prioritizes dealing justice and saving Antonio but keeps a blind eye to Shylock’s degradation. In addition, to further understand the difference in production between these two plays, know that Gold was tasked with making a film on a limited budget and with less cinematic advancement than Radford. In the trial scene, these two factors manifested themselves in the scene’s lack of suspense leading up to Antonio’s persecution. This lack of suspense, paired with Portia’s anxiety, makes for these lines to be spoken quite literally, undermining the gravity of the situation. Portia’s insipid delivery of the lines “Tarry a little” also undermines the downfall and importance of Shylock in the play, turning the former protagonist of the play into collateral. On the other hand, in Radford’s edition, Lynn Collins, as Portia, delivers the “Tarry” imperatively but “a little” as sarcastic. Radford’s trial scene plays rather seriously, which is due to Radford’s development of suspense through cinematography. It is only after a long silence and short, quick cuts that Portia cries, “Tarry… a little”. Aware of how the rest of the trial with pan out, Radford’s Portia seems to be the director of this suspense, and because she knows that this is no small delay in the proceeding, hence the sarcasm. In order to get away from the harsh persecution of Shylock, Radford shifts focus onto the suffering of Antonio, afflicted by Portia. Instead of playing the scene as Portia attempting to save Antonio, jealousy drives Portia not to let Antonio get away with dying as the one who loved her husband most. As the subsequent degradation of Shylock unfolds, Portia is depicted as feeling remorse for him.

Link to trial scene Jack Gold Clip

Gold’s production resulted in a more harsh prosecution of Shylock due to the film's theatrical nature. Technology and budget did not allow for the film to take the same liberty that Radford could. Laury Magnus a scholar who wrote on Radford’s adaptation mentioned, “the ruthlessness of Portia's ‘Christian mercy,’ though partially exposed in the film, is often far more apparent on stage” (10). For example, Radford ends the trial scene with a group of shots panning from a guilty Portia to Shylock leaving the trial. In a more cinematic depiction of the scene, Radford can add further layers that a play version is not inherently able to create. Connecting the dots, it becomes clear that Gold’s adaptation, because it is theatrical, leans toward the ruthless portrayal of Portia but overlaps in that both audiences feel sympathy toward Shylock.

Through the contrasting characterization of Portia, it becomes clear the directorial choices that created each film. Despite two strikingly distant Portia both directors create a production of Merchant of Venice which society acknowledges. Scholar and Teacher, Carla Della Gatta advocates using Shakespeare as a tool to confront misinformation in a similar manner to this essay. When studying Shakespeare, there are contrasting layers of interpretation at countless places in his works. As a pedagogical exercise with her students, Della Gatta practices juxtaposing different Shakespeare editions students bring in to get them accustomed to the multiple “truths” present in these works (168). Earlier in my essay, I argue the two different interpretations of “Tarry a little”. It’s not that I argue one is better, but rather that use the lines to acquaint the reader as to how a director ended up making that decision. The goal of every modern Shakespeare production should be to reimagine the work in some way. The ambiguity is a tool not so that the director can pick the best interpretation, but instead use it as a tool to create an original narrative that builds upon the previously established one. Ultimately, by usacknowledgingg different interpretations, Shakespeare can begin to act as a tool for confronting social justice and inspire analytical thinking.

Dorian Gilmartin

Artist's Statement My goal for this project is to assist novice/beginner readers to interact with Shakespearean texts in alternative ways. At this point, I’ve taken three classes whose goal was to analyze Shakespeare under different lens’. Even though I’ve read, explored, and written about a multitude of plays, I still feel like a rookie at times. Through both the medium of film, as well as acting lines out loud I’ve felt myself growing a deeper connection towards the texts. It’s both fascinating and important to see how these stories have evolved or devolved over time. The main question that we’ve asked ourselves countless times over the duration of this course is “Why here, and why now?” I aim to help those like myself who are more comfortable in other mediums analyze and absorb this timeless material. 

Radford and Welles Film Analysis

Adaptation and reimagination are two of the most important aspects of the modern Shakespearean world. A multitude of young people are first introduced to classic Shakespeare plays through modern takes via film, performance, or television. As the nature of these adaptations evolves, so must the message behind the play. Both Michael Radford and Orson Welles’ depiction of the Merchant of Venice provide an important insight into the ever developing world of adaptation. Their intentional choices of inclusion, exclusion, and evolution all culminate to represent the at the time modern perception of the Merchant of Venice.

Before fully analyzing the films, it is important to fully grasp the circumstances in which they were created. Michael Radford’s Merchant of Venice was created in 2004, and stars big names such as Al Pacino and Jeremy Irons. Without getting into it too much, the film takes a few creative liberties to alter how the audience perceives the characters. It was one of Radford’s goals to bring Shylock, who is one of Shakespeare’s most infamous characters, onto the big screen in a more favorable light. Orson Welles’ Merchant of Venice, while technically incomplete, has many of its versions scattered throughout the internet. Major scenes of this short film have been restored in recent years, allowing us to understand Welles’ portrayal of Shylock. Orson Welles himself plays Shylock, and chooses to make him the main character of his short film. Coincidentally enough, almost all of the recovered footage is of Welles’ Shylock. It’s fascinating that bothe Radford and Welles chose to take such a complicated character and put them at the forefront of their films. How did they succeed in terms of representation?

A key aspect of the story that is normally brushed over is the pre-existing relationship between Antonio and Shylock. Radford takes their relationship and recontextualizes it by changing Antonio’s character. The key distinction between Jeremy Irons’ Antonio and the Antonio from the play is their prior treatment of Shylock. In the play, Shylock seems to have this rather irrational hatred for Antonio. It appears that Shylock dislikes Antonio because he is a successful Christian man. For those reading the original text, we do not align with this sentiment in a modern context. It feels incredibly out of place, and paints Shylock in a pretty bad light. This of course does not mean that everyone else’s treatment of Shylock is acceptable in the source material. It just forces us to look at Shylock differently. In Radford’s version of Merchant of Venice, it is clear that Antonio is instead the instigator of their feud. In the opening scene of the film, a jewish man is executed by an angry mob of Christians. Shylock can only look on in horror, as Antonio walks through his marketplace. Still in shock, Shylock calls out to Antonio. It’s unclear as to why he called to Antonio, whether it was just a simple greeting or perhaps a cry for help. Antonio stops in his tracks and looks down on Shylock in disgust, spitting on him without saying a word. This one addition into the film completely flips how we view these characters. Radford makes a pretty radical change to their relationship before the main plot occurs, but it doesn’t feel like he’s drastically changing the story. In a modern reading of the play, the audience will almost always feel an initial sympathy towards Shylock. Even when he is written to have some pretty twisted and sinister aspirations, we chock it up to Shakespeare’s anti-semitism. This scene’s inclusion truly fleshes out Shylock’s motivations (no pun intended) and gives us a legitimate reason for him to dislike Antonio. 

While there were some momentous changes to Shylock’s character, he is not the main character of Radford’s adaptation. In Orson Welles’ version, however, the director/actor put Shylock on center stage. One of the most noticeable changes between Radford’s 2004 version of Shylock and Welles’ 1969 version is the costume choice. In the play, not much is known about Shylock’s physical appearance, except that he wears a large hat. This is the main consistency between the three versions we’ve discussed today. In a more general sense, in both film and other play adaptations, Shylock is dressed to be as stereotypically Jewish as possible. I believe that the Welles version falls more under this category. He wears a long curly wig, as well as having a large unkempt beard. His costume is almost rabbi-like, with the all black jacket and tall black hat. It symbolizes that this version of Shylock is intrinsically tied to being Jewish, but does not include any of the societal tellings of that. Radford’s version excels in this field. Radford includes in his film that the Jewish people of Venice are forced to wear a red hat during the day.

There are countless metaphors that can be thrown at this stylistic choice but the biggest is obviously the holocaust. Perhaps Welles didn’t include this aspect to his Jewish characters, seeing as it was made in 1969. Radford, however, takes this point and runs with it. Every time a Jewish person is on screen or in a crowd, your eye is immediately drawn to them. This subtle yet important detail shows just how far this story has come. 

In analyzing these film adaptations, along with any other mediums of Shakespeare, it’s important to recognize what you find vital to the story. With some conscious thinking, you may walk out of an adaptation thinking that it’s extremely outdated, which is completely fine! It’s this stream of thought that propels and advances our understanding and appreciation of Shakespeare forward.

A recording of Act One Scene Two in Merchant of Venice -

This is a recording of the scene that I have dove into for my site-specific analyses, but also for my own audio-recording of this scene. the intention is to listen as you read along with the lines, feeling the raw emotion and feelings inside this scene, as well as getting an idea of how to adapt it to yourself and your ideas .This recording allowed me to see the play in another light, as well as open myself up to different mediums and ideas.

 https://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/41/the-merchant-of-venice/587/merchant-of-venice-act-1-scene-2/ .

PORTIA. I pray thee over-name them; and as thou namest them, I will describe them; and according to my description, level at my affection.

NERISSA. First, there is the Neapolitan prince.

PORTIA. Ay, that's a colt indeed, for he doth nothing but talk of his horse; and he makes it a great appropriation to his own good parts that he can shoe him himself; I am much afeard my lady his mother play'd false with a smith.

NERISSA. Then is there the County Palatine.

PORTIA. He doth nothing but frown, as who should say 'An you will not have me, choose.' He hears merry tales and smiles not: I fear he will prove the weeping philosopher when he grows old, being so full of unmannerly sadness in his youth. I had rather be married to a death's-head with a bone in his mouth than to either of these. God defend me from these two!

NERISSA. How say you by the French lord, Monsieur Le Bon?

PORTIA. God made him, and therefore let him pass for a man. In truth, I know it is a sin to be a mocker, but he! why, he hath a horse better than the Neapolitan's, a better bad habit of frowning than the Count Palatine; he is every man in no man. If a throstle sing he falls straight a-capering; he will fence with his own shadow; if I should marry him, I should marry twenty husbands. If he would despise me, I would forgive him; for if he love me to madness, I shall never requite him.

NERISSA. What say you, then, to Falconbridge, the young baron of England?

PORTIA. You know I say nothing to him, for he understands not me, nor I him: he hath neither Latin, French, nor Italian, and you will come into the court and swear that I have a poor pennyworth in the English. He is a proper man's picture; but alas, who can converse with a dumb-show? How oddly he is suited! I think he bought his doublet in Italy, his round hose in France, his bonnet in Germany, and his behaviour everywhere.

NERISSA. What think you of the Scottish lord, his neighbour?

PORTIA. That he hath a neighborly charity in him, for he borrowed a box of the ear of the Englishman, and swore he would pay him again when he was able; I think the Frenchman became his surety, and sealed under for another.

NERISSA. How like you the young German, the Duke of Saxony's nephew?

PORTIA. Very vilely in the morning when he is sober, and most vilely in the afternoon when he is drunk: when he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. An the worst fall that ever fell, I hope I shall make shift to go without him.

NERISSA. If he should offer to choose, and choose the right casket, you should refuse to perform your father's will, if you should refuse to accept him.

PORTIA. Therefore, for fear of the worst, I pray thee set a deep glass of Rhenish wine on the contrary casket; for if the devil be within and that temptation without, I know he will choose it. I will do anything, Nerissa, ere I will be married to a sponge.

This is the final version of my site-specific analysis and the third one that I had done on the same scene and characters. For this site-specific analysis, the intention was to choose a scene and some characters to work with and truly digest the scene and sights around them. The intention was to see how different scenes affected each setting, and how the different areas and word choices affect the mood and feeling of the conversations. In mine, I went from a common area to a smaller room, to a bedroom to show the change of paces and change the wording for this scene. I chose the scene in which Portia and Nerissa are in Portia's bed-chamber, discussing the jokes of the many suitors for Portia's hand. This allowed me to pick apart Portia's chatters, and inevitably see her for who she truly was, rather than this popular female icon so many like to claim. Portia is seen to have many moments of disobedience, nonconformity, or even moments of true justice, especially for women at the time, but Portia is also a racist, classist, and hateful person who only wishes to get her way. Without seeing all of Portia's faults, you cannot see all of Portia's good. Just as we are trying to do with Shakespeare, we must do with Portia and everyone who has once wronged, we must see their bad to see their good and judge them accordingly. 

In Act One Scene Two, Portia and Nerissa are in Portia's bed-chamber, discussing all the suitors who have come for a chance at the casket and a chance for Portia's hand in marriage. An unusual topic of discussion for most women at the time, but not for steadfast Portia. Portia makes note of her life being willed by a dead man, her father, even when he isn't around to enforce his will or expectations. Portia wishes to choose or at least have a say in the matter of her hand, but due to her status and her sex, she is unable to speak in the way she wishes to. She confides in Nerissa and talks about her want to “Choose one, nor refuse one” (25). The two discuss the multiple suitors and Portia's thoughts on them and what she wants out of this; true love. As Nerissa spouts off names of the potential suitors and her future husband, Portia fires back with her opinion on each man. Her opinion of The young baron of England was “He's a proper man's picture, but alas; who can converse with a dumb-show” (68-69). Her least favorite suitor was the young German man, whom she deemed as “little better than a beast” (84). Even stating that she “Will do anything, Nerissa, where I will be married to a sponge” (93-94). 

These are the scenes in which some find Portia to be this strong leader, and a female icon, as she is standing up for her wants and needs and giving her own two cents without holding back, but others find her to be hasty and rude. Portia is the daughter of a rich man, and men get to compete for her hand, so in reality, who here is being selfish? She forgets all the lavish lifestyles she ever had solely because this one time she may not get what she wants. Let's not forget about the prince of Morocco's introduction, asking her to not mind the color of his skin, where she did just that. We have scenes in which Portia can be seen as this icon for the female legal scholar or the young woman with an opinion, but she is also privileged in more ways than one and even more problematic. Portia does have moments in which she stands out and becomes this strong young individual that may strike a bit of an uproar, but to appreciate and recognize these moments, we also need to see her from another standpoint. By doing this, we can use her as an example of a leader in training, and a stepping stone for brave, outstanding women, because in her way, she is. She isn't already this icon, but she can and has paved the way for more influential and kinder icons.

For this site-specific analysis, my change of scenery was taking off my rose-colored glasses and seeing Portia for who she truly was and was meant to represent then and now. Instead of changing the location in which I did my production or changing the lines to fit another period, I changed the way I saw the character. In my previous two site-specific analyses I had looked at her as this icon and role model for women and literature at this time, which is exactly like some people choose to view Shakespeare. Rather than looking at all their deeds as a collective, making an opinion, and using the information that way, some people choose to only see the good. Seeing Portia in an altered light, I was able to see her for the worst, but then I was able to see her start on an arch toward redemption. Due to a deeper understanding and analysis of Portia, I realized who she was on the inside and who she should be recognized as. As I looked deeper into the meanings of her words, I looked deeper into whom Shakespeare intended this woman to be, an idea, a spark.

Portia is, undeniably, a stepping stone along the way for strong women and a character worth mentioning and recognizing. Though there are many better candidates for a strong and kind woman, Portia should not be forgotten as someone who went above and beyond to stand up and defy and end up with what she wanted in the end. Portia changes over the course of the play, and we can sense this through her words and her actions she starts as bitter and resentful, hateful for the way the world was created. Then she slowly but surely finds her way toward a better self and starts to do things for a more just reason. She ends up helping Antonio win the case against shylock, and she ends up with her idea of true love, just as she wanted. This is what people see as her being an icon, and a role model, which is true. At the time she truly was a role model for women and probably a shock to others, but the times have changed and we need to view Portia in a new light. Portia is no longer this icon, as we have come a long way since then, but we can still appreciate Portia and her soft launch of female advocacy.

Portia is a great example of why we read Shakespeare to this day and Merchant of Venice in general. Portia is a character much like Shakespeare himself, controversial yet celebrated, but were trying to break that chain and rather than view them as controversial, or celebrate them rather, take their controversies and wins into consideration before making a total analysis. Portia, Shakespeare, and other works other than Merchant of Venice can be useful to understand the times and how they have changed and to see literature from a different perspective. The intention was never to worship these texts like religious pieces but rather to understand and accept them. Portia is a brave and outspoken young woman, but she is also mean, cruel, racist, etc, and to learn from her and take from her, we have to learn from and take from all of her. 

Portia is a stand-out character in Merchant of Venice and throughout other works of Shakespeare, but the reason that we can learn more from her than what the times were like and how literature was, we can learn to be better and learn from our past. Portia and Shakespeare can teach us many lessons and more than meet the eye. Portia and Shakespeare are both people who should not be forgotten and diminished, but they are also not needed to be put on a pedestal and used as an example for everything in this regard. 

In conclusion, through reading this specific scene and Merchant of Venice (along with other works of Shakespeare) I have learned to look at the bigger picture and see things for how they are. I realized that there are only a few landscapes to see things from and change, and that is why we read Shakespeare today. Portia had importance, just as Shakespeare did, but now they aren't the most important, and we need to recognize this as many others have already. We need to see the people whom we should truly use as icons and symbols, those who deserve this praise, those who are kind, as well as exemplary.

In many productions and adaptations of Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, there is no “Old Gobbo.” The directors choose to cut the entire scene of Act II, Scene 2, or incorporate some of the essence of the content in the scene into Lancelot Gobbo’s speech. This decision appears understandable: in this scene, Lancelot seems unnecessarily cruel, poking fun at his half-blind father, making silly wordplay jokes, and as usual trying all means to insult the Jewish people. I’d like to argue, however, that such a reading of this scene is partial and even misguided. Upon closer examination of the text, we would discover that this short and, in many ways, abrupt scene places Lancelot Gobbo and his at times atrocious behavior in the context of a father-son relationship, and by including this scene and presenting it in suitable ways, the scene in fact promotes social justice and deepens the meaning of the play.

 Click here  to revisit Act II, Sc. 2 of MOV

A key element of this father-son relationship between Old Gobbo and Lancelot Gobbo is the gap of understanding between the father and the son. The father does not really know the son despite being his father, and this point is emphasized multiple times in both Lancelot’s speech and Old Gobbo’s speech. In Lancelot’s description/introduction of Old Gobbo, he tells the audience that the father is half-blind and “knows me not” (II.2.34); later when Lancelot wants to reveal his identity to Old Gobbo, Old Gobbo insists “Alack, sir, I am sand-blind; I know you not”(II.2.69). These two moments in the text, as well as some other instances, connect Old Gobbo’s half blindness with his inability to know his own son. According to scholars such as Robert B Pierce and Jeffrey R. Wilson, such blindness was often used by Shakespeare as a flexible way to associate a character with “spiritual/intellectual blindness” (Pierce) and to “symbolize the errors and insufficiencies of a character” (Wilson). The question then becomes this: what exactly is this insufficiency/error/blindness in Old Gobbo? One possibility is that Old Gobbo fails to be a dutiful father but instead burdens his son. When Lancelot introduces his father to the audience, he says “this is my true-begotten father” (II.2.32-33). This, according to Frank Ardolino, is an intentional reversal of a quote from the Bible, “And the worde was made flesh, and dwelt among us…as the glorie of the onely begotten Sonne of the father.” By reversing this familial order, Lancelot, besides being funny and maybe a bit rebellious, could be suggesting that his relationship with his father is more like the son looking after the father and trying to understand him, rather than the other way around. This point has another textual proof, too: when Lancelot later jokingly tells Old Gobbo that his son is dead, Old Gobbo’s reaction is “Mary, God forbid! The boy was the very staff of my age, my very prop”(II.2.61-62). This line, while moving and showing Old Gobbo’s sadness and therefore love for his son, also suggests a physical and emotional reliance on his son. As explained by OED, “staff” can refer to a person or a thing that can provide assistance or comfort. A few other instances in the scene suggest with stronger evidence that Old Gobbo might not be a good father. In the part where Lancelot attempts to make Old Gobbo realize that he is Lancelot but Old Gobbo refuses to recognize him, Lancelot says “it is a wise father that knows his own child”(II.2.71-72). The humor here is that it’s a reversal of the proverb “it is a wise child that knows his own father.” Apart from the humor, this line conveys a sense of bitterness, especially since Lancelot has just heard Old Gobbo say that he does not know Lancelot. It suggests that Old Gobbo has never really understood Lancelot, either because he’s been negligent, or because he simply is not able to understand due to his own upbringing or some other factors. This inability to understand/gap of understanding is also emphasized in the “young Master Lancelot” section, where Lancelot insists that Lancelot is a “young master” while Old Gobbo insists that Lancelot is no master but just a “poor man’s son.” Part of the humor in this section is that Lancelot knows he is not perceived as a “young master” so the title would further confuse Old Gobbo in what he thinks should be a funny way. At the same time, however, we might wonder whether Lancelot’s insistence and Old Gobbo’s resistance suggest the different ambitions of the father and the son. In fact, as pointed out by Frank Ardolino, this duality of “a poor man’s son” and “a young master” exists in Christ, and this might precisely be yet another biblical reference of Shakespeare’s. This would mean that Lancelot finds himself in a situation very similar to Christ, where he, despite being an actual “master”, has to be the “poor man’s son” and “go through the humiliation of his ‘participation in humanity’” (Ardolino). What Old Gobbo and Lancelot are insisting on in this section, therefore, reflects what they think is the primary image/identity of Lancelot. Old Gobbo’s perception of Lancelot as a “poor man’s son” suggests that, to Old Gobbo, Lancelot is insignificant to the world. Lancelot’s perception of himself as a “master”, however, suggests his ambition and belief that he is important and deserves better things than what he has now. There is a big difference, therefore, between the father and the son here, and perhaps Lancelot’s feelings and ambitions are exactly what Old Gobbo fails to understand. It is also important to note that, in this scene, Old Gobbo serves an important role of completing the Christ image: without Old Gobbo’s speech of “poor man’s son” (II.2.47), the biblical reference of Christ would never be completed. This structural design therefore suggests that Old Gobbo contributes to the image of Christ that Lancelot thinks of himself as, and, moreover, Old Gobbo is contributing to the less glorious, “poor man’s son” section of it. Whenever Lancelot sees himself as that image, his father’s presence reminds him of the part of the image he’s not proud of but must accept; this then becomes another reason for Lancelot to resent or be frustrated by his father. All of the above reasons could help explain how Lancelot is treating his father in this scene: it expresses Lancelot’s frustration at his father’s inability to understand and help him. In this way, Lancelot’s cruel jokes about blindness are revealed to be his way of expressing frustration instead of random, malicious speeches of hatred towards blind people. Lancelot’s insults of the Jewish people in this scene are also softened, both because (1) the attention/emphasis in this scene is now shifted to the father-son relationship, rather than the problem areas of antisemitism, and because (2) Lancelot is no longer a simple and general clown character that produces jokes for the audience throughout the play, but instead a full character with a potentially negligent father and a rough childhood, and therefore some of his opinions reflect not the play’s official comment on Jewish people or what the play wants to promote, but instead reflects his limitations as a character and his upbringing. Hence it is a good idea to keep Act II, Sc. 2, and to keep the character Old Gobbo. By showing this father-son relationship, Lancelot’s mean jokes and other behaviors are placed in context and given a limitation, allowing the director to explain the inappropriate sections with his upbringing and resulting personality, and to direct our attention back to the issues of humanity, bond, justice, mercy. Given this father-son relationship, the director has much freedom in choosing which aspects of it to emphasize and how to interpret the relationship, and in this way emphasizes some messages over others: the director, for example, could choose to highlight Old Gobbo’s failure as a father, or alternatively, Lancelot as a rebellious youth who thinks he knows everything when he doesn’t, or both.

The bright lights of an empty parking lot in Hartford, Connecticut shine as an iridescent bodega sign flickers in the background. It is June and a light, warm breeze makes its way from stage right. It is the first day of summer vacation and the looming dread of the start of freshman year in college hangs low in the air. Enter Lorenzo, dressed in a baggy sweat suit and baseball hat, and Jessica, dressed in leisurewear. Both are holding cell phones and in Lorenzo’s right hand, a BudLight is gripped tightly.

LORENZO

It’s finally nice out…and summer…it’s finally summer. No more homework, no more tests. And we’re going to college. Wow. In three months, you’re going to Pomona and I’m going to Brandeis. We’re finally done with all of the test prep and finally done with high school…we made it. I swear, on a night like this, when the breeze is warm and it’s just the two of us, the long distance stuff we’re worried about just disappears. On a night like this, I swear it’s like we are characters in that story Miss Brown made us read. What was it called again? Oh, I remember. We’re like Troilus and Cressida. Expecept, like, you’re not being traded to a Greek camp or whatever.

Jessica takes a small step towards Lorenzo, slightly shortening the awkward distance between them. She responds instantly, practically completing his previous line. 

JESSICA

You’re so right. On a night like tonight, I can forget about how hard the Fall could be for us. The long distance calls, the plane rides, you rushing that fraternity and being busy with that and me being busy with school work. I just know that everything will be okay. We will be okay. Hey, we’re like that other love story we read, too. Pyramus and Thisbe. Remember? The one with the mulberry tree? Except, yeah, like, you don’t stab yourself because I’m dead. And we’re not, like, talking through a wall. 

Jessica looks down at her cell phone out of habit and removes a cigarette from her purse which she lights. Lorenzo sips his BudLight.

LORENZO

Yup. That’s so true. You and me, we’re like all of those epic love stories we’ve read about in school. Honestly, I’m not even worried about us…at all. Like, yeah, the adjustment will be hard, but we’ve been seeing each other for a while now and we both know how we feel about each other…yeah, I’m not worried about us one bit. Hey, look, I’ve got another one. You’re like Dido and I’m like Aeneas. You’ve come to see Carthage again…except, like, make it Connecticut. And, obviously like minus the bad ending, you know?

Jessica sighs dramatically and looks down at her cell phone. A soft breeze continues to blow and a car pulls into the parking lot from stage left. Jessica offers Lorenzo a puff of the cigarette. She laughs at her joke as she speaks.

JESSICA

Yes, no bad ending for us. I’m sure that we will be just fine…like one hundred percent confident…wow, look at the stars. They’re so bright tonight…I swear they’ve never looked so beautiful. It’s just us out here, Lo. You and me against the world, right? We’re going to be fine, I know it…wait, look, haha another story. I’m like Medea with her enchanted herbs and you’re Aeson…I’ve renewed you, given you life! Haha. Again, but like take out the death stuff at the end, you know? 

Lorenzo exhales and steps closer to Jessica who is looking down at her cell phone again. 

LORENZO

Renewed indeed. Thanks, babe. Jess, I’m not worried about us at all. We’ve got it all figured out and everything will work out just fine. A little distance has nothing on us, right? I love you…I swear. And, wow, on a night like tonight, you could tell me every bad thing you’ve ever done and I would still love you. And I’m not at all personally, but I know you’re scared of what’s to come. Jess, you don’t have to be…I wish we could just run away from everything, far away…so it could just be us with nothing to worry about, you know? I just love you so much. 

Lorenzo steps closer towards Jessica. They are almost touching now. 

JESSICA

Me too, babe. On a night like tonight, I believe you when you tell me you love me…I really do. And I believe you when you say that I shouldn’t be worried…I believe you, Lo. I know you’re telling the truth this time, I just know it. We don’t need to worry…even though the last time we did long distance you, like, kind of cheated on me that one time. We have nothing to worry about, right?

Jessica grabs Lorenzo’s hand, still holding the cigarette in the other. 

LORENZO

I only did that because you were acting literally insane and wouldn’t stop calling me - you know that, come on. Anyways, that’s the past…and you forgave me…and I would, like, never do that again. Our future's so bright, Jess, I swear. On a night like tonight, my stunning girl… who might I just say looks a little crazy with her hair like that…, let's forget about the past and only think about the future…which is going to be so great…

Jessica’s phone rings and it is her mother. It is past her curfew. She hastily hugs Lorenzo and makes her way towards her parked car.

JESSICA

Shoot - I have to go, my mom’s pissed that I’m late again. Lo, I would love to stay, but I need to head home like right now so I don’t get grounded again. I’ll see you at Tina’s party tomorrow night, okay? Love you, babe! Not worried about us! At all! Byeee!

Scene

Perhaps it is because his plays have become so ingrained in the foundations of the study of literature that they will always have a place reserved in the canon. Perhaps it is because in continuing to study them, new meanings and ways of study emerge. Or, perhaps it is because, put simply, Shakespeares’ work is entertaining and timeless. Regardless of the reason why the majority of students across the United States have, at some point in their academic careers, encountered “Romeo and Juliet” or “Twelfth Night,” I would argue that the continued study of Shakespeare is important, necessary, and beneficial to contemporary audiences. In continuing to engage with texts that have become historic and canonical with their complex and often controversial themes in mind and well-researched, modern readers have the power to extract from Shakespeares’ works previously unimaginable lessons, meanings, methods of study, and ways of thinking. 

For these reasons, for my major project, I have reimagined the interaction between Lorenzo and Jessica in Act Five, Scene One, Lines 1-30 in one of Shakespeares’ most popular and problematic plays, “The Merchant of Venice.” Continuing my work for our courses’ second site-specific analysis in which I examined the production of this same scene, for this project, I have re-imagined these two lovers entirely, placing them both in the modern world. I have done this both through rewriting Shakespeares’ original text in this scene to align with a modern setting, as well as through a visual representation in the form of a cartoon. In the following paragraphs, I will lay out how and why I went about re-imaging this scene, detailing what I learned in the process and the larger takeaways that I have gathered from this experience as a whole. 

To begin this process of textual and visual modernization, I first engaged deeply with Shakespeare’s original text, focusing both on the lines themselves, as well as stage directions and other directorial decisions. For context, in this scene, unaware of the outcome of Shylock’s trial, Lorenzo sets an idyllic (perhaps unrealistic) scene in Belmont: “The moon shines bright.” (V.I.1) Here, he and Jessica discuss their relationship and make bold proclamations of love through references to famous lovers from classical stories like Troilus and Cressida, Pyramus and Thisbe, and Dido and Aeneas. However, despite being branded “epic love stories,” all of these tales end in heartbreak and loss. Cressida is unfaithful to Troilus; Pyramus and Thisbe both kill themselves; when Aeneas abandons Dido, she commits suicide. Though it may seem as though the couple is making heartfelt declarations of love through these comparisons and lines like “In such a night Did young Lorenzo swear he loved her well,” (V.I.17-18), there is an undeniably dark undertone to this interaction given the outcomes of these referenced stories. Additionally, Lorenzo insults Jessica, referring to her as “a little shrew,” (V.I.22) while Jessica refers to Lorenzo as “an unthrift love.” (V.I.16) Perhaps Jessica is regretting her decision. Perhaps the two lovers are worried that their fates may resemble those of Pyramus and Thisbe or Troilus and Cressida. Through the use of stichomythia (completing or finishing the lines of another character) which can either be symbolic of lover’s exchanging lines or characters fighting, audience members are forced to decide which of the two this interaction can be characterized as. Are Lorenzo and Jessica making sweet confessions of love or are the two engaged in a lovers’ quarrel, both of them too afraid to admit their fears and apprehensions towards their future? 

Through in-depth analysis of Shakespeares’ original script, I was able to discover that there is a distinct doubleness here. The two lovers are comparing themselves to famous characters in “epic love stories,” but not one of the pairings that the two choose to refer to in their dialogue ends happily. While Lorenzo and Jessica are indeed completing each other’s lines, I would argue that perhaps it is not in a romantic way, but in an aggressive, irritated manner. They are connected through the use of stichomythia, and yet distinctly disconnected through their topic of conversation and the manner in which they are conversing. Lastly, the setting of this scene (as was common in many of Shakespeares' works) is dream-like and mythical, with “the sweet wind” (V.1.2) gently kissing the trees surrounding the two lovers, and yet the topic of conversation is, in reality, quite grim and perhaps used to foreshadow a troubled future for Lorenzo and Jessica. Though both the tone of this interaction and the scene as a whole are meant to be light, revealing a happy ending to this play, a closer inspection of the content and form of this scene unveils a different ending to “The Merchant of Venice” entirely - an ending riddled with regret and uncertain futures. 

After engaging with the original text in this scene, I then conducted research on the time period in which “The Merchant of Venice” takes place, the plays’ problematic history and legacy, and the specific characters that are present in my scene (Lorenzo and Jessica). In reading articles on the negative effects that the mercantile nature of Venice has on relationships in the play, analyzing the profound anti-semitism present in this text, and exploring the social, cultural, religious and gender conventions of the time period, I feel as though I was then able to enter my project with a well-rounded sense of the original “Merchant” as I attempted to rework and paraphrase it into something new. In exploring these topics, I discovered new meanings within the text itself and my specific scene, enabling me to later produce the most attuned and informed modern reimagining possible. I truly hope that this research and effort is evident in my project. 

Next, I explored a variety of adaptations and reimaginings of “The Merchant of Venice” that have previously been done. I studied both live performances such as Arin Arbus’s new production of “The Merchant of Venice” at Theater for a New Audience and Maurice Schwartz’s 1947 “Shaylocks Tochter,” as well as textual adaptations such as Howard Jacobson’s “Shylock is My Name,” a retelling of “The Merchant of Venice” set in Manchester, England. In adapting "Merchant" time and time again, many of these productions closely examined changes made to line delivery, staging, costumes, language, characters’ appearances and relationships, and the perspective from which this story is told. Additionally, across most of these adaptations a common alteration made to this play in the process of modernizing it was adding a greater sense of compassion, justice, and history to play as most modern audience members assess that the original lacks these qualities. One playwright does this by reworking the text so that it is told entirely from the Jewish perspective, while another accomplishes this through casting a Black man, John Douglas Thompson, as Shylock. In exploring the ways in which modern thinkers have attempted to reimagine “The Merchant of Venice” and audience responses to those adaptations, I was able to distill these reworkings into a collection of approaches to modernizing. In tracking the intentional changes that have been made to this play and in reflecting on how modern playwrights and authors have paraphrased this famous play for modernity, I was able to determine which of the changes could work for my own production. I was also able to brainstorm new, previously untested approaches to modernizing this play. 

Having completed all of this work, I finally began to reimagine V.I.1-30 in the setting of the modern world. In re-writing this scenes' original lines, I utilized the tools I gathered in researching previous modern productions of the play, and first focused on staging and costumes. As my reimagining of this scene is meant to highlight the parallels between Lorenzo and Jessica and lovers or individuals engaging in the trials and tribulations of contemporary hook-up culture, I decided to have the setting for my adaptation be an empty parking lot in the summertime. As a location such as this is the frequent stage for conversations like the one presented in V.I, I found this decision to be intentional and enhancing to my contemporary take. Next, in an effort to closely mimic the unrealistic setting that Lorenzo paints in his opening lines (“The moon shines bright. In such a night as this, When the sweet wind did gently kiss the tree…” (V.I.1-2)), I selected a warm night for my production to be staged, and a time of year (summer) that is idyllic for most teenagers. In my stage directions I also note that surrounding the two characters is flickering iridescent signage as I felt it aligned quite accurately with my modern adaptation of the text. In terms of the specific language that I used in my version of this scene, I kept the same overall structure in terms of content as Shakespeares’ as I felt this added a humorous element to my work. I used each “epic love story” that Lorenzo and Jessica exchange in their original lines as anchors for my production, and developed the interaction between these two characters further from there, adding common contemporary speech. Additionally, I paraphrased Shakespeare’s original line, “In such a night as this,” to fit a contemporary manner of speech,  producing the line: “On a night like this.” Like the original scene, both characters repeat this line frequently throughout their interaction. In another instance of paraphrasing, I also directly adapted the subtle insults that Shakespeare has the two lovers exchange in his original text such as “a little shrew” into a modern dialogue by, for example, having Lorenzo casually say, “On a night like tonight, my stunning girl… who might I just say looks a little crazy with her hair like that…” As my plot is structured around the closing of one chapter in these characters’ lives (high school) and the opening of another (college), most of my lines relate back to the two transitioning into long distance dating, their worries about time passing too quickly, and the unresolved issues that they have previously had in their relationship. These lines and the way in which they are delivered are meant to communicate fear, worry, doubt, and anxiety for both characters as this is how I interpreted Shakespeare’s original scene. I then focused on costumes and props which I noted in the stage directions of my lines, opting for Lorenzo to be dressed in “typical” modern male attire (a sweatsuit and baseball cap) and Jessica dressed in casual leisurewear. Other than a warm beer in Lorenzo’s underage hand, the only props that I made sure to include in my adaptation of this scene were two cell phones, one grasped tightly in Lorenzo’s hand and the other in Jessica’s. Throughout the scene, again as noted in my stage directions, I ensured that, as twenty-somethings frequently do, both characters used their respective devices as crutches in conversation. 

After making these changes, I then focused on the physical staging of these two characters, which I again note in the stage directions of the modernized lines. For my production, I made the directorial decision to have the two characters stand visibly and uncomfortably far apart. Though the staccato, quick completion of each others’ lines draws them closer together as the scene progresses, the content of their lines as well as their spacing creates a distinct distance, both emotionally and physically. Again, I thought this accurately mimicked a conversation between modern lovers partaking in a conversation in an abandoned parking lot. In making these strategic physical decisions for my adaptation of these lines, I hope to have left readers wondering how this discourse ends - as friends, lovers, enemies, or perhaps even as individuals who, with their cellphones at the ready, will leave the conversation only to “ghost” one another and never speak again. I wanted to leave the question of what kind of interaction this is up to the interpretation of my audience as again I thought that would mimic how a conversation like this would realistically play out in a modern context. I found that these subtle additions which I have written into these lines both helped communicate the modernity of my adaptation as well as the unspoken emotions between Lorenzo and Jessica. 

After completing my textual adaptation of this scene, I then began to create a visual representation of it. To mimic the contemporary feel of my production, I chose the medium of a cartoon for this visualization. I decided to visually represent this scene using four panels, and I dedicated each panel to a famous or “epic” love story that Shakespeare references in his original text - Troilus and Cressida, Pyramus and Thisbe, Dido, and Medea and Aeson. In my sketches, I made an effort to visually depict the setting, costumes, stage directions, and spacing that I note in my textual work. For example, Lorezo and Jessicas’ attire is meant to mimic typical contemporary dress, and Jessica’s phone is one of the only props present in all four panels. In one slide, she is even looking down at her phone rather than at Lorenzo. In the first panel, Lorenzo and Jessica are clearly physically distant which is meant to represent the content of their lines as well as both of the characters’ anxieties towards their futures. As the panels progress, however, the distance between the characters decreases as the two continue to complete each others’ lines. Lastly, at the top of each panel is a section of dialogue from my re-written contemporary lines. My hope in including something visual in this project is that my work and the work of my peers may be attractive to a wide audience, specifically an audience that prior to my project may have been unfamiliar with or uninterested in “The Merchant of Venice” or Shakespeare more broadly. Additionally, I hope that the inclusion of this particular element in my project will allow viewers to be able to appreciate this play as a whole. It is my hope that this cartoon will make this scene feel easier to understand and place in context, as well as more accessible, less foreign and fun!

Enter Lorenzo and Jessica.

LORENZO

The moon shines bright. In such a night as this,

When the sweet wind did gently kiss the trees

And they did make no noise, in such a night

Troilus, methinks, mounted the Trojan walls

And sighed his soul toward the Grecian tents

Where Cressid lay that night.

JESSICA

 In such a night

Did Thisbe fearfully o’ertrip the dew

And saw the lion’s shadow ere himself

And ran dismayed away.

LORENZO

In such a night

Stood Dido with a willow in her hand

Upon the wild sea-banks, and waft her love

To come again to Carthage.

JESSICA

In such a night

Medea gathered the enchanted herbs

That did renew old Aeson.

LORENZO

In such a night

Did Jessica steal from the wealthy Jew,

And with an unthrift love did run from Venice

As far as Belmont.

JESSICA

In such a night

Did young Lorenzo swear he loved her well,

Stealing her soul with many vows of faith,

And ne’er a true one.

LORENZO

In such a night

Did pretty Jessica, like a little shrew,

Slander her love, and he forgave it her.

JESSICA

I would out-night you did nobody come,

But hark, I hear the footing of a man.

To learn more about Shakespeare and The Merchant of Venice, or to see what sources were informing our work on this project,  have a look at our collective annotated bibliography.