2. The KULESHOV Effect
The Kuleshov effect (as
proved by film-maker Lev
Kuleshov) is the idea that it
is the relationship of one
shot to the next that
creates narrative.
What do you think is suggested about
the cut from Antonio to Bassanio at
this moment?
Could we use the Kuleshov effect here
to support a claim that the feelings that
Antonio has for Bassanio are Anti-
Christian?
‘Why, then you are in love’
Salarino, Act 1 Scene 1
4. Note the monochrome
colours. Shylock is left
hopeless.
Are these scales symbolic of
the Scales of Justice?
• They are a clear visual link to the
brutal bond that Shylock is to create
with Antonio. They are measuring
flesh.
• They perhaps symbolise the justice at
the end of the play – who gets
justice?
In the 2000 Nunn version,
Shylock puts his Jewish clothes
onto the scales at the end. Why
is it significant that the scales
are unbalanced?
The statue of Lady Justice is blind-folded to
represent fairness – she cannot be
prejudiced by appearance. Does this idea
hold in the play: are the characters treated
fairly or is justice blind to any of the
characters?
5. Why has Shylock got his
back to these characters?
• Is this irony? They usually turn their
back on him, but now he is in
control…
You call me misbeliever, cut-throat dog,
And spit upon my Jewish gaberdine
SYMBOLISM
Symbolism is the technique by which
visuals can be used to represent qualities
or ideas.
Look at the COMPOSITION of this shot.
Does the position of Antonio, standing
over a sitting Shylock and looking down
to him, represent and symbolise the
power and authority he has over
Shylock?
Again, is this an ironic portrayal of
Antonio’s character – the arrogant
merchant who, in the end, is going to be
reliant on the mercy of Shylock?
Shylock’s room is clearly a
place where business
happens…
• Does the mide-en-scene (props
etc) reinforce the stereotypical
view of a Jew at the time (a
cruel money lender)?
6. Antonio’s arrogance lessens our affection and reminds us
of the brutal opening of the film.
FORESHADOWING
Antonio’s life
hangs in the
balance at the end of the film and play. His
arrogance foreshadows the tense end of
the play.
I am as like to call thee so again,
To spit on thee again
Why do you think this scene
(the spitting scene at the
start of the 2004 Radford
version) was not included in
the opening to the 2000
Trevor Nunn production?
How might it shape our view
of the characters?
8. You know, none so well, none so well as you, of my
daughter's flight.
Shylock (2004) is shown in a
slightly high angle. A high angle
shot is supposed to signify that
the person is weaker. Do you
agree with this interpretation?
SALANIO
Out upon it, old carrion! rebels it at
these years
What does his facial expression
tell you?
In the 2000 Nunn production, Shylock
is in the foreground. What does this
tell you about his importance and how
does it differ from the 2004 version?
What do you notice about the use of
colour in each?
Shylock’s pain is then trivialised using sexual humour:
9. If you prick us, do we not bleed?
What do you notice about
the reactions of the
listeners?
Radford (2004, top) and Nunn (2000,
bottom) have chosen to present these
two scenes in hugely contrasting ways.
Al Pacino (top) uses an aggressive tone,
conveying a sense of hurt and pain in his
voice. His monologue is gripping. Henry
Goodman’s portrayal is very different. A
much calmer, dignified tone. Why the
difference?
What visual similarities do they share?
11. Whilst the scene from
the 2004 film clearly
shows Shylock’s
alienation, the 2000
Nunn film does more
to capture the
significance of the
scene.
Is this Nunn being
sympathetic to
Shylock by
highlighting and
echoing atrocities
done to the
Jews?
Nunn’s version visually echoes the Nuremberg Trails (1945-49). The trials sentenced Nazi
war criminals for their crimes, including the treatment of the Jews.
Note the similar
colours
The Nuremburg Trials court room The court room in Act 4, Scene 1
TREVOR NUNN: ‘I wanted to put the play there [1930s] so it couldn't in any way
shrink from the reality of the Holocaust’
12. ADDITIONALLY…
Hermann Göring in the dock The Duke of Venice leading the trial (2000, Trevor Nunn
production)
Look at the similarities between these two scenes. The one on the left is of Hermann Göring
in the dock being tried for his crime. Göring was a senior leader in the Nazi party with Hitler.
ON the left is the Duke leading the trial of Antonio and then Shylock.
ARE THESE SIMILARITIES ACCIDENTAL?
Who knows? But it would be worth considering whether Nunn has intentionally
echoed a war criminal. If he has, what might this suggest about the harsh way in
which Shylock is treated at the end of the play?
13. The crucifix worn by Antonio is the 2004
version is a reminder of Antonio’s faith. It
might remind us that Antonio is the hero
(whether we want him to be or not) and that
what we might see is the end of our hero. It
makes the scene tense.
Antonio is a
hypocritical
Christian. But,
can a Christian
hero be killed?
There is a clear similarity here in the
presentation of this scene in the 2000
Trevor Nunn production.
Both use a close up, but note the
absence of the crucifix in Nunn’s
production. What is he trying to say
about Antonio? Is he a Christian hero?
