The merchant of Venice tells us a story about friendship, love and religion. Among the three themes, it is the religion that inspired me the most.
First, let’s take a brief look at the three main characters in the play: Antonio, Bassanio, and Shylock.
Antonio, whom the merchant of Venice refers to, is decent and brave, loyal to his friends and severe to his enemies. As a Christian, he often discriminates the Jewish people, and insulting them in public is often the case.
Bassanio, in my opinion, is a good-for-nothing young man. He is obsessed with the beauty and the fortune of Portia, and he borrows money from Antonio to make his trip to woo the hand of Portia. From this we can see that Bassanio is sort of incapable because he can’t even pursue his love all by his own.
Shylock, the big villain in this play, is a Jewish merchant. He is described as a mean, greedy, and cold-blooded merchant who sees no other things but money in his eyes. Being a Jew, he lives a lowly life, suffering continuous insults and humiliations from Antonio and other Christians. That explains why he bears deep hatred against Antonio. But objectively speaking, he is a man of endurance and toughness.
Then let’s see how the story goes round.
Bassanio borrows money from Antonio to pursue Portia. But Antonio has invested all his fortune to his ships and has no cash in hand at that moment. Out of love to Bassanio, Antonio takes the risk to borrow money from his enemy Shylock which demands to cut down one pound of flesh from Antonio if he can’t pay back the money in time.
From this treaty we can see what a deep Shylock’s hatred against Antonio, he regard it a good chance to revenge himself. As an old saying says, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. Antonio used to treat Shylock bad, He has insulted the Jew and spat on him, yet he comes with hypocritical politeness to borrow money of him. Now it is the turn of Shylock to treat him back, even more harshly than the way he was treated before.
So I think his act of revenge is reasonable to some degree and we should have mercy on him. Being a Jew, he is cruelly abused here and there. The Jews are not allowed to possess private possessions, they are obliged to wear a red hat in public to make sure that they can be easily identified, and they live in the dirty and narrow slums guarded by the Christians, supposedly for their own safety. This is a whole race that is been treated unfairly. And Shylock, to some extent, is one of the representatives of his people who underwent so much injustice. He speaks for his own nation:
Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.
This is the most inspiring part that exerts our sympathy for Shylock, his words of anger, of interrogation, touched me a lot. I started to think about the so-called heroes—Bassanio, Portia, and Antonio, they’re sort of hypocrites. How can they ask Shylock to have mercy when they are showing none on him? See what this gentleman has done to the poor Jew:
He hath disgraced me, and hindered me half a million, laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies;
And what’s his reason? I am a Jew.
Apparently, Antonio’s behaviors do not accord with his decent figure. It’s worth doubting his personality dealing with others except for his friends. In addition, his actions do arouse Shylock’s anger and detestation, it’s no wonder that he wants to revenge on him. When his mutinous daughter, his only family member, deserts him to marry a Christian taking with her many valuable possessions, including the first ring Shylock gave to his late wife. His servant defects to his enemy; he definitely hates Antonio to death.
From this part, we can see clearly Shakespeare’s neutral position in religion, or at least he did not always portray Shylock as entirely detestable, putting him in unfortunate situations where the audience cannot but have some sympathy for him.
The court is a place where justice should be done, while what I see from the trial in the end of the play is totally a mockery of justice. Portia disguises as a lawyer, and easily reverses the tide with a little trick of words. This is what law allows? In the name of justice?
At the ending of the play, Shylock has lost everything, what matters the most is that he has lost his belief, and he is forced to be converted to a Christian. How can he burden all this changes? He is just an old lonely poor man, how can he be accepted by the Christians and how his Jewish fellowmen look at him? None of my assumption is good for Shylock. He is pathetic, not only for his personality, but also for the social structures at that time. Although I don’t know the religions very well, I do know that we are all born equal. Shylock deserves sympathy, but none of Antonio’s insults. His misfortune doesn’t owe to Antonio, but to that time.

看了《威尼斯商人》，Michael Radford的，理解不能。

没看过原著，不论是英文还是译文。看过高中课文上的一小段，Shylock被说成是一个凶残，贪婪，狡诈的商人，满心只有钱，为了惩罚他的贪心，救出Antonio，Portia依据法律，处罚了他。

其实一开始我也觉得挺奇怪的，他不是贪钱么，怎么不要多出好几倍的赎金，而要且别人一块肉呢。但是没有好好想过。

可是，看电影的时候，分明就是Shylock在受欺负啊。一开篇就说，在威尼斯犹太人受到非常不公平的待遇。Shylock在镜头上，眼睛里全是惊恐和无助。当他战战兢兢的跟Antonio打招呼时，Antonio向他吐了口水。Shylock以为他是自己的朋友，那个人却向他吐了口水，因为他是个犹太人。

他很伤心，然后离开了。换了是谁，估计都不会再跟那个人打交道了吧。然后，风流倜傥的Bassanio要求婚去，还偏偏跟Shylock借钱（说实话，没钱就别讲排场呗，借着钱都要比阔-_-|||），Antonio做了担保人。在他离开去求婚的当晚，Shylock的女儿带着父亲的财产跟着B的朋友Lorlnzo，走了。Shylock伤心欲绝。

然后，人们都知道，Antonio还不上钱了。然后法庭上，Portia靠着小聪明让Shylock成了没有女儿，失去财物，连自己的房子都不能住的可怜老人。更可怜的是，他们居然要求他放弃自己的信仰，成为基督教徒。不然他就只能死。

Shylock在我看来，是不愿屈服于基督徒的统治和不公对待，不被女儿理解，被那些自以为高尚的小人所欺压的社会的牺牲品，最后，他的抗争完全败了下来，还凄惨地被人看作收取高利贷的吸血鬼。而在那样的时候，放债是犹太人为数不多的几种活命方式中最有效的。绝对不能理解他怎么不是可怜人的代表，而是成为一个善恶分明故事中恶的一方。

觉得Shylock好可怜，觉得她女儿好过分！

看过原著的麻烦指点一下，跟书比较一下，改了很多么？

没有完整地看过原著，但对于这个耳熟能详的故事也知道个大概，中学时代语文书上的课文和老师的分析，大学期间教授对于其中法律观念与思想的讲解，到如今（大概）比较全面地通过电影了解这部名著，每个阶段都产生了不同的思想冲击。不过这里仅从电影本身写几点个人看法。

1、很多人说片中人物说话连篇累牍、繁琐矫情，但个人觉得，这部电影的原著是一部莎士比亚式中世纪的戏剧，我不清楚当时的人们在生活中是否都如此对话，但起码搬上舞台後的戏剧台词大概就是如此，你不见《罗密欧与朱丽叶》里面人物说的话比这更繁复去了，那些词藻那些比喻那些韵调，看翻译用中文理解更难以感受这其中的味道，正如外国人看翻译过去的唐诗宋词，意思味道荡然无存。当然我没说我喜欢这种说话方式，有时我看《罗》时也会为一些对白打冷颤，但对于忠于原著的电影本身，这没什么可批评。

2、我看这部影片首先是冲着Al Pacino去的，从Godfather 到Devil’s Advocate，他的演技都值得为他鼓掌，而片中他的表现更无话可说，犹太人受辱後的不忿和怨恨，作为高利贷者诱人借贷的油滑，作为父亲对失去女儿的痛苦，作为不能拥有定产没有社会地位的犹太人对于仅有钱币的渴望，对于被迫放弃自己宗教的难受与孤独，他都表现得淋漓尽致。人们都说夏洛克残忍无情，但我怎么只能对这个一辈子深受不公平非人待遇的年迈老人感到可怜与同情，而对那个貌似仁慈却剥夺他人宗教信仰和精神支柱的安东尼奥感到一丝狠毒和更深的报复。

3、因此，与他相对，片中无论是饰演巴萨尼奥的Joseph Fiennes，饰演鲍西娅小姐的Lynn Collins，还是饰演安东尼奥的Jeremy Irons，都失色不少。似乎巴萨尼奥祗是个只会花钱泡妞和一腔热血的蠢人，鲍西娅祗是个春心荡漾却又多疑擅妒的大小姐，而安东尼奥…

4、而奥东尼奥… （莎翁啊，请饶恕我的无礼）我怎么觉得他是个X… 似乎他深爱著巴萨尼奥，而不惜为他舍弃高贵的尊严去求那个低贱卑鄙的犹太人借钱，即使他是去找另一个女人，但为了心爱的他的幸福，安东尼奥甚至舍弃生命也毫无怨言，仅仅祗是想在临死之前能再次看到深深爱著却又不能表白的巴萨尼奥一面。你没看到他望着巴萨尼奥时眼睛的款款情深，你没看到当巴萨在法庭上告诉他 ”你的生命比我的、我妻子的、全世界的生命都宝贵” 时他刹那的感动与慷慨赴死的勇气，你没看到他看着巴萨尼奥与鲍西娅调情时的痛苦与泪光，最后当巴萨与鲍西娅上房间XX时镜头里安东尼奥孤独寂寞的身影在晨光中是如此令人心痛…… 没有人明白他，大家祗是好意地称赞他品格高尚，为朋友可以两肋插刀，但谁又了解一个生活在文明城邦威尼斯的中老年未婚男X内心的挣扎与苦闷……

5、好吧，第4点不喜欢的可以不去看它… >____<

6、如果要总结一下的话，抛开那些大义与律法，这个故事祗是，中世纪威尼斯宗教阴影下一个可怜老人卷入二男一女爱恨情仇而最终被打败忽略的悲剧故事。

7、YY完毕。

『威尼斯商人』中，阿尔帕西诺的那段台词，念得太地道了，是第3幕第一部分的：

To bait fish withal:
拿来钓鱼也好；
if it will feed nothing else,it will feed my revenge.
即使他的肉不中吃，至少也可以出出我这一口气。
He hath disgraced me, and hindered me half a million; laughed at my losses,
他曾经羞辱过我，夺去我几十万块钱的生意，讥笑着我的亏蚀，
mocked at my gains, scorned my nation,
挖苦着我的盈余，侮蔑我的民族，
thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies;
破坏我的买卖，离间我的朋友，煽动我的仇敌；
and what's his reason? I am a Jew.
他的理由是什么？只因为我是一个犹太人。
Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs,
难道犹太人没有五官四肢、
dimensions, senses, affections, passions?
没有知觉、没有感情、没有血气吗？
fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons,
他不是吃着同样的食物，同样的武器可以伤害他，
subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means,
warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is?
同样的医药可以疗治他，冬天同样会冷，夏天同样会热，就像一个基督徒一样吗？
If you prick us, do we not bleed?
你们要是用刀剑刺我们，我们不是也会出血的吗？
if you tickle us, do we not laugh?
你们要是搔我们的痒，我们不是也会笑起来的吗？
if you poison us, do we not die?
你们要是用毒药谋害我们，我们不是也会死的吗？
and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?
那么要是你们欺侮了我们，我们难道不会复仇吗？
If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.
要是在别的地方我们都跟你们一样，那么在这一点上也是彼此相同的。
If a Jew wrong a Christian,what is his humility? Revenge.
If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge.
要是一个犹太人欺侮了一个基督徒，那基督徒怎样表现他的谦逊？报仇。
The villany you teach me, I will execute,
你们已经把残虐的手段教给我，我一定会照着你们的教训实行，
and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.
而且还要加倍奉敬哩。

Who should be blamed for？
一部坚定站在现代立场上的反宗教歧视片。
女扮男装的鲍西亚很好看。
试探要戒子很傻逼
真的要到戒子以后的回应很傻逼
找夏洛克借钱的安东尼奥很傻逼
为了排场让安东尼奥找夏洛克借钱的巴萨尼奥更傻逼，傻逼中的战斗逼
赔不起钱了不去找别人借钱补上反而做一些乞求更傻逼
咄咄逼人的鲍西亚很讨厌
逼着夏洛克改变宗教信仰很讨厌
不孝的女儿活该思念
只有夏洛克是一个正常人

观看这部电影是在中央六套周六晚上佳片有约栏目上，电影开始前的广告片就不断放着夏洛特压抑欲迸发的仇恨和愤怒大段说出他内心深处长久被压抑的声音。。。
“他曾经羞辱过我，
夺去我几十万块钱的生意，
讥笑着我的亏蚀，挖苦着我的盈余，
侮蔑我的民族，破坏我的买卖，
离间我的朋友，煽动我的仇敌；
他的理由是什么？只因为我是一个犹太人!
难道犹太人没有眼睛吗？
难道犹太人没有五官四肢、没有知觉、没有感情、没有血气吗？
他不是吃着同样的食物，同样的武器可以伤害他，
同样的医药可以疗治他，冬天同样会冷，夏天同样会热，
就像一个基督徒一样吗？
你们要是用刀剑刺我们，我们不是也会出血的吗？
你们要是搔我们的痒，我们不是也会笑起来的吗？
你们要是用毒药谋害我们，我们不是也会死的吗？
那么要是你们欺侮了我们，我们难道不会复仇吗？
要是在别的地方我们都跟你们一样，那么在这一点上也是彼此相同的。要是一个犹太人欺侮了一个基督徒，那基督徒怎样表现他的谦逊？报仇。”
要是一个基督徒欺侮了一个犹太人，那么照着基督徒的榜样，那犹太人应该怎样表现他的宽容？报仇。你们已经把残虐的手段教给我，我一定会照着你们的教训实行，而且还要加倍奉敬!''
于是这样一个北京应该是秋老虎肆虐却笼罩着深秋寒意的周末的深夜，我裹在棉被的温暖中看沙翁的经典名剧《威尼斯商人》。。。
有人曾经提出很多疑问，为什么沙翁的很多剧目，例如《王子复仇记》《奥赛罗》《罗米欧与朱丽叶》。。。经典演绎也好，另类后现代也好，几乎都被多次不断的搬上银幕，而只有这部《威尼斯商人》好像被尘封到了地下室，影视制作商好像已经忘却沙翁还曾经写过这样一部喜剧。。。其实当我看完了这部作品后才明白，稍微有一点宗教知识的人就可以体会到戏剧中浓厚的种族歧视色彩。。。曾经观看过舞台版的《威尼斯商人》，那里的夏洛特尖嘴猴腮，猥亵肮脏，典型的自私卑劣的奸商形象，于是当他再作出要割掉一个“高贵”“优雅”的基督徒商人的一磅肉的时候，所有的观众一定会义愤填膺，而当他最终“阴谋”没有得逞，却得到了强有力的惩罚时，所有观众也一样欢欣鼓舞，一个喜剧的结局，一个坏人理应得到惩罚的经典模式，是最原始的沙翁作品的展现，如果在欧洲文艺复兴时期沙翁这样去写戏剧，我想应该是迎合了当时人的“喜好”，然而在人权和平等已经成为世界共同主题的今天，尤其是经历了二战对犹太人残酷屠杀后，谁都不想再去碰触这样一个敏感的主题。。。于是沉寂。。。一个大段的沉寂。。。
而这部新版的《威尼斯商人》，过滤掉原著中的对夏洛特讽刺性的坏人喜剧特性，更多的表现着一个受到迫害的犹太人人性：他有自己忠贞的信仰，他有自己的爱，表现为对自己的女儿和已故妻子的爱，尤其是当他听说私奔的女儿用偷走的他妻子送他的戒指仅仅换了一只猴子的时候，他愤怒，悲伤，甚至眼里流出了泪，说：即使给他100只猴子他也不会换。。。他对基督教徒的蔑视和人身侮辱，他卑微、屈从和忍耐，然而，当他得到机会可以反抗的时候，他却义无反顾的进行着他的复仇，面对敌人，他说出内心压抑许久的大段表白，最终他手持钢刀，毫不怜悯自己的敌人时说：当你把我形容成一只犹太狗的时候，请不要忘记狗的牙齿。。。我不能不佩服阿尔·帕西诺(Al Pacino)出色的表演，把这样一个内心压抑，充满仇恨却不得不屈从的人物刻画地淋漓尽致。。。这部影片恰到好处的将犹太人受到的不公正的迫害表现的银幕上，虽然最后的安东尼奥面对即将的杀戮时也表现出了无奈和悲情，以及他对待朋友的慷慨和“两肋插刀”的“哥们意思”，也同样会让人产生出些许的同情，然而，由于电影之前大段的铺垫，感觉他得到这样的惩罚也是他自作孽的结果，于是背离了原著的主题，完全感受不到夏洛特最终报复失败，却得到了更可悲的结局的喜剧感，取以是观者内心深处隐隐的悲凉。。。
我不知道上述大段夏洛特的爆发性的陈述是否是沙翁原著中的台词？如果沙翁曾经这样撰写过将要出自一个犹太人的口的大段台词，单就这一点我可以看出沙翁在写这样一部带有浓重种族歧视的剧目的时候内心中尤存的一点对犹太民族的同情和公正。。。