Shakespeare's Gay Pride

Granted I've never seen this play live, but this is definitely the best and most iconic version of Shylock. 

Brace yourselves, this might be controversial but since when do I shy away from that. I go home after a lone day, and I read or watch Shakespeare and try to write...because I am better than you. Tonight I rented on Demand my favorite Shakespeare play; The Merchant of Venice. Those of you who know it, good for you, and for those of you who don't...you're an asshole. But it concerns a man named Antonio (played in the film by Jeremy Irons) and the story goes that a 'close friend' Bassanio (Joseph Fiennes) desperately wants to court a woman named Portia (Lynn Collins) who lives in Belmont which I assume is a tiny island off the coast of Venice. Here's the problem. Bassanio is a do-nothing, just a pretty boy with a lot of passion. Antonio his friend is a merchant...hence the name 'Merchant of Venice'. Long story short (too late), Antonio wants to help him so much that he gives him license to borrow money from the Jew of Venice, Shylock (Al Pacino) who is a money lender because Jews back then couldn't own businesses. Shylock complies but not before reminding Antonio that he's a piece of shit and giving the condition that if he is not paid back, the forfeit will be a pound of Antonio's flesh ...literally. How's the Vera cliffs notes? They agree and the deal is made and that's as far as I'm going because for chrissake read some goddamn Shakespeare. 

Artist rendition of Portia fighting off suitors.

On to my point, aside from the fact that there are always women disguised as men and the other way around particularly in his comedies (Twelfth Night, Midsummer, this play, etc.) There is always a special and unspoken relationship between certain male characters. Ask yourself, why would Antonio agree to this insane condition on Bassanio's sake? He's always seen in the play as being so overtly kind and almost a doormat to the much younger and prettier Bassanio. He is literally willing to put his life on the line for him. It's quite similar to the relationship that Iago and Cassio have in Othello. And no, I don't think this is an Elizabethan bromance. It can be argued that Antonio's loyalty to Bassanio is stronger than Bassanio's loyalty to Portia. 

The debt to be paid. He hath laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains. 

In Shakespeare, the women who have relationships with each other are usually ones of mutual respect and friendship. Much like you would find on an episode of Sex and the City. Yet the director of this particular film likes to play up the shall we say flighty relationship between Portia the most beautiful woman in Belmont and her BFF Nerissa, to the point where it's not so subtle. 

Portia doesn't need suitors, she has Nerissa. 

There's another element, it's quite small but it's become an iconic Shakespearean line and most people that use it today don't even know that it comes from this play. Shylock has a daughter Jessica who decides to renounce her Jewish faith to marry a man called Lorenzo. She dresses in a man's disguise to escape and says; 'do not look at me for I am much ashamed of my disguise ...but love is blind'. Indeed it is. Lorenzo would love Jessica as a man or woman. Because love is blind. Ok, enough redundancy. 

In the end, everyone marries each other, save for one character; the Merchant. I would argue that the merchant faces just as bad of a fate as Shylock. He is left alone because of his identity. Shylock is a Jew, and Antonio is gay. Not giving much away, when Shylock asks for his bond to be fulfilled as the money was not paid back to him, Antonio and Bassanio have perhaps the most tender moment between two humans I've ever seen. Antonio asks for his hand to hold him through this whole cutting out a pound of flesh being removed thing, and proclaims love for him...of course this is probably a love of friendship, but still. It's Nicholas Sparks tenderness. If it were me I'd be asking everyone to hold my hand and then probably pass out. And yet, it's deeply meaningful in subtext. And for the first time you see compassion on Bassanio's face. I feel that's actually pretty important. Not even when he wins Portia's hand in marriage does he show such emotion. It reminds me a lot of how Romeo reacts at the death of Mercutio. Yes, we all know what happens in the end, but the sorrow at the loss of a ...shall we say friend, is very powerful. 

So many iconic soliloquies in this play, this is from the 'quality of mercy' speech given by Portia in drag.

Now, this is not the only play that has somewhat homosexual subtext and characters; Mercutio from Romeo and Juliet, Banquo from Macbeth, even Hamlet to a certain extent. But hey, argue with me all you want, I haven't drawn a line in the sand. I'm just finding recurring themes that I want to address (where my theater geeks at?). If people to this day are still debating whether or not Shakespeare actually wrote all of Shakespeare which you can read all about here , then I get my gay themes in Shakespeare hypothesis. Clearly I miss grad school or something. Anyway, below is the trailer. At least watch the film. Aside from the Zeffirelli 1969 version of Romeo and Juliet, this is as close to the original source material as you're likely to get in cinema. 

See below: 

I am Pissed Off at Ridley Scott

Is that a Tsunami? No it's just Moses walking casually as the Red Sea hurdles behind him

Ok so, I decided to spend most of today in, and HBO in all of its wisdom was showing Ridley Scott's 2014 'biblical epic' Exodus: Gods and Kings. I knew the film got like almost universally horrible reviews except for some douche at Rolling Stone magazine, and that was to be expected. As a Jew who has watched Cecil B. Demille's The Ten Commandments (1954) every time it's broadcast on NBC right before passover, and as a Jew on the whole, I almost lost it. Of course I'd heard the incendiary comments that Christian Bale (who played Moses) say that Moses was one of the most barbaric people he'd ever researched. Um...really? Most biblical scholars would disagree. On top of which, Ridley Scott himself defended his 'creative choices' to have those very recognizable miracles in the Old and New Testament including the 10 Plagues of Egypt and the Parting of the Red Sea as 'natural occurrences'. Now, I'm all for different depictions of history, perhaps more modernized and appropriated for an audience that can't comprehend miracles decided by a burning bush. It is 2015 after all, but if you're a self-proclaimed atheist perhaps you should veer away from a movie who's source material is the Bible. Just sayin'. Also, maybe don't cast Aryan-looking actors from Wales and America to play messianic icons from Ancient Egypt and the Middle East. As I said, it's 2015. 

I don't want to nitpick (too late) but I remember some historian being really enamored at the fact that in this scene (where they are building the iconic Great Sphinx of Giza, the face seems to have very European features, you almost expect Michelangelo Buonarroti to be sculpting it)

But I was not only offended as a Jew, as a person with a passion for films more so. As a Jew I don't get offended that much. But as someone who grew up with those stories and no matter what spiritual changes I have made over my growing up, I still hold those stories (whether accurate or even possible) to be close to my heart. I love sitting around a Passover table and people telling their different recollections of one of the most interesting and moving Bible stories that exists, at least for people in my tribe. I came into it with hesitation, but I just had to see it, because those aforementioned miracles would have to appear somehow. But the film was devoid of any emotion, and generally empty and had no heart whatsoever. This is surprising from a man who single-handedly revived the Ancient Roman film with Gladiator and fucked up his own legacy of sci-fi horror with Prometheus. 

Seriously, only good part of this film, in perhaps on of the most heartbreaking scenes. The story goes that after 9 plagues, Moses warned Ramses ominously of a tenth that would be more devastating than the rest but wouldn't say what it was. After this, the proud Pharaoh finally capitulated, and Edgerton plays all of that beautifully.

Dragged for over 2 1/2 hours (granted Demille's version is well into 3 hours and change), this film kept all of the humanity out of it, not to mention pawned off the fascinating plagues and the most fascinating thing of all whether imagined or true; the parting of the Red Sea to be neutered into something that just naturally happened. Yeah, these might be fairy tales, but hey we all fell in love with Star Wars didn't we? What neutered the whole Darth Vader evil thing? Backstory. But I'm getting off topic. Aaron Paul as Joshua was almost laughable, and the fact that Moses has to talk to a messenger of God named Malak (the literal Hebrew translation into 'messenger of god') instead of talking to a burning bush was even more ridiculous than have Christian Bale talk to a burning bush. 

Demille's version is notorious for being one of the most inaccurate portrayals of the Exodus, but it was so much fun. Anne Baxter (right) plays a woman who didn't even exist much less cause a riff of jealousy between supposed brothers Ramses and Moses. Nevertheless, it was fun. And that's all filmmaking needs to be!

The only thing that stood out was the casting of Joel Edgerton as Ramses II. As we've learned from Yul Brynner from the Demille film, this is a Pharaoh that's a full on sadist. Even with his wife, he gets off at the suffering of others. And even coming close to that kind of iconic performance was a feat. I mean, Brynner totally stole the movie, especially for us women. Edgerton was perfect because he always seems to take a crap movie based on great source material (we all remember Gatsby) and make at least his performance brilliant, which he does. He's the exact type of angry and emotional that could play a conflicted and hardened narcissistic Pharaoh obsessed with his own legacy, not realizing an uprising is imminent. 

You think recreating the mass exodus of over 300,000 Jews out of Egypt is arduous? Imagine how Demille did it in the 50's with no CGI?

But that's the only point I can give it. Everything else was an abomination, and not in the Biblical context, though that had a lot to do with it, but in a film context mostly. It was a white washed version of again, one of the most amazing and mind-blowing stories in biblical scripture, that both old and new testaments acknowledge. Jews, at least reform Jews (as in Jews that don't care so much and just identify as such) don't treat the Old Testament as the holy gospel where absolutely every damn word is true and though about 4000 years old should be taken literally. It's just a book of stories, at least to me, and the holidays based on things like the Exodus out of Egypt or the Maccabean Revolt (Hannukah) are based on lessons that are universal; that every man is entitled to freedom, that being stubborn will alienate you, and if you have faith, no matter if in god, or yourself, or something greater than you, you will come out on top even under the most implausible odds standing in your way. I would hate it that when I have a family of my own, and NBC suddenly stops broadcasting the classic Demille film, albeit a total break from the actual context of the story of Moses and began showing Exodus: Gods and Kings instead which i not only an abomination of filmmaking, but of biblical stories, which I am sorry but perhaps should be left alone. Yeah, modern audiences aren't so much buying it anymore, well let's just say they are disinterested. I honestly don't think I've ever rolled my eyes so much...and I've seen Interstellar. 

Below, stuff on Demille's film, seriously, just watch that instead.