To my shame this was is not a play I knew. The programme carried the predictable apologia from the local English Prof.
I am strongly opposed to censorship, and it is fine studying the text for scholarly purposes, but on grounds of good taste I don't see how the play can be shown as entertainment.
It is OK the prof arguing that WS is showing the attitudes of his time and that he makes Shylock a real man 'who can bleed'. Fact is, the end result of the play is the barbaric treatment of Shylock. This is not questioned by one character in the play. I am not criticising WS for this. But it is dated. (Like slavery and woman as chattel). If one thinks of the way this play must have been used over the years as a support for antisemitism and theft from the Jews (not to mention worse) then I think the relativist excuse that it 'has to be seen in context' loses its strength. It may be historically interesting but it is still distasteful. Pretending otherwise is bad faith.
If it was purposely distasteful (like The Jew of Malta) I would be more included to defend it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment