Merchant of Venice, the movie

Winetalk.com · 08-22-2005

Excellent cast, excellent music, decorations, locale shoots,
but Shakespeare.....
this is one of the biggest anti-semitic plays I ever seen.

Jews, who were forced into banking by Christian laws, made much better case in the movie than their Christian oppressors. The banker and merchant signed the legal contract, and how was Sheylock denied his rightful claim of the pound of flesh?
By faked judge, total mockery of the existing law and trickery red neck Christians adhese to the Jews!

I find great satisfaction that this si only a play and only a movie, and in real life,
Jews DID start the world banking system, thanks to the laws Christians bounded them with and basically have won.

Turn in your grave, Shakespeare, the 21st Century movie, something no American movie director has tried since 1914, due to its antisemitic playwright,
portrayed main charecters as shallow bigots, and the only character who is worth sympathy is...Sheylock.

Nickatilynx · 08-23-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winetalk.com

Excellent cast, excellent music, decorations, locale shoots,
but Shakespeare.....
this is one of the biggest anti-semitic plays I ever seen.

Jews, who were forced into banking by Christian laws, made much better case in the movie than their Christian oppressors. The banker and merchant signed the legal contract, and how was Sheylock denied his rightful claim of the pound of flesh?
By faked judge, total mockery of the existing law and trickery red neck Christians adhese to the Jews!

I find great satisfaction that this si only a play and only a movie, and in real life,
Jews DID start the world banking system, thanks to the laws Christians bounded them with and basically have won.

Turn in your grave, Shakespeare, the 21st Century movie, something no American movie director has tried since 1914, due to its antisemitic playwright,
portrayed main charecters as shallow bigots, and the only character who is worth sympathy is...Sheylock.

Which is how Shakespere wrote him , he wrote him sympathetically.

Antomnio and Bosanio are writtenas buffoons and upperclass twits , and Portia is portrayed as clever for a woman.

All very very shocking for the time and why Shakespere is the greaterst playwright.

Hath a Jew not...

etc etc is incredibly sympathetic , and frankly this is how the play was written.His genius was writing a play on levels that may make the educated , but nonethe less antisemitic educated class think and possibly change from dogma , whilst ensuring a hit with the belly laughs from the plebs.

Nickatilynx · 08-23-2005

Try reading it serge , rather than watching it ;-)))

Winetalk.com · 08-23-2005

Nick,
I disagree. Shakespeare hasn't seen Jews in his life, in those days it was a carnal sin to be even Catholic in Britain

..and even though I love you as a brother I never had, the truth about the play is worth to be restored.
(You know I wouldn't do it for ANY business dealings, they are much LESS relevant

1) you spell Shakespeare wrong....and this is your BIGGEST flaw

2) http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/.../50103003/1023
takes position which bridges our views together, amazing, isn't it?

Bhelliom · 08-23-2005

Haven't seen the movie but would really like to. In all honesty it was one of my favourite plays.

He wasn't however, denied his pound of flesh. He got screwed cause he had a piss poor contract. Had he thought about it and included blood in the deal.... he would have had it not problem. But he wasn't thinking and just asked for the flesh.

And you're right about Shylock. He was the only one worthy of sympathy. he got screwed out of the deal because he was a Jew, when in reality he's only a businessman trying to make a buck. same as the rest of them.

Winetalk.com · 08-23-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bhelliom

Haven't seen the movie but would really like to. In all honesty it was one of my favourite plays.

He wasn't however, denied his pound of flesh. He got screwed cause he had a piss poor contract. Had he thought about it and included blood in the deal.... he would have had it not problem. But he wasn't thinking and just asked for the flesh.

And you're right about Shylock. He was the only one worthy of sympathy. he got screwed out of the deal because he was a Jew, when in reality he's only a businessman trying to make a buck. same as the rest of them.

FYI,
his "piss poor contract" is a subject of study at all decent law schools,
as it has ALL the elements of a good contract, and if it wasn't for a faker who proclaimed that "blow job is not sex",
he'd see his way thru

Bhelliom · 08-23-2005

lol.... the "loopholes" should have been thought of though. Although it wouldn't have made for as much entertainment.

We've actually discussed it in a few of my business courses as well. It's a very interesting debate. Unfortunately its been quite a while since i've read or seen the play.

I should go back an read it again. Or rent the movie. I am personally of the opinion that it was a fair contract that was entered into willingly by both parties. and at the time I suppose it was a legitimate payment method so he should have been able to extract it.

Shylock did get screwed out of the deal But I think Shakespeare was trying to show the humanity that exists across all religions. The "If you prick me do I not bleed" speech. He was ahead of his time in that he was demonstrating that there should be freedom and equality for all. Not just Christians.

Finally, He showed that there wasn't that equality at that time when Shylock got fucked in the deal

Winetalk.com · 08-23-2005

Bhelliom,
as you know, there are NO SURE PROOF CONTRACTS, at least in USA.
The courts ALWAYS have the last say in ANY contract executed in this country.

Quote:

Finally, He showed that there wasn't that equality at that time when Shylock got fucked in the deal

hmmm...was the equality time present during Dreyfus trial?

When in your opinion, the "equality time" have begun?
Plus minus 5 years, please.

Bhelliom · 08-23-2005

I'm not sure what you're asking in that post Serge... But I'll try to clarify my position a bit.

And please Don't take anything I say as a reflection of my personal attitudes.

perhaps I phrased myself wrong. What I mean to say was that Shakespeare was trying to demonstrate that there should be equality among, well in this case it was religions not races but anyways... I think he portrayed Shylock as a guy that just got screwed. Even though he was trying to take out his hatred of christians on the other guy, he still should have gotten what he deserved.

If you'll recall there was a real life reversal of this exact story but was taken to further extremes. A man was living in near poverty and saw jew making all the money. He went on to take out his jealousy on them and the world reacted.

This in my opinion was one of the major steps towards religious equality in history. When the world stood up and said that persecution is NOT ok.

Same story goes for Osama. I'm sure at one point in his life he saw americans making all the money and living in apparent splendor and decided to take out his anger and frustrations in a negative way.

Once again. the world has stood up and said that this is NOT ok.

We're moving in the right directions

If you're asking when I think equality among religions began? I don't think it really has yet. Although I will say it has made great strides in that direction along with equality between the sexes and equality among races.

Edit: I'm sorry... I missed the reference to the dreyfus trial? was he in the movie? or is this something else? I havne't seen the film

Bhelliom · 08-23-2005

Are we arguing or agreeing?

or arguing about agreeing... I think originally I had agreed with you in that Shylock got screwed in the deal.

Nickatilynx · 08-23-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winetalk.com

Nick,
I disagree. Shakespeare hasn't seen Jews in his life, in those days it was a carnal sin to be even Catholic in Britain

..and even though I love you as a brother I never had, the truth about the play is worth to be restored.
(You know I wouldn't do it for ANY business dealings, they are much LESS relevant

1) you spell Shakespeare wrong....and this is your BIGGEST flaw

2) http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/.../50103003/1023
takes position which bridges our views together, amazing, isn't it?

The last person to start up about spelling is you!!! LOL

;-)

All men are from there own time.

Every founding father of the US was racist.

Nickatilynx · 08-23-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bhelliom

Are we arguing or agreeing?

or arguing about agreeing... I think originally I had agreed with you in that Shylock got screwed in the deal.

ahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahaha

Congratulations , you are now fully "serged" ;-))

Look behind you.If you do not see a broom stick protuding from your ass , its all good lol

Winetalk.com · 08-23-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bhelliom

Are we arguing or agreeing?

or arguing about agreeing... I think originally I had agreed with you in that Shylock got screwed in the deal.

neither nor,
we are just talking and clarify our positions,
not everything in this life is an argument.

Dreyfus trial -
do Google on it, it has nothing to do with Shakespeare

Bhelliom · 08-23-2005

Lol just checking

Winetalk.com · 08-23-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nickatilynx

The last person to start up about spelling is you!!! LOL

;-)

All men are from there own time.

Every founding father of the US was racist.

not true on both

1) I wasn't born in UK, YOU were, therefore...when I make misspell - it's normal, when Brit makes misspell in British Classics name is a HERACY!

2) Not all were racists, some loved blacks so much they fathered children with them

Bhelliom · 08-23-2005

Ok now for the Dreyfus rebuttal.

While he was obviously wrongly convicted, most likely because he was a jew, the issues had begun to surface.

Lieutenant Colonel Georges Picquart, an unapologetic anti-Semite, discovered the error the french army made and attempted to rectify it, even though as an anti-semite he should have just let the case lie.

Dreyfus was also eventually pardoned and exonerated, even though he was a jew, because the laws of the day prevailed eventually, not the religious undertones of the case.

Nickatilynx · 08-23-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winetalk.com

not true on both

1) I wasn't born in UK, YOU were, therefore...when I make misspell - it's normal, when Brit makes misspell in British Classics name is a HERACY!

2) Not all were racists, some loved blacks so much they fathered children with them

1.) Ha!! Wasn't born in uk!
(OK , I was expensively educated there and at college one of my main subjects was , ummm, literature. LOL. So I am a moron)

2.) Nigga please!

;-)

Mike AI · 08-24-2005

We watched it last night. Great movie, great play.

The contract is null because it violates public policy. But I am still trying to find a peppercorn....

Winetalk.com · 08-24-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike AI

We watched it last night. Great movie, great play.

The contract is null because it violates public policy. But I am still trying to find a peppercorn....

Not true.
In public interest AND policy,
the money lending laws must be carried to the T or the entire WORLD COMMERCE collapses.

here si your peppercorn

My lawyer will render her opinion when she gets back from the store.

Are you sure you are not mixing up "peppercorn" wiht a "mustard seed"?

08-22-2005	#1
Winetalk.com Prostate Examiner I quoff fine wine at corkd.com Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: good 'ole USA Posts: 21,018	Merchant of Venice, the movie Excellent cast, excellent music, decorations, locale shoots, but Shakespeare..... this is one of the biggest anti-semitic plays I ever seen. Jews, who were forced into banking by Christian laws, made much better case in the movie than their Christian oppressors. The banker and merchant signed the legal contract, and how was Sheylock denied his rightful claim of the pound of flesh? By faked judge, total mockery of the existing law and trickery red neck Christians adhese to the Jews! I find great satisfaction that this si only a play and only a movie, and in real life, Jews DID start the world banking system, thanks to the laws Christians bounded them with and basically have won. Turn in your grave, Shakespeare, the 21st Century movie, something no American movie director has tried since 1914, due to its antisemitic playwright, portrayed main charecters as shallow bigots, and the only character who is worth sympathy is...Sheylock. __________________ why dogs sniff each other butts?

08-23-2005	#3
Nickatilynx Banned Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Vancouver Canada Posts: 15,115	Re: Merchant of Venice, the movie Try reading it serge , rather than watching it ;-)))

08-23-2005	#4
Winetalk.com Prostate Examiner I quoff fine wine at corkd.com Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: good 'ole USA Posts: 21,018	Re: Merchant of Venice, the movie Nick, I disagree. Shakespeare hasn't seen Jews in his life, in those days it was a carnal sin to be even Catholic in Britain ..and even though I love you as a brother I never had, the truth about the play is worth to be restored. (You know I wouldn't do it for ANY business dealings, they are much LESS relevant 1) you spell Shakespeare wrong....and this is your BIGGEST flaw 2) http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/.../50103003/1023 takes position which bridges our views together, amazing, isn't it? __________________ why dogs sniff each other butts?

08-23-2005	#5
Bhelliom Will fuck for beer Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Toronto Posts: 1,143	Re: Merchant of Venice, the movie Haven't seen the movie but would really like to. In all honesty it was one of my favourite plays. He wasn't however, denied his pound of flesh. He got screwed cause he had a piss poor contract. Had he thought about it and included blood in the deal.... he would have had it not problem. But he wasn't thinking and just asked for the flesh. And you're right about Shylock. He was the only one worthy of sympathy. he got screwed out of the deal because he was a Jew, when in reality he's only a businessman trying to make a buck. same as the rest of them. __________________ I am a Sado-Machiavellian. As long as I cum in the end... It doesn't matter what I did to get there. :yowsa: I just made that term up.... pretty good eh?

08-23-2005	#7
Bhelliom Will fuck for beer Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Toronto Posts: 1,143	Re: Merchant of Venice, the movie lol.... the "loopholes" should have been thought of though. Although it wouldn't have made for as much entertainment. We've actually discussed it in a few of my business courses as well. It's a very interesting debate. Unfortunately its been quite a while since i've read or seen the play. I should go back an read it again. Or rent the movie. I am personally of the opinion that it was a fair contract that was entered into willingly by both parties. and at the time I suppose it was a legitimate payment method so he should have been able to extract it. Shylock did get screwed out of the deal But I think Shakespeare was trying to show the humanity that exists across all religions. The "If you prick me do I not bleed" speech. He was ahead of his time in that he was demonstrating that there should be freedom and equality for all. Not just Christians. Finally, He showed that there wasn't that equality at that time when Shylock got fucked in the deal __________________ I am a Sado-Machiavellian. As long as I cum in the end... It doesn't matter what I did to get there. :yowsa: I just made that term up.... pretty good eh?

08-23-2005	#9
Bhelliom Will fuck for beer Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Toronto Posts: 1,143	Re: Merchant of Venice, the movie I'm not sure what you're asking in that post Serge... But I'll try to clarify my position a bit. And please Don't take anything I say as a reflection of my personal attitudes. perhaps I phrased myself wrong. What I mean to say was that Shakespeare was trying to demonstrate that there should be equality among, well in this case it was religions not races but anyways... I think he portrayed Shylock as a guy that just got screwed. Even though he was trying to take out his hatred of christians on the other guy, he still should have gotten what he deserved. If you'll recall there was a real life reversal of this exact story but was taken to further extremes. A man was living in near poverty and saw jew making all the money. He went on to take out his jealousy on them and the world reacted. This in my opinion was one of the major steps towards religious equality in history. When the world stood up and said that persecution is NOT ok. Same story goes for Osama. I'm sure at one point in his life he saw americans making all the money and living in apparent splendor and decided to take out his anger and frustrations in a negative way. Once again. the world has stood up and said that this is NOT ok. We're moving in the right directions If you're asking when I think equality among religions began? I don't think it really has yet. Although I will say it has made great strides in that direction along with equality between the sexes and equality among races. Edit: I'm sorry... I missed the reference to the dreyfus trial? was he in the movie? or is this something else? I havne't seen the film __________________ I am a Sado-Machiavellian. As long as I cum in the end... It doesn't matter what I did to get there. :yowsa: I just made that term up.... pretty good eh?

08-23-2005	#10
Bhelliom Will fuck for beer Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Toronto Posts: 1,143	Re: Merchant of Venice, the movie Are we arguing or agreeing? or arguing about agreeing... I think originally I had agreed with you in that Shylock got screwed in the deal. __________________ I am a Sado-Machiavellian. As long as I cum in the end... It doesn't matter what I did to get there. :yowsa: I just made that term up.... pretty good eh?

08-23-2005	#16
Bhelliom Will fuck for beer Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Toronto Posts: 1,143	Re: Merchant of Venice, the movie Ok now for the Dreyfus rebuttal. While he was obviously wrongly convicted, most likely because he was a jew, the issues had begun to surface. Lieutenant Colonel Georges Picquart, an unapologetic anti-Semite, discovered the error the french army made and attempted to rectify it, even though as an anti-semite he should have just let the case lie. Dreyfus was also eventually pardoned and exonerated, even though he was a jew, because the laws of the day prevailed eventually, not the religious undertones of the case. __________________ I am a Sado-Machiavellian. As long as I cum in the end... It doesn't matter what I did to get there. :yowsa: I just made that term up.... pretty good eh?

08-24-2005	#18
Mike AI Administrator Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 11,618	Re: Merchant of Venice, the movie We watched it last night. Great movie, great play. The contract is null because it violates public policy. But I am still trying to find a peppercorn.... __________________ Make big money on your Domains! Why wait 40 days to get paid with the other guys? Parked.com pays the most for your traffic, and cuts checks twice a month!