The problem with Will: A man of his time
By John Campbell

As with many Winonans, I have very much appreciated the five years of professional theater offered by the Great River Shakespeare Festival. However, this year I do not share the enthusiasm.

Instead, I would like to make five critical comments about the GRSF production of “The Merchant of Venice.”
First, it is time that GRSF and its supporters get beyond the point of view that “Will” could do no wrong and accept the fact that he was a man of his time. That is: Just as England in the late 1500s and early 1600s was sexist, racist and anti-Semitic, so too was William Shakespeare.

There is no harm in admitting that; indeed, the harm comes when we try to sugarcoat Shakespeare and his time by tip-toeing around these grim but undeniable aspects of his world.

Second, let’s be honest and recognize that anti-Semitism pervades this play. To somehow downplay its anti-Semitism by suggesting, as some people do, that it is not as bad as Christopher Marlowe’s play, “The Jew of the Malta,” is irrelevant and offensive. We’re not watching Marlowe’s play; we don’t have a Marlowe festival. We have a Shakespeare festival.

So, let’s be honest and stay focused on the anti-Semitism of “The Merchant of Venice.”

Third, to say that it is anti-Semitic does not mean it should never be produced. Indeed, before the pogroms of the late 19th and early 20th century and Germany’s assault on the Jews of Europe, that is, before much of the world came to reject anti-Semitism as morally wrong, this play was probably presented as just another witty Shakespearean comedy, with the attack on Shylock thrown in as dramatic ballast for humorless critics.

However, in our post-pogrom and post-Hitler world, we have to accept the blunt, non-artistic fact that the starting point and central features of this play are its degrading portrayal of Jewish characters using many of the stock stereotypes of Jews that are still with us today. To present the play otherwise as a typical, sudsy romantic comedy is morally and dramatically problematic, to say the least. Yet that is what happened this summer in Winona.

Fourth, instead of placing the anti-Semitism front and center, and handling it critically, this production has dutifully re-enacted the anti-Semitism and, in doing so, has unavoidably disseminated it for the audiences here in Winona. Take for example the judicial and cultural lynching of the “dirty Jew,” Shylock. If that had been the end of this play, at least Shakespeare’s audiences would have been left with a pretty dramatic and ugly episode of non-Jews ganging up, like Nazi Brown Shirts, on a Jewish moneylender.

Instead of letting his audience leave the theater pondering that complicated and disturbing scene in the judge’s chamber, Shakespeare, in an arguably sloppy act of playwriting and a really vile act of anti-Semitism, went on to write for another 25 minutes’ worth of comic stuff involving the typical unmasking of male-female identities, romantic couplings and lots of good laughs, which this GRSF production played to the hilt.

Here’s the problem: Instead of having Winona audiences laugh at these anti-Semites, the audience is essentially laughing with them. In joining with the fun, and, thus, implicitly identifying with the anti-Semites, the audience is essentially implicating itself with the earlier humiliation of Shylock. While it perhaps is the audience’s collective responsibility to take the moral high ground and to resist endorsing — by not laughing with — the anti-Semites cavorting on stage, I would place the blame on the director and company for making it so easy for the Winona audiences join in and have what was clearly a fun time for many attendees during those last 25 minutes.

There sure was a lot of laughter the night I went.

In fact, there is so much hilarity and “happily-ever-after”-ness during those last 25 minutes it’s as though the Shylock lynching has long since been forgotten as being all part of a good day’s work for these anti-Semites.

Sorry, but such a cavalier dismissal, in the 21st century, of anti-Semitism, whatever its origins, is distasteful, to say the least.

Fifth, instead of critiquing Shakespeare and centrally criticizing anti-Semitism, this production has let Shakespeare off the hook and, what’s worse, reproduced and publicized anti-Semitic attitudes and actions. What is the point of doing that?

What purpose does it serve in 2008 to give vile anti-Semitism this much publicity, especially when people here in Winona and elsewhere are working hard to overcome racial and cultural barriers and move onto a more just and inclusive world?

Campbell teaches history at Winona State University and is married to an observant Jew.

Advertisement