Podcast of a podcast

In this podcast, the hosts discuss the theme of bonds in Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice. They also talk about the importance of Shylock's character and how it has been portrayed in modern versions of the play. The podcast highlights the theme of mercy and discusses the differences between the cities of Venice and Belmont. They also analyze Shylock's monologue and how it affects the audience's perception of him. Overall, the podcast provides interesting insights into the play. Hello, and welcome to our podcast. My name's Connor. I'm Owen. And I'm Sydney. Ian. Today, we're going to talk about William Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, and another podcast to take on the play. First, we're going to do a small breakdown of the podcast that we're going to have to listen to. That's a good idea. Something that I found interesting about the podcast was their discussion of the theme of the play. Yeah, I agree with that one. One idea that the three seemed to agree on was that the theme of the play was based around a bond. They talked about the many different uses of a bond, such as the main bond that was created between Antonio, Bassanio, and Shylock, as well as the personal bonds between Antonio, Bassanio, Portia, and Bassanio, Shylock, and Jessica, and Jessica, and Lorenzo, and Nerissa, and Graziano. Yeah, I agree. There's also some questions that came from this conversation, like, what does it mean to have a bond with another person, or what forms a bond, pretty much? They were even able to explain that the theme is evident in all the characters, in one way or another. But that isn't the only thing they talk about. I found that their discussion was, like, they talked a lot about the modern day, and they also kind of focused on Shylock's speech that was at the beginning of Act 3, Scene 1. A possibly controversial opinion that the group seemed to agree on was that Shylock and his story had been stressed too much in the modern versions of the play. They said that if they were going to put on the play today, they would keep Shylock to his original Shakespeare standards. Yeah, they also said that it would be important to keep the Shylock story of the bond and Bassanio's love, story of love, unified. As many modern versions seem to separate the stories, though. They also said that it would be very important to give Bassanio's character a very powerful actor. On thinking about the version of the play with Al Pacino as Shylock, they thought it would be more appropriate to give Bassanio a powerful actor like Al Pacino, instead of assigning him to Shylock. Another thing that I'd like to add is that they talked about a theme of mercy in the play. Yeah, while we're on the topic, I thought it was interesting that they said Christian ideas were misrepresented on purpose. For example, when Shylock talked about how the Christians wouldn't show mercy to him, that was most likely included by Shakespeare on purpose, in order to make the audience not only feel a certain way about Shylock, but also feel a little bit offended that Shylock would see Christians in a merciless way. I thought that the podcast had an interesting perspective by talking about the setting and particularly the differences between the cities of Venice and Belmont. They said that these differences would have actually been very important for the audience to pick up back when the play was originally made. They certainly seem to be well-versed in this topic and have a lot of thought of provoking ideas. Even though these are all great points, let's get started on the next topic, which is Shylock's monologue in Act 3, Act 1. It was certainly a powerful moment for Shylock's character. First, let's talk about what the other podcast had to say about it. They talked about how this moment's meaning had changed significantly because of the Holocaust. They also said that it was important to note that Shakespeare gave Shylock the chance to defend himself and appeal to the audience's emotions in this moment, and that the crowd could have reacted in different ways. Yeah, the podcast makes some great points here on this topic. It seems that Shakespeare's goal here was to get the audience to feel sympathetic towards Shylock. I agree with what you said, Sydney. This moment also revealed a motive for the way Shylock acts. At the audience, we can see that he really hasn't been treated well by the other characters, and that can also be shown in the speech he gave at the beginning of the act. As an audience, I think Shakespeare wanted us to feel like a pound of flesh maybe is actually pretty fair, considering the poor treatment of Shylock. Yeah, one part of Shylock's speech that I found interesting is when he said that if a Jew wrongs a Christian, then the Christian would get revenge, but it wouldn't work the other way around. Like, if a Christian wrongs a Jew, the Jew can't do anything about it. This statement might have hurt some of Shylock's connections with the audience, because the many Christians in the crowd would have disagreed. That may be the turning point for the audience, where they might stop feeling sympathetic towards Shylock because they don't like what he's saying. One way to think about it is that this speech makes a definite transition from a possible tragedy into a comedy. The audience may have been a little conflicted on who to side with thus far, but I think this is the point where they kind of make up their minds. There's certainly some foreshadowing aspect of this moment in XIII, where the people have an idea of what is coming, or at least a subconscious feeling of who is going to have a happy ending and who is not. I believe that we should all really just appreciate how well this speech was written. Whether the audience is on the side of Shylock or not, Shakespeare forces them to feel something. Even if it ends up bringing more negative feelings towards Shylock, I think Shakespeare did a really good job. Can't disagree with you there. I think Shakespeare is trying to show the complexity of Shylock by creating some division and an opportunity for the crowd to pick sides. Yeah, after this entire podcast, I feel like it definitely pointed out some great points of the book and how it all came together. So, it's a pretty interesting podcast to listen to. I agree with what Sydney said. Minus the part where they talked about the wildfires in California for ten minutes, I thought the podcast was pretty good.