Shakespeare revisited with Shishir Kurup’s Merchant on Venice by Brice Habeger

A well done piece of theatre often incites the phrase, “The tension is killing me.”

In the case of Shishir Kurup’s the Merchant on Venice the tension is one wrought by religious differences, and yes, it has potential to be a killer. It is a clever adaptation of Shakespeare’s the Merchant of Venice that takes the familiar theme of religious tension between the Jewish Shylock’s blood thirsty revenge and his humiliation at the hands of the Christian society in which he lives and applies it to the modern struggle between Muslims and Hindus. Although the western world might not be aware of the tension that exists between these two groups, it is real and it is a killer.

In India, in England, and in parts of even our religious “tolerant” America the tension between Muslims and Hindis is such that they will shed blood if even one member of their religious group falls in love with someone of the other religion. Marriages are prearranged. Teenage daughters are often locked in their own houses for fear that they will be corrupted by the society in which they live, be it either England or America.

Someone like myself, who happened to be ignorant to the situation between Muslims and Hindis, found that the original intent of Shakespeare’s play, his message, was very much applicable to way that this social tension was presented on stage. It was represented, without feeling contrived, as an animosity between characters because of their religious practices.

The speech that Sharuk [Shylock in the original play] gave about how both the Hindus and the Muslims are the same, “If you prick us, do we not bleed?”, rang just as true in the context of Muslim and Hindu as it did for Judaism and Christianity. Religions are at odds with one another because every religion requires faith in that religion alone. If you say that both his religion and my religion are right, then you’re faith is called into question because you are admitting that there is another way of life outside of one’s own religion.

The dual locale, the narrative, and the meter of the original play have been reimagined and turned into something that is uniquely Kurup’s. The play takes place in both India and California. The language of the play has been updated and laced with pop culture references, but the rhyme scheme of Shakespeare’s original language has been kept intact, thus presenting the beauty of Shakespeare’s poetics, spiced with the vitality of our modern pop culture; a mix that proves to be full of humor and tragedy and ultimately a projection of the world in which we live. A world that, contrary to what one might imagine, isn’t so different from the world in which Shakespeare wrote, oh those so many hundreds of years ago.
Sharuk, the devout Muslim merchant is wonderfully played by Anish Jethmalani. A performance that presents the complicated character of Sharuk as a man with a tremendous sense of pride; justified in his faith in the face of oppression . He is mocked and ridiculed by the his own Indian brethren for his devoutness to Islam.

A majority of the ridicule comes from Devendra, played by Kamal Hans, a worldly Hindu businessman, who finds himself indebted to Sharuk with the price of his testicles on the line should he be unable to pay back a loan. The tension between these two men makes for a very compelling play and serves as the framework that Kurup hangs his subplots on.

I like to think of Shylock as one of Shakespeare’s most complicated figures in his comedies. The only reason that Merchant.. was placed into the comedy genre is because of the happy ending. An ending, which could‘ve been to great effect, Kurup has taken and thrown out the window.

One of the main problems with Shakespeare’s original play was the ending’s lack of attention to the relationship between Shylock and his daughter Jessica.
Kurup has taken the relationship between Sharuk and his daughter Noorani and crafted it into a plotline that works wonderfully to humanize Sharuk and his authority as a parent. An authority born out of a desire not to oppress but to protect her from being hurt, both physically and mentally, with the same strict devotion that he has for his faith. A strictness which drives her away from home and spurs Sharuk to claim, when Devendra cannot pay back his loan, what is rightfully owed to him.

The bloodthirsty wish to take Devendra’s manhood is not a terrorist act, though our western minds would see it as such, it is a means to exercise revenge on a society, Devendra being one it’s more prominent members, that has taken what he loves most. Sharuk can stand the ridicule of his faith, but when it comes to a father’s love for his missing daughter what man blinded by anger and passion wouldn’t think about stealing the manhood of another as payment? Or for that matter, what mother wouldn’t feel the same vindictive rage over the same situation?

The most notable actor was Tariq Vasudeva who played four roles, and each with a different set of characteristics. He reminded me of an Indian Peter Sellers. He was endearingly funny and very talented.

Another notable performance, for it’s honesty and restraint, was Pushpa, played by Pranidhi Varshney. Pushpa was a woman in India who’s arranged marriage, as ordered by her father before he passed away, is determined by three DVD’s that a would be suitor must choose in an attempt to find the one where dad grants permission for the marriage to his daughter. She does a great job as a lawyer in the trial where Sharuk tries to claim is payment from Devendra.

Despite all of the good things that can be said about the cast and the play, there were three characters who I found rather annoying and sadly undermined the poignancy of the subplots that Kurup so wonderfully wrote.
One was Marvin Eduardo Quihada as the smooth talking, hip jivester Amithaba. His constant hustle an’ flo was more annoying than a bag of emo kids at a Dashboard Confessional concert. It wasn’t an emotional role, though there was a plotline that came out of nowhere where the audience had to buy into him being an emotional character. He was more of a drum roll of punch lines that fell short like the suaveness that he tried to project. He was an animated flat line, his performance was a lot of moving around but really it was dead.

Another was Sadieh Rifai who played Noorani, the daughter of Sharuk. Before she ran away she played the daughter way to whiny and subservient. A daughter that has the guts to run away from an oppressive father should have a little bit of an edge to begin with. Then once she did run away and join up with her boyfriend so they could start a rock n’ roll band she was beyond annoying. She played this punk rocker chick with cliché’d pink streaked hair who had about as much charisma as a wooden rake.

It was unfortunate that her performance was so bad because I could see that there was some really good writing going on, and I think that the last scene could’ve really worked if she could’ve made me believe in her character. Instead it came across as a very bad impersonation of that one scene in Breakfast club where they are all dancing to Pat Benitar and that one chick awakens out of her shell into this sort of punk goddess. Kinda like that, but not really at all; which stole the wind from the sails of the point that the struggle between father and daughter is a microcosm for the struggle that goes on between different religious factions. Both are born out a refusal to understand the other as a human with the desires and needs.

The last character who rubbed me the wrong way was Armando, played by Gerardo Cardenas. He was supposed to be this badass boyfriend of Noorani, but really he came across as someone like Jack Nicholson would’ve been if he actually gave a shit what you thought. That is to say he cared too much and came across a lot more Keeanu than someone who would say “fuck you.” It really took away from the whole young love thing that seemed to be such a huge important part to the plot outside of the tension between Sharuk and Devendra, and could’ve been a very important part of the play if it had been played right.

Despite it’s shortcomings in some of the plays most pivotal characters the play succeeds on so many levels, which should say something about Kurup’s talent as a writer. The main plot between Sharuk and Devendra was filled with some very well written tension. A tension that could possibly kill Devendra.

Kurup uses this to tie in his commentary on the current feud between Muslim and Hindu. A commentary that is echoed most strongly in the Shakur’s speech of “if [they] prick us do we not bleed.” A cry that reminds us that understanding is just beneath the surface. The coagulator that mends are differences is thicker than blood, it is our humanity. The tension between the Muslims and Hindus, and for that matter any opposing religious groups, is because when we bleed we see only our own blood and not the blood of our brother. Despite what we may believe, is it not the same color?

~ by Kristin Scott on October 22, 2007.