The general direction of the film should be about the performance of Italy's resistance to the Jews, especially the climax of the film in the courtroom. Then I didn't agree with this ruling very much. Why was it that the Jews were punished in the end, but the Venetians gave them "gifts" from the top. It seemed that Sherlock was at a disadvantage when the "young judge" finally suggested that it was not allowed to take a drop of the accused's blood, but I figured out a solution in less than half a minute. That is, the contract says that one pound of meat is to be repaid, but it does not say who will cut it, and Antonio, who is the defaulter, should cut the meat and return it himself. So whether it drips blood or whether it will cause death has nothing to do with Sherlock, he just needs to wait for a pound of meat to be delivered. However, as a smart Jew, the director did not let him think of such a rebuttal.
Such a religious exclusion environment established from the beginning of the film actually ended with the resolution of conflicts between couples who have no religious conflict. And it seems that the two men who betrayed the oath did not pay any price for this, nor did they have to pay a painful price, at least to express it. The two women also seemed to be joking about the situation and it was over. In the end, there was only one Antonio who made another contract for others, which seemed absurd.
The first half of the episode looked pretty good, but since the end of the legal dispute, Sherlock got an unfair judgement, and it started to make people feel... um... off topic!
View more about The Merchant of Venice reviews
