The story involves many people and many things. Of course, the main line is the three thousand gold agreement between Antonio and the Jewish Sherlock for Bassanio.
It's always easy for me to judge a movie's ending well, but this time it was troubling. While the happy endings of all movies are relative, we are always on the stronger and more persuasive side, and their success has allowed us to define a happy ending in a narrow sense. It is precisely because of this that the indecision of this tendency is caused.
I clearly remember a conversation between Antonio's best friend and Sherlock in the movie:
"I believe that if he (Antonio) defaults, you won't cut his flesh, so what's the benefit to you?"
"Using Come fishing, and if it can't feed other things, it can feed my revenge. He humiliated me and cost me half a million gold! He laughed at my losses, at my earnings, and rebuked my people, Obstructing my business, alienating my friends, angering my enemies, what is he doing? (because) I am a Jew! Do Jews have no eyes? Do Jews have no hands? No organs? No height? No Feelings, feelings, passions? Not eating the same food? Not stabbed by the same weapons? Not overwhelmed by the same diseases? Not healed by the same methods? Jews and Christians Like, do you feel the heat and cold? You stab us, won't we bleed? You scratch us, won't we laugh? You poison us, won't we die? And if you offend us, won't we retaliate? If We are like you in other respects and we will be like you in this respect. What kind of humiliation does a Jew suffer if he offends a Christian? Revenge? If a Christian offends a Jew, by Christian standards, he deserves it. What kind of punishment? Retaliation, of course. I will do the sins you teach me. But I will be tougher and I will be one step closer to your teaching."
After reading this passage, as a viewer, I don't think he is a villain. I'm sure most people feel the same way as me. Even though I read the same story as a child and used a childish voice to be ashamed of Sherlock's cruel and stubborn thoughts in court, now I'm changing my mind.
In the opening part, there are written materials that specifically explain that at that time the Venetian Jews engaged in a profession such as usury was forced by the world, not voluntary. They were treated inhumanly, humiliated and denied by Christians in every way, which is why Sherlock had to cut off a pound of Antonio's flesh and was unwilling to accept double or even more money in compensation. The seemingly cruel and stubborn idea provides a practical basis, and also allows our audience to have a better understanding of the relatively weak side. At the same time, we also clearly judged that Sherlock should be the party protected by the law, and that his rights and interests were indeed violated. In theory, that pound of flesh belongs to him, which is beyond doubt. Starting from the justice of the law and the credit of the city, he should not end up as bleak as the end of the movie. But the fact is that under the inclination of public opinion, the threat of public opinion and the clever misinterpretation of the loopholes in the guarantee by Bassanio's wife, the situation has developed to the other extreme. But do you say Bassanio's clever wife did anything wrong? Logically, it doesn't seem to be. She used a loophole in the law to protect her beloved husband and a friend who was very important to him, and she used her wisdom to avoid the condemned part and save her own interests - but I found it interesting It was what she did that made her more of a modern lawyer than a judge.
In any case, the law is improving and the people’s hearts are improving. It seems that everything is developing in an optimistic direction, but we cannot deny that the future is unpredictable, and absolute fairness does not exist. Happiness and success are always on one side. . above.
View more about The Merchant of Venice reviews
