With this film alone, Al Pacino can once again prove that he is a terrific actor. Challenging the classic roles played by countless actors for hundreds of years, his performance is hearty and hearty. First of all, the image has changed from the usual sharp-mouthed monkey cheeks, wretchedness and despicableness. From the beginning of the film, his fearful and uneasy eyes, his expressionless face when he was humiliated, and his grief after losing his daughter, especially when he heard that his daughter had exchanged the ring of his deceased wife. The madness of a monkey's rage is irresistibly infectious to understand and sympathize with this traditional villain. We seem to realize for the first time that Sherlock was also human, with emotions, dignity, love, and fidelity, and that his shameful career was actually one of the few viable options for Jews at the time, and that he and all Jews suffer injustice. Following this emotional thread, the classic Jewish repression and anger indictment completely conquered the hearts of the audience. It is said that this line is the "touchstone" of the actor, and Al Pacino deeply shocked me. In my opinion, this is the climax of the film, better than the "trial" that follows. Because by that point, my feelings were completely inclined towards Sherlock, and I even hoped that he would win. When I finally lost my case, was stripped of my property, and was forced to convert, I couldn't face Al Pacino's eyes of despair. At this point, there is no trace of comedy in the film, only sadness, desolation and bitterness reverberate in the air. If you don't consider faithfulness to the original, I think the end of the film is most effective.
Maybe Al Pacino's performance is too good, maybe this version is tailor-made for him, and the actor Jeremy Irons, who is on the same stage, has little room to play, and Antonio's role is not impressive. Several other characters are pompous and comical, especially not like Portia played by Lynn Collins, let alone. On the contrary, the funny Arabian prince is quite brilliant, and it is almost the only comedy color reserved in the whole play.
In China, especially in textbooks, "The Merchant of Venice" has always been called a comedy, with the theme "criticizing the greedy and cruel nature of loan sharks during the primitive accumulation period of capitalism". Such a definition cannot be said to be misleading, but at least it is biased and inappropriate. It seems inappropriate to understand literature with too much ideology - even though this is a chronic ailment in China. Moreover, such a work that is entangled in many elements such as race, human nature, friendship, love, law, etc., is simply summed up in one sentence, and it also kills too much personal understanding space for readers, especially students. If we have been receiving this kind of literature education, we may never realize the beauty and power of literature.
In fact, Shakespeare's work has been controversial, especially on the issue of race: is he racist, or is he satirizing "anti-Semitic" ideas? After the 20th century, especially after World War II, most people no longer view this story in a light-hearted way. The original comedy has become less and less, and "The Merchant of Venice" has been turned into a problem drama.
And there have always been many ways to interpret Sherlock on stage. He is sometimes the devil incarnate, sometimes the villain in the comedy, and sometimes the image of repression and humiliation, cast in a strong tragic undertone, such as Al Pacino's Sherlock. It is said that this interpretation method was pioneered by British actor Edmund Kean in 1814 and has since influenced a group of actors including Laurence Olivier. Modern creations are more inclined to understand Sherlock due to ideas such as equality, human rights, and anti-racism. Keita Asari, director of the troupe's four seasons, once wrote on the program list of "The Merchant of Venice": "I can't agree with the opinion that Sherlock is a villain." The Royal Shakespeare Company, which came to China a few years ago, also interpreted the same way. For this character, the actor said, "I hope the audience will not condemn him, but understand him."
What kind of feelings Shakespeare pinned on Sherlock, the discussion will continue. But the line he wrote in his own hand will surely shock more people and cause more thinking.
"He has humiliated me, robbed me of hundreds of thousands of dollars in business, ridiculed my losses, mocked my surplus, slandered my nation, destroyed my business, divided my friends, and stirred up my enemies.
What's his reason?
Just because I'm a Jew.
Do Jews have no eyes?
Don't the Jews have no senses, no senses, no emotions, no flesh?
Isn't he eating the same food, the same weapons that can hurt him, the same medicine that heals him, the same cold in winter and the same heat in summer, like a Christian?
If you stab us with your sword, won't we bleed too?
If you tickled us, wouldn't we laugh too?
If you murder us with poison, won't we also die?
So if you bullied us, wouldn't we take revenge?
If we are like you elsewhere, we are also like each other in this.
If a Jew bullies a Christian, how does the Christian show his humility?
revenge.
If a Christian bullies a Jew, how should the Jew show his tolerance, following the Christian example?
revenge. "
This is not only a question of Jews, but also a question of all vulnerable people who suffer from discrimination and injustice.
View more about The Merchant of Venice reviews
