1. The difference of the times The
first point is relatively simple, the background of the times is different. When appreciating a work, both readers and audiences must understand what kind of readers or audience groups the work is aimed at when it was born, and what kind of background it is in. A work is born in a different era, and its meaning and even its value are indistinguishable. If you take a movie as an example, "The Great Dictator" premiered in 1940. Chaplin's direct target was Hitler. "A movie of great significance", imagine if it were released today, it would not have such a high value. Another example is "Monty Python and the Holy Grail", which is regarded as the ancestor of nonsensical movies. It is a super bad movie at the moment, but it was a pioneering work at the time.
So what kind of background does the story of "The Merchant of Venice" take place in? In those days, Christian persecution of Jews was protected by law. First of all, Jews can only live in places designated by the state, and cannot go out and about in public places during the day. If they want to go out, they must wear red caps to show their difference from Christians. Second, Jews cannot own their own property, even if they have Money couldn't have a room of its own, so the only thing Jews had were coins. Therefore, the perspective of the audience who watched this Shakespeare play was actually the perspective of the onlookers in the courtroom. From their perspective, this is a kind of Antonio being rescued from the miserly, treacherous and cruel Sherlock. A comedy with a happy ending. Now, after experiencing the persecution of Jews in World War II, our current audience will have a completely different perspective when looking at this work.
2. Intention of the author
First of all, it should be clear that the director is the author of a film. This statement is expounded in the film author theory put forward by Godard, Truffaut and others during the new wave of film. Then the author's intention I said here actually refers to The film's director's intention.
In a film review, it was mentioned that the director fully respected the standpoint of the original book when filming. This is true. The director did not add some scenes to Sherlock or change his lines to gain sympathy. The problem is that the script is balanced. The role of the role has been reduced, and the focus has fallen on Sherlock, which can also be seen from the poster.
To give two examples, in the original play, Antonio lent money to others without interest, which affected Sherlock's usury business, which just provided a reason for Sherlock to get rid of Antonio and not want to charge compensation, but this One point is taken away in the movie. Of course, from my point of view, this should not be the main reason, because Antonio's fleet is wrecked and he is already destitute, so it is unlikely that he can continue to hinder Sherlock's business. If it is for money, it is better to collect compensation, Personally, it seems to me that it is for dignity.
In addition, some explanations for the reasons why Sherlock's daughter and servant left in the original script were also missing in the film, resulting in the lack of fullness of their characters. But even so, from the perspective of a Jew who lives at the bottom of the society and is trembling all day long. , lack of communication with her daughter, and a bit autocratic, which is completely understandable. In today's society, there are not a few such family heads. Although Shakespeare did not elaborate on Sherlock's family, he learned from him that his daughter used Judging from the performance of the ring that his deceased wife gave him in exchange for a monkey, we can speculate that he lost his wife and supported the family alone in pain. What if you were put in Sherlock's place?
In general, although the director did not change the script, he made some adjustments in the balance, and finally achieved the current effect.
3. Excellent performance
I believe that after watching this movie, the audience must have learned the acting skills of Pacino, an old actor, and the acting tension is amazing. The role of Sherlock must be the most fully portrayed in this film, not only the arrangement of the scenes, but it is absolutely inseparable from Pacino's performance of overwhelming everyone.
I watched this movie for Pacino, but I didn't expect to get such a big surprise. Sherlock is so complicated and has such rich layers, and Pacino controls it exactly. In fact, director Michael Redford had never made a Shakespeare play before. He made this film because Pacino wanted to play Sherlock, and from the results, Pacino also handed in a perfect score. There are three scenes in this film that are the most exciting, one is the famous if you prick us indictment, the second is the court scene, and the third is the close-up of the last scene where the door closes Pacino's hunched back, Once again, he has played with his eyes, and he has performed a lingering sound, which lasts for three days, and is unforgettable. Comparable to the last scene of the loyal traitor.
The intention of this film is finished, what about Shakespeare's intention? This is a matter worth exploring. What is Shakespeare's position? I think there are two possibilities. The first is that Shakespeare is not simply on the side of the Christians. Otherwise, how could he have designed so many human and vivid dialogues for Sherlock, how could he have written if you prick us,do We not bleed? Such a deafening question, and he is by no means on the side of the Jews, and his era itself makes this unlikely, and according to many people, he wrote the script to make money, if he How to make money on the side of the Jews? The second possibility is not so complicated. Shakespeare may not have done anything deliberate, but just put himself into the character, just like the method school mentioned earlier in the performance art, and just did that. According to legend, when a character is formed, he has flesh and blood, and is no longer at the mercy of the author. Otherwise, how could he write a thousand kinds of Hamlet? The characters in his works are like you and me in the real world, and every facet of seeing them as friends, family, and enemies can be presented.
In either case, Shakespeare's greatness as a writer is simply superb. And if you are watching this movie, I think Pacino's acting skills are not much better.
View more about The Merchant of Venice reviews
