I don't know the Stoke Newington of the late 1940s, but my parents do. The director creates a very closed and claustrophobic setting: all the scenes take place indoors aside from the fruit & veg market stall. In this setting we see a fascinating short story about a group of people who jump to an outlandish and almost paranoid conclusion about a newcomer to their world. The confusion is well set-up by the writers, and plays out well, albeit in a rather concise form. To be fair to them, nobody had certain proof whether Hitler lived or died until the Berlin Wall came down, and many writers have played with this idea over the years.
The characters are very credible - I know people like all of these figures, and couldn't help but sympathise with them. I was amused by the Rabbi's management style, but I must say that a Sanhedrin could not be convened by such a small number of people, and in order to pass a death sentence, you'd need 70 members of the court. In conclusion, I'd add that according to the Talmud, a Sanhedrin which executed somebody once in 7 years was called a "murderous Sanhedrin". Another opinion is then cited that even once in 70 years was too often. This drama is a nice whimsy, but cannot be taken as a serious statement of Jewish law. Just enjoy the idea, and then you'll smile along with it, as I did.
The characters are very credible - I know people like all of these figures, and couldn't help but sympathise with them. I was amused by the Rabbi's management style, but I must say that a Sanhedrin could not be convened by such a small number of people, and in order to pass a death sentence, you'd need 70 members of the court. In conclusion, I'd add that according to the Talmud, a Sanhedrin which executed somebody once in 7 years was called a "murderous Sanhedrin". Another opinion is then cited that even once in 70 years was too often. This drama is a nice whimsy, but cannot be taken as a serious statement of Jewish law. Just enjoy the idea, and then you'll smile along with it, as I did.