Ni Xiao la
Prejudice Rational Law ★★★★★
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="58" > movie · plot</h1>
Adapted from the 1957 American film "Twelve Angry Men", it has also been remade by many countries, except that the background of the characters is different from the culture of various countries, and the core of the plot is the same.
In a university of political science and law, students who failed to pass the final exam of Western law ushered in a mock trial session of the common and American law make-up exam to hear a controversial case of "20-year-old rich second generation father killing". The parents of 12 students from different backgrounds and occupations formed a jury to hear the trial, and the teacher stipulated that the jury unity theory must be unanimously passed within one hour 12 to 0, and leave relevant opinions, and if there is no agreement, the discussion will continue. Approaching the truth step by step, overturning the vote again and again, what is the fate of the second generation of the rich?
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="58" > movies · highlights</h1>
First round of voting 11:1 (11 votes guilty)
Only one person bravely stepped forward and pointed out that the case should be seriously discussed.
Second round of balloting 10:1
(Juror No. 1 does not participate in the vote)
Third round of balloting 8:4
Fourth round of balloting 6:6
Fifth round of balloting 3:9
Sixth round of balloting 4:8
Seventh round of balloting 1:11
Eighth round of balloting 0:12
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="58" > movie · doubts</h1>
The suspect's interests are vested in the defendants
The old man downstairs heard Fu Er Dai shouting "I'm going to kill you" and saw him flee the scene
The murder weapon Fruit Knife is rare, while Fuerdai has the same knife and loses it
The woman who lived across the street saw the murder through the last two carriages of the metro
With the windows open, the sound of the subway passing by makes it impossible to hear anything else
A six-car metro train takes at least six seconds to pass through a fixed point
Can an elderly person with inconvenient legs and feet run from the bedroom to the door in fifteen seconds
The son was eleven centimeters shorter than his father, and how he used the side jump knife to stab downwards into the opponent's body
Seeing the murdered woman had two pits on the bridge of her nose, how to see people tens of meters away in the dark night
Would you fight for justice for an unrelated person?
How do you see prejudice and discrimination?
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="58" > movie · meaning</h1>
Ostensibly reflecting the jury system, it actually brings more thinking about human nature.
When we believe in our hearts that a person is guilty, even if we put the truth in front of us, will we still believe it?
When we have power in our hands, how should we use it? A power that seems invisible, but it affects everyone. Power corresponds to responsibility, and we have an obligation to accomplish our mission.
When looking at things, our first reaction is to put ourselves into the role, to interpret with our own vision, we seem to forget that different angles will make things have different results, the so-called "authorities fans".
When all the evidence is in front of us, should we have the courage to question it?
The details are in place, it is rather stuffy in the warehouse, and there are shots of the back of the jurors' clothes soaking wet, which subtly leads to the identity of No. 5
Set up suspense, through repeated questions and dialogues, conflicts, rounds of voting to lead to the story behind them, showing vivid characters and triggering thinking
In a single scenario, the discussion revolves around a long table, the environment is simple but the connotation is not simple. Discussion resistance: Most people want to rush things, do not want to find things out of the mind (things do not matter to hang high), preconceived prejudices
From calmness to intensification of contradictions to mutual attacks to the outbreak of contradictions, from one person fighting alone, to more and more people supporting, the plot twists and turns, especially when Juror No. 3 re-enacts the side-jump knife murder process, the situation is particularly tense, because his confrontation is the most conflicting with him in the whole process of discussion.
In response to multiple doubts, repeat the case to convince people with reason.
Juror No. 3 is the boss of the opposition throughout the process, what kind of story is hidden in him that makes him refuse to believe the truth?
At the end of the film, when the suspense is unveiled, Xiao La feels a kind of relief
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="58" > movie · feeling</h1>
I disagree with your conclusions, but I appreciate your attitude.
- Juror No. 3
This sentence deeply touched me, reminding me of Voltaire once said, "I disagree with your point of view, but I swear to defend your right to speak to the death", each of us has the right to speak, but we should make good use of this right.
In the film, Xiao La is very grateful to the people who voted against him for daring to stand up (he is a prosecutor!). He wants to make things clear, rather than to reach a 12:0 situation in order to get to himself quickly, if put in reality, such a random vote can determine a person's future, and the occurrence of unjust cases is often because no one is willing to seek the truth, which ruins a person's future.
There is a plot that when juror No. 3 recounts the case, the emphasis is on the old man downstairs to hear and see the murder, Xiao La believes that he did not see the process of committing the crime with his own eyes, can only prove that it is suspected, can not be said to be guilty, not to mention that people's hearing and vision are not necessarily reliable, seeing may not be true, and even say that people will imagine some reverse things they see.
Throughout the process, Juror No. 3 carried his own prejudices and insisted on guilt. At the end of the day, he cried bitterly about his experience with his son, and I believe he was relieved, and the final vote, 12:0, was unanimously acquitted.
We can't just see what we want to see, we can only hear what we want to hear. When a person is not found innocent, why should we sentence him to death, as a juror, we must grasp the power in our hands, and do not make a decision for our own selfishness, which seems to be a decision, but it is related to the future of a person and even a family and a family.
These 12 jurors all have their own stories behind them, and some of them will look at the problem with prejudice, so is the witness's confession necessarily accurate?
When we learn to let go of our own preconceptions to look at problems objectively and analyze problems, Xiao La believes that the world will be more fair to talk about.
Prejudice is never easy unless it can be terminated by reason
--Herzritt
Image source: Network
【Disclaimer】The quotation of the picture is only to introduce the film and television work
If there is any infringement, please contact to delete it
Like, can I have one?