Just saw the title of "Twelve Angry Men", and aimed at the battle nation? Isn't this a special forces combat film? Sure enough, I guessed... Completely unreliable. After Baidu, I found that this movie has a deep origin, from the United States remake of Japan's "Twelve Kind Japanese", to the United States once again remake its own film in color, and then to the Russian remake of the American film of the same name, and then this film was also remade by China, but with this judgment plot and practical significance, it is indeed worthy of turning it over.
In the Case of the Russian version of "Twelve Angry Men", the film is basically a discussion room, twelve jury members, interspersed with a minute or two of the scenes of the parties to the case, and even the face of the security guard is more than interspersed. They were debating whether a Chechen child accused of killing his adoptive father should be found guilty, and before that, it was basically a case without suspense: the Chechen child killed his adoptive father and stole his pension, and because of the child's Chechen and adoptive father's status as a Russian military colonel, the case also had a great impact on society, and the twelve jurors had to do a unanimous vote of guilt.
Back at the beginning of the story, twelve jurors have cast 11 guilty votes.
<h1>The first vote is the last vote that cannot be hastily</h1>
A deserted old apartment that was about to be demolished to build a luxury apartment, a retired colonel was killed at home by a military dagger that was difficult to buy in Moscow, the only other old man living in this apartment saw the crime scene, and an adopted child brought back from Chechnya was found running out of the house, and another woman who liked the dead who lived across the road said that she witnessed the Chechen child killing her adoptive father at the window...
Just when all this seemed to be undisputed, a negative vote suddenly appeared in the middle of the jury, simply because it was too hasty to find the defendant guilty if it were directly cast for 12 guilty votes. Like the Jewish "tenth-man" in Zombie World Wars, the team needs one or two people who think differently to prevent the team from rolling over because of inertia.
<h1>A vote that really matters to start the transformation</h1>
Unwilling to see a hasty result, the first vote of innocence led to a second round of voting, and there was a proposal for blind voting, resulting in a second vote of innocence — because of the negative attitude of the defence counsel and the almost lack of debate, which made people feel that the defendant's Chechen status was discriminatory, and because the Chechen boys did not have the money to make the defence counsel unprofitable, they were not treated fairly, so that the conviction was problematic.
Because of the buffer of the first vote, the doubts in the case or process have time to be exposed and successfully captured by the team, if the first vote is only in form and mentality, then the second vote is really to start the transformation from the substance. And this transformation needs time to ensure, even if the bullet, should let it fly for a while.
<h1>One question for one ticket</h1>
As the first question was thrown out, many questions came out one after another: the old man who was a witness because of arthritis, after reappearing at the scene, found that he could not "arrive" at the scene of the crime in time to see the defendant; the military dagger that was "difficult to buy in Moscow" was easily bought by a juror, and even an invoice; the testimony of another witness was also problematic, and the boy, as a person who learned to use the dagger very early, could not stab people from top to bottom, let alone shout...
Thus, a question represents the thinking of a juror, and a Russian story of his own also represents a guilty vote to a not guilty vote, a change that may come from the first question, not the first innocent vote. When the first question arises, the seemingly indisputable case officially collapses, like a wedge hitting a ball that cannot be started, making people feel at ease to continue to pursue and discover its problems.
<h1>Innocence turns to the first vote of guilt</h1>
Just as the jurors were re-examining their judgments before they had changed their minds, suddenly the appearance of another Russian story made the plot that had been gradually clarified confusing, and if the Chechen boy was really a criminal (or even a terrorist), then what if he came home one day and found that his target was everyone here?
Maybe the transformation of this vote is not a bad thing, nor is it the dark side of human nature, as a juror, even if his goal is not his own, should not he vote for guilt? It is really indispensable for this round of transformation of guilt, and if you don't want to turn to innocence together, why not be an inertial rollover in the opposite direction?
<h1>The last guilty ticket under the great conspiracy</h1>
In fact, when the case deduced a huge conspiracy of a real estate developer against the nail household, the confrontation was nearing the end: there were three people in this demolition area who were unwilling to move away, that is, the adoptive father and son in the case and the witness of the old man, so the real estate dealer sent someone to kill the retired colonel, marry the child, and threaten the old man to move away and make false testimony, so the problem was all solved, and the construction period could be accelerated to build a luxury apartment. Faced with such a tight inference, all 12 jurors agreed with the above views, so they suggested a final vote to free this innocent boy from the real criminals.
But one person (the moderator) voted guilty, the reason can not be refuted but no one accepted: if he is acquitted, he will think of revenge and the group of people also want to kill him, the situation is not as good as in prison, and hope that 12 people can be convicted first, and then help him prosecute to find out the truth. Here I see the game and contrast between the real estate developer and the jury moderator: it is not impossible to be above the law and the facts, but it requires sufficient reason and wisdom, and this reason should be selfless, yes, this is a great man who is not bound by the world, no, this is a bad person who exploits the loopholes in the law.
<h1>The powerless unanimously innocent</h1>
The jury moderator proposed a perfect way to fight back, so in the "last" vote the result was 11 votes of innocence and 1 vote of guilt, but in the end everyone did not do it according to the way of the host for various reasons of their own, and the host could only vote his last guilty vote as innocent and get a unanimous conclusion, slightly ironic, the host did not believe the witness testimony at the beginning, and saw through their loopholes, but was the last person to vote not guilty. Of course, this is only because he also saw through the conspiracy and trickery after this.
When I first heard the host's argument, I did hope that the ending would be leaning on this idea, but it was more like a normal movie, they had gone through a series of stripping to find out the truth, and in the midst of discrimination and conspiracy, chechen children were fair, and they could have voted ten minutes at a time to vote home. There are hopes for people, there are people who can do what they can, and there are people who are willing to try to pursue, but equally, there are those who can't do anything.
<h1>One jury trial, N convictions</h1>
In the end, the film Jianfeng refers to far more than this case and the real estate developer behind the conspiracy, every juror basically tells a Russian story about himself, and behind this is 12 convictions, not to mention the aging line from time to time blackouts, the pipeline that has not improved in 40 years and is not expected to change in the next 40 years, the witness who was threatened or perjured by jealousy...