Rather than interpreting this work as a legal classic and a court masterpiece, I think it is better to understand it as a work that mocks the court system and mocks the jury. There are three details in this film that I like very much. One is the suspiciousness that the defendant said to the judge that "this question and answer are not recorded and the jury will not consider it." The lawyer smiled easily: "Of course they can't ignore it"; the other At the end, the partner said, “It’s unbelievable that 12 people from different identities, places, and living conditions gather together to try people who they don’t understand”; there is also a break in the courtroom. The lawyer gave a little bait to catch a bullfrog by understanding the judge’s hobby. The three details are a bit absurd, but from different levels, the professionalism of the lawyer, the professionalism of the judge, the objectivity of the jury and the citation of evidence Legitimacy is a pungent irony. It may be a bit exaggerated, but it is not difficult to imagine that justice in court, or justice in law, is actually a very vague and ethereal concept when thinking of the classic work "12 Angry Men" in 57 years.
View more about Anatomy of a Murder reviews
