The whole film is pessimistic about the law. At the end of the film, Rudy chooses to be an improper lawyer. His reason: "Every lawyer will at least find that he has crossed the line that he does not want to cross in a certain case. If you cross the line again and again. , You will find that the boundary does not exist."
In fact, in the film, we can see Rudy crossing the boundaries of the law again and again. For example, when he went to court for the first time, he just passed the bar exam but didn’t have the certificate and oath. As a result, it just passed in hastily. In the following plot, Dick did it once because Rudy was late for the trial, but the justice as a fair image in the film did not say anything. And the young woman who was beaten was obviously beaten to death by her husband, but her husband came out before being locked up. In order to get rid of her husband’s harassment and protect Rudy, she chose to let Rudy escape, killed her husband by herself, and finally escaped in self-defense. Sin, in fact, that husband was badly injured by Rudy at the time, and a wall of blood was splashed. That should be a decisive stick. I’ve been entangled for a long time about whether the manual can be forensic film. Everyone knows that this thing is true, and the judge understands it. However, this discerning thing needs to be proven illegally in accordance with laws and regulations. An irony. In the end, Dick consulted the former boss who was good at obtaining evidence by improper means, and found a historical precedent. As a result, the manual could be used as evidence.
The law is born for justice, but what is true justice? ? ? What is the relationship between bottom line and justice?
View more about The Rainmaker reviews
