"We are also very sorry, I hope I am as kind as you, but I am just a fourth grade dropout. I have a wife, I have two daughters, this is my whole world. I have never asked for another one. One day My world, an uninvited guest came, and he wanted to destroy my world. We stopped him, we prayed to him, but he did not listen. As a result, a tragedy happened unexpectedly, we sent away the uninvited guest and went to a place where we could not return. We took For giving you pain, I want to say I’m sorry countless times. I did this in my heart, but we can’t do other things. My family is too important to me and I can do anything for them. I can do anything at all costs, at that moment. We can’t tell the difference between right and wrong, we’re sorry.”-"Manslaughter" The last one was "Slumdog Millionaire" for Indian films. This "Manslaughter Man Tian Ji" was searched for the label of "high IQ". From the perspective of "high IQ" alone, the film was dull in the early stage and echoed with the climax of the later layout. It was always nervous and suspenseful, and it was very enjoyable. But what struck me more deeply was the words of the last male lead in the whole movie. Throughout the movie, this is described from the perspective of a "criminal", but from beginning to end, we don’t define the male lead’s family as a "criminal" in our hearts. We even sweat for the criminal’s layout, follow him nervously, and follow him. Think about how to conceal "crimes" together . When we were young, we valued right and wrong. Good people are good and bad people are bad. Gradually, I have come into contact with the larger world and experienced different stories before I understand that there are no "good people" and no "bad people" in the world. But the heart still believes in the distinction between "innocent" and "guilty". After all, killing and beating someone is "guilty", no matter what your reason is. "At that moment I couldn't tell right from wrong, we are sorry". Human is a perceptual animal, no matter how rational the behavior and thinking, the source of motivation is ultimately inseparable from perceptual. Otherwise, we are really no different from computers. The whole layout of the male protagonist is almost rational, careful thinking, rational performance, and precise judgment. But in the end it was his sensibility: he loved this family, and he was sorry for the inspector general's family. But from these two points, it also determines the source and outcome of the crime. The source of crime is perceptual, and the ending of crime is also perceptual. A kind-hearted person can be "being" sinned at any time, just like the life of a male protagonist. Based on his inner sensibility, many "at that moment" go to sin. A perverted murderer, even if there are many rational factors (he can design crimes well and arrange crimes well), he will eventually be brought to justice. He escaped a crime with reason. Perhaps he chose to be a human again, but he could not escape his inner "I'm sorry". :Small probability event
It is bound to happen, and it will show its feet in the end. It's just a matter of time-"It's not that the unreported time has not arrived!" Many barrage said, the male protagonist must not say the last paragraph, what if they bring a recorder! And I want to say that it was the male protagonist who said these words that he got out of the criminal sensibility. It is only the luck of the male protagonist to bring the recorder or not (of course, the male protagonist also wisely bypassed the "keywords" in the statement. ). It is precisely because of this that the male protagonist's status as a "criminal" can be "convicted." Admittedly, the most exciting part of the whole film is the rational part of the male lead. What is even more impressive is that this is a film adapted from a real-life story. I can't sigh with emotion. The cattle are everywhere. They have nothing to do with knowledge, identity and money, and perhaps have something to do with personality and genes. Criminals are like code farmers who write programs, and police are like code farmers who debug programs. It is just a sentence of if+elseif+else, and each person's judgment and classification are truly worlds apart. I can read you but I can’t find bugs or I really can’t read you, criminals can be free from the legal point of view, I can read you and find bugs, criminals will be "punished by law." In this view, what is the use of the law? If the legal if+elseif+else is found by criminals, it is an arbitrage loophole, a cost-free "crime" condition, or more accurately, guilty and innocence. Of course, I think the law is still useful. Its useful point lies in the decision-making authority under an imperfect system. There is no legal loophole in that environment, but there is a greater proportion of innocent guilty. It's like everything in the world, a double-edged sword. In this case, for a general public who yearns for beauty and never wanted to get involved in programming games, all that can be done is: learn to think carefully + learn to accept downside risks. But it's all difficult. That's all, then you can only do it: enjoy the unknown future and the known life better today. 2016-9-5
View more about Drishyam reviews
