The film tells the story of "Professor Lucas, who accidentally found the meaning of life, murdered others and was accidentally killed by others". Lucas is a hard-charging philosophy professor whose life is full of stories and accidents, and he's hard-pressed to the point where he loses the meaning of his life, and can't even fuck uh huh. An accidental eavesdropping, he decided to help innocent passerby A kill an unscrupulous judge who "sentenced her son to a black-hearted husband", because the judge and the black-hearted husband had a shameful py transaction. This accidental decision helped Lucas find the meaning of life, and even he could fuck hard. Of course, I don't know whether the "meaning of life" can cure impotence, but it at least shows that "finding the meaning of life is very important".
Finding the meaning of life is really important, it makes Lucas feel that life has never been so beautiful and precious, so he would rather kill his ex-girlfriend Jill who plans to report him to the police station than give up the beauty of running away to Spain with the slut professor Rita vision.
But today I don't want to talk about the "meaning of life". On the one hand, I seem like some kind of stupid life mentor, and if I don't say it right, I will mislead others. On the other hand, everyone knows (I assume everyone knows) how pitiful human beings are. : We are accidentally thrown into the meaningless web of the world, trying our best to deceive ourselves by seeking a meaning. There is no set meaning in life, just choose one and believe it. So today we're going to talk about two other things: justice and love. Well, it's a bit too broad to say that, but the topics I want to talk about are nothing more than "who will be responsible for sentencing" and "should the son report his father for killing someone".
Lucas decided to act privately because he thought (perhaps everyone thought) Judge Tomas was a big bad guy, so he planned a murder case and successfully killed the big bad judge, with no motive and no clue. , perfect crime, and even rose to the height of criminal aesthetics. I don't understand things that are too complicated. Anyway, when I saw Lucas planning this case, I did have a little bit of joy. This kind of cosmic joy at seeing the murder of a villain should be a release from the injustice I have witnessed for so long, and then after being polished by director Woody Allen, I can actually laugh happily and shamelessly. But in fact, everyone with discernment knows that Lucas's approach seems to be inappropriate. If you don't believe me, ask the melon eaters, and he will definitely say: "Hey! What a tiring thing! Naneng kills you! Why do you want the police to do it!" , only public power can. This principle has some theoretical basis. I remember a philosopher said that the general idea is to judge whether a thing is good or not, just look at the results after it is released to the world. So if we allow Lucas to kill according to his own preferences like this, then the future may be that you fall in a pool of blood, just because you just read Guo Jingming's novel, and the murderer thinks it is very indecent. Well, let's assume that "you can't decide your life and death without permission" is fine, so what's right and wrong in the film? Lucas is clearly flawed, but I think Jill is fine, provided she's not Lucas' friend or girlfriend. I mean, if Jill was just a passerby, she'd be fine. Jill's logic is very simple, although I don't know if she thinks so, if you Lucas thinks your Lucas can judge others, then I Jill can judge you Lucas. You feel that according to your Lucas values, the judge is a bastard, causing suffering, it is better to kill him, and I feel that according to my values, you murder someone else, it is pure atrocity, and I want to report it. Right, no problem, right?
Well, by the way, this Jill is really fucking intelligent.
At this time, the supporters of Lucas will jump out and say: Then you will just sit back and watch the criminals get free under your so-called law? This really bothers me. The reason why I am writing this film review at home instead of in the State Council office is because I have no solution to what you said! As far as the matter is concerned, any public power may be abused, and any judicial trial may go wrong. If you insist on me giving countermeasures, I can only say that since everyone is "possible", please keep this "possible" instead of turning any "possible" into "certain". Look at this case, a hapless scapegoat was caught in the case, but fortunately, the death penalty was cancelled, so the maximum sentence is life. If the evidence is insufficient, this person may continue to commute and be released from prison. In this process, "abolishing the death penalty" and "commuting the sentence" are "possible". If someone is caught and shot without any reason, that is "surely". The male protagonist's murder also belongs to "certainty". "Definitely" is not good. The evil judge Tomas, as long as he is spared, "maybe" he will repent deeply in the future, and maybe he will switch to charity. Isn't this a kind of forgiveness?
What is really difficult to discuss is the second topic: should my son report Laozi? If you are a passerby and encounter this situation, report Lucas properly. But Jill and slut professor Rita are both in love with Lucas, and they are in love with each other. On the one hand, there is a personal relationship that is difficult to let go, and on the other hand, there is an open-minded public sentiment, or judicial justice. How should we choose? Jill chooses public affairs, and Lucas chooses private affairs. To tell the truth, how to choose is entirely a personal choice, and it has a lot to do with culture. For example, if you go back hundreds of years in China, if you report that your father has murdered, not only will your father not be sentenced, but you will also be punished. Spanking blooms because it's called "unfilial piety". With that said, this topic is over: you can choose whatever you want, that's your freedom. But what I'm curious about is why Jill and the slutty professor have different choices? Because the professor is slutty, she will always protect Lucas, who loves him, you say. But in fact, there may be other reasons, because Jill also loves very deeply when he only talks about love. In fact, I want to talk about the theory of moral development. This thing was proposed by Lawrence Kohlberg. What he means is that people will go through many moral stages in their life, and people have different principles for evaluating things at different stages. There are roughly three levels and six stages. In the fourth stage of the second level, the individual will feel that the law is supreme and that violations must be punished. But at the third level, which is the fifth and sixth stages, individuals at this time will understand why the law was established and what the original purpose of the law is. They know the limitations of the law, so if it is for the greater well-being of mankind, They can do anything to break the law. How one treats Lucas partly reflects which moral stage he is in, Jill is in the second stage and the slutty professor is in the third stage, that's all.
After all, the slutty professor has been eating for a few more years.
View more about Irrational Man reviews
