Although I haven’t watched the American version (for now, I’ll watch it when I’m ready to go back), but through the comments of my friends and my own understanding of American movies, especially those from earlier years, the ups and downs of controversy and understanding of the law, everyone’s attitude The transformation in the face of the question of feasibility must be unparalleled by Russian films. It must be admitted that, as the film says, "Russia can never become a country with the rule of law".
Likewise, I wouldn't choose Russian movies for the madness and pursuit of the law. Russia and the United States have very different histories. Unlike the luck and tranquility of the United States (except for the Civil War and Pearl Harbor, there was no war on the American soil), the history of Russia is closer to China, once powerful and mighty, and then later The continuous wars of China, the Cold War and the disintegration of the Soviet Union, every impact of reality affects the lives of the Russian people and their attitudes towards surrounding things. The legal system is a product of the Western world, while Russia, which is between Asia and Europe, prefers the rule of man. Although this film is the jury's adjustment of self-perception and the exploration of facts to obtain the kind of legal justice that is very vague in everyone's mind, but in fact, it is through everyone's touch of their own memories, to obtain patience and calm.
From the casualness at the beginning to the later personal experience, the simulation scene, the use of knives and dance, the in-depth discussion of the background, the insider guess and the appropriate point of the relevant people, there is an emotion behind the transformation of everyone on the scene or morality. Redemption, miracles, bravery, jealousy, dark self-esteem behind interests. This is not the triumph of the law, but the redemption of human nature. Every discussion touches some sensitive topics more or less, and among them, taxi drivers' disgust for Chechens is like a powder keg, with sparks falling on it constantly, and it will explode at some point. . This also reflects the different feelings of the Russian people towards Chechnya. The selection of Chechen issues, the memory of Chechen teenagers interspersed in the film, and the broken arm with a diamond ring in the mouth of a dog running from a distance all add to the film's unique Russian pain. It is not so much the self-examination of the 12 jurors as the self-examination of the Russian nation. When the scar is opened, it will naturally bleed and hurt. Only the Russian people know how much the changes in Russian society over the past few decades have paid.
This is Russia, which has lost the luck and arrogance that the United States has. They have fallen, but they are trying to get up.
It's too fanatical, it's a bit exaggerated really. Actually, by the end, I was still a little cold. The final vote was in the same state as the first vote, but it got different results. The helplessness on the faces of the old party members left all the moviegoers speechless. In the film, whether it is the director's personal inclination or the general attitude of Russia, Harvard graduates are portrayed. . . Quite not tall enough, and the bespectacled guy who always believed in the law had no substantive advice from beginning to end, and at the end of the film, the old party member took the boy in and made the same decision as the colonel, the kind of old soldier. Affirmation and admiration, quite rich in Russian flavor.
The passage at the end of the little bird and the return of the physicist felt very philosophical at the beginning. Later, I thought it was a bit deliberate, but if not, the ending would be a little thin. The sentence at the end is also thought-provoking.
In the end, this film is about Russia, about human nature, not the law. But it has to be said that the inference and proof of the case are more convincing than the simple logical argument of the legal text. Reasonable questions are raised to prove it. They choose the way they believe in to convince themselves of the innocence of others.
The only question is that there are no women in the jury. Generally speaking, in order to ensure a fair trial, the jury should include people of all ages, genders, and occupations with civil capacity, even if the lawyers of both parties can exclude some that are considered unfavorable to their side's trial position. The jury members, all male, also somewhat. . . . . .
View more about 12 reviews
