The new version puts the story in Russia, where the boy on trial, with a Chechen background, is charged with the murder of his adoptive father, a Russian military officer. From this plot setting, we know what the director meant. 12 members of the jury, with more modern backgrounds, doctors, cemetery directors, TV directors, artists, taxi drivers, etc., but also people from different regions, Jews, people from the Caucasus. Their discussion took the murder case as a starting point, and discussed various practical problems and regional conflicts in Russia, and some plots were slightly protracted.
Unlike the shots in the old version where he never left a room, in this version, not only the crime boy is described, but also has a vague description of the former situation, which can give us a sense of what kind of person he is, and also have a good understanding of his shrouded in Chechnya. The living environment is displayed. But it is impossible to know from these descriptions whether he actually committed a crime. But seeing the boy's face, the audience will have a pre-judgment, whether the child is guilty or not. In fact, the same as the jury's judgment after knowing a lot of circumstances, it is also possible for us to convict a crime in our hearts through just one appearance. Therefore, it is questionable that the new version reveals the boy's appearance.
In terms of plot, in the old version we didn't know whether the boy "really" committed a crime, and the film did not struggle with this issue. So when 12 people walk out of the room with an answer, not only do we ask, is the result that took more than n hours of discussion the truth? Is this setting of the Anglo-American judicial system correct? Even after all the serious discussions, it was a discussion of 12 people, not to mention that this kind of discussion would not have happened at all if there was no question from the first person.
In the new edition, the story leads us to focus on another question: mercy or law. First, this version reveals the truth. Whether the boy is guilty or not is legally determined. But this conclusion did not make the jury's verdict easy. The situation facing the boy would be tragic if the law were followed. At this time, the director did not forget to criticize the Russian nationality: the jury flinched, they were unwilling to pay more than the responsibility to walk out of this room for the decision that was not in accordance with the "law" but "benevolent and correct". They thought they walked into the room, signed it, and the boy's life had nothing to do with them.
Happily, this isn't an open-ended film, and the director finally gave us a glimmer of hope, and even with all the problems Russia faces, a tiny benevolence is still there.
I believe that the generous Russian people will like this film that discusses the current situation of Russia, and brings them a glimmer of hope, and from the end, it does not slander Russia in the world. China can't make such a film, and it can't pass the political trial.
View more about 12 reviews
