Each episode has new suspense
step by step
I watch the drama: If I can guess that the plot develops a lot, I will either give up the drama or reduce the "score". I guessed that the live video of this story was changed, and I guessed that the first crime of the male protagonist should be true. Guess When it came to a higher-level conspiracy, I guessed that the heroine should have a higher goal to achieve in the follow-up, but I didn't guess that "The Avengers", I didn't guess that the "public interest" was compromised in the end.
In the "post-truth era" and "deepfake" era, what can we believe? How much ability does modern technology give to create truth and spread false truth? Is "alternative truth" still truth? significance)
Some of the lines are very shocking, especially the last episode, I went back and watched it a few times: "Correction is the fact, the public are content in their ignorance, and a lot better in that way: Correction is the truth, the public is full of ignorance , so much better" This is what the judicial system executive said, like her "belief" "What we show the public may not be the truth, but it is the truth" The end justifies the means. That's the torturer's defence.' "For the Unscrupulous means to achieve the goal is the argument of the perpetrator"
The purpose is correct, can we really use any means? The rigorous logic and details in these dramas, the "vigilance" effect of raising the topic to a higher level, triggering deeper controversial social topics and philosophical issues, once proved that I love watching American dramas, and the rationalization of British dramas~ The philosophical question raised: If the means used are unreasonable, or even unscrupulous, can the final result be called a "right goal"? Who decides for the ultimate goal? Who is reasonable to "sacrifice"? Right or wrong, that is, whether there is factual justice, which is more important, procedural justice or factual justice?
Classic Philosophical Quote: "The means represent the ideal in the formation and the purpose in progress. People cannot achieve the good end through the evil means. Because the means is the seed, the purpose is the tree, and the evil seed cannot produce the good. Bud, it is even less likely to bear good fruit" Is this really the case? To what extent is the operation mode of real life followed: have both procedural justice and factual justice been maintained?
In order to protect American soldiers, technical flaws were used and acquitted, right?
For the "framed" crowd, the "Avengers" made fake videos, interfered with the justice system, and put shaun in jail again, right?
For the purpose of further and higher goals, the video was destroyed, is this really okay?
The heroine has very positive values and positions, but for a better platform and future, is it really okay to have an "affair" with the big boss?
There are many, many more, people take shortcuts in "programs" or in gray areas, or break the law, and all of these have "for good reason", is this really okay? What are the rules formulated for? A sound judicial system is to better achieve "right things, not people", but in reality, what kind of "people" decides the punishment for "things"? If it can't achieve "right things, not people", this system Whose interests are you protecting?
Then I add some more questions that come to mind "with a critical eye":
The whole story is caused by the murder of a female lawyer, but the "ironical" point is that not many people really care about the Afghan who Shaun killed by mistake, whether it is the team of lawyers, Shaun's partners, taxi drivers, everyone. When it says "I'm glad he was acquitted", it doesn't matter if it really killed the Afghans on purpose~
In the end, Hanna was actually killed by the judicial system in order to cover up the truth, for the "public interest", so in the end it doesn't matter that she is British, she needs sacrifice, so it is "unimportant" like the Afghans.
The time of Hanna's death is definitely not in line with the time of death that was pushed out from the video? So if we only focus on the evidence of the case, there should also be contradictions in the evidence?
They thought of changing the street cctv, but the video in the bus didn't think of it
The big financiers behind these "unjustly accused alliances" have not yet appeared, so the "Battle of the Masters" that needs to be watched in the second season needs to be fully looked forward to~
Several representatives of the judicial system in this story are all working hard for what they think is "correct means, truth and ideas", not for money~
This leads to another thought, when there is no "money, power, and sex" to lure candidates into the camp, what else do you rely on to choose your position?
How can you be sure that the principles you believe in, your bottom line, and your position are really the right one? If the foundation and source of your ideas are wrong, the final point of view may be unreasonable? How many times have you questioned your ideas? Is the source "wrong"? The correctness of the conclusion requires that the dialectical material is true, and the dialectical methodology used is reasonable, but how do you know if your original fact is true and whether it is collected completely?
During this period of self-isolation, I seem to be able to take a step towards the "writer's dream" ;)
View more about The Capture reviews
