Even in a country like the United States that promotes freedom and the rule of law, there will be "a rape case every 6 minutes, and ¼ of it is gang rape." This shows how common rape is. Behind its universality is gender discrimination, the indifference of bystanders, and the trampling of freedom and the rule of law. The film chooses a very unique perspective, focusing on the bystanders who witnessed or even encouraged the gang rape, and indicted the fact that some of them instigated others to commit crimes, and also revealed that some of them witnessed other people committing crimes. Indifference. The choice of this angle is the first plus point of the movie. Another bonus point, in my opinion, is the persona of the victim Sarah-a sexy and beautiful barmaid from the bottom who has no sense of guarding. I believe that when many people see her dancing and drinking in the tavern, they will have thoughts of "wandering, unchecked, self-inflicted" and so on. However, please note that these ideas have come up because we have been living in a patriarchal society for hundreds of years, so we involuntarily nailed women like Sarah on a pillar of moral shame. , This idea itself is worthy of deep reflection. Give the simplest example. This movie was released in 1988, so let’s recall that in our 1980s, in a certain summer, were you everywhere shirtless and fanning under a tree to enjoy the coolness or play chess? Do you often see guys wearing big pants and slippers going downstairs to take out the trash? Even now, you can often see disheveled men gathered on the side of the road, drinking draft beer, eating skewers, and talking about the world comfortably with cigarettes? But no woman would do anything to them, cuddling, or even more because of their exposure. Women will not judge whether a man is willing and commit a crime just because of his appearance and dress. Why would a man want to do so? And women must learn how to be a lady in accordance with the social rules, choose how you dress, how to dress, how to speak and act according to the rules, and always pay attention to yourself not to appear frivolous, otherwise it will give a man an acquiescence or authorization to violate yourself? Why? Sarah, the victim in the movie, even though she didn’t break the law, she just drank the wine she wanted to drink, wore the clothes she wanted to wear, danced the dance she wanted, played the billiards she wanted to play, and talked to the person she wanted to do. People said a few words, nothing more, can you be gang-raped as a prostitute? Why? Some people might think that Sarah's body language is too ambiguous, she is teasing. Well, you can think so. But this is also the key to the movie’s discussion: what do the parties think It’s okay, whatever the audience thinks, it’s okay, but the law has criteria. As long as it doesn’t break the law and does not constitute coercion or harm, there is nothing wrong. And the person in the movie did gang-rape Sarah after she said no, and the spectators did cheer on the side. This is the most essential evil of this incident. If there are still people who don’t understand and feel that Sarah deserved it, please think about it. Suppose a strange man and a woman meet by chance. At first they have a good impression of each other. They have dated several times but have not yet determined their relationship. At this time, the woman Because of some things, I don't want to associate with men anymore. As a result, the men are stalking and reluctant. The reason is just that they have dated a few times. Do you think this reason makes sense? Should women succumb to this? Of course not. In the movie, the director just chose Sarah as an extreme model, and what he wants to express is that no matter who it is, he can't force others to be free! Even a prostitute has the right to say "no", and even a prostitute has the obligation to respect each other. This is the most basic human right. So, what is freedom? In a country or society with a legal system, freedom is "the right to do all things permitted by the law." This includes a person being able to do what he should do and being able to do what he shouldn't be forced to do . This is the freedom and the rule of law advocated by Montesquieu in the "Spirit of the Law" published in 1748. However, the reality is that women do not have basic human rights, do not enjoy equal freedom, and the rule of law is even more extravagant. Even in the comment section of this movie, you can see that many people think that Sarah herself is to blame for everything. This is the most infuriating. Not only did women fail to obtain human rights and freedom, but some people spilled all the dirty water on women, accusing them of "playing coquettishly" and inducing crime. Even if she yelled "no", even if she resisted. What's this? It's so unfair! Good-looking, hot body, sexy dressed, drinking and dancing, are you guilty? If all of this constitutes "deserving of rape", then it's just a crime to inflict. If even women treat the problem in this way and condone sexism in this way, maybe one day, even such a far-fetched reason as white skin can become a reason for being raped. By the way, a pot of dirty water that "you deserve it" will be given away. Who made you a white lotus? This is not a fantasy, just look at the women in the countries and regions that are still covered in black veil. Obviously, it is the demon that men can't control their hearts, but instead they demonize women. If the mind is not clean, everything is dirty, the same is true. Speaking of the movie, I scored two stars as a whole, but I was actually quite disappointed. It was such a real theme in vain. First, the story line is a bit Many and scattered, not focusing on a clear point. For example, the two scenes between Sarah and her boyfriend and the scene where she talks with her mother on the phone will not affect the whole movie, so it seems too much and the focus is scattered. Designing the character of mother is nothing more than saying that Sarah’s poor life background led to her lack of family care, and therefore lack of self-awareness, etc., designing the character of boyfriend in two scenes, nothing more than saying that after suffering such a blow, her boyfriend is indifferent and indifferent. But I think this should be a film with the main purpose of justice, not a film about women's self-awakening. Unclear subject matter leads to vague focus in the distribution of pen and ink. That is to say too much, too much unnecessary foreshadowing. It is difficult for the audience to grasp the point. Second, the criminal torture of bystanders has not been dug to a deeper level. I think that the core of the film is not only to say that the bystander is guilty, but also not only to say that the bystander lacks a sense of justice, but to settle on a point of more universal value, such as human rights, freedom and equality, which are the core of everyone's vital interests. On the issue. This part should be digging deep in the process of finding witnesses, and in the form of debate in the court trial, when it comes to the pain points of everyone, and the point where everyone can empathize, rather than just let the jury (that is, The audience in front of the screen thinks that this case is only related to Sarah personally, only to the people present that night, and only to what happened that night. If you focus on this, it becomes a suspenseful reasoning plus a spectacle movie, not a discussion. Ethical movies will weaken the part that deserves the most attention. The film focuses on finding and persuading a few witnesses to appear in court. The reason is too thin: the lawyer begged Sarah’s friend to testify only because "you are her good friend", but persuaded Ken (the college student) to testify in court. It was just a recording of him calling the police. After that, Ken went from repentance to finally appearing in court. His mental journey did not show up, just because Sarah said to him, "Are you afraid? I am afraid too."...What is this? There is no expressive power to hit the soul directly! The lines are awkward. I haven't figured out what is so scary about Ken all night. Afraid of losing that friend Bob? But his eyes actually already questioned Bob. Could Sarah’s friends testify just because they are friends? The deeper reason should be that she herself is also a disadvantaged woman, and she has two children herself. Creating a more free and equal social environment for herself and her children is the deep reason why she should testify in court, not for friends. It's that simple! From this point of view, her performance in the movie is not in place. For example, in the lawyer's office, it is easy to recall that night, as if it has nothing to do with herself. And that He is willing. The reason why he can testify in court should not be that the lawyer has his own recording of the police, nor should it be out of sympathy for Sarah. The most essential reason should be that he is willing to be a college student with a sense of morality and justice. The stark contrast between Bob, he should have the consciousness of upholding justice. One is a friend of the victim Sarah and the other is a friend of the aggressor Bob. The reason why the two of them were able to testify in court should have a deeper level of worry and anxiety. This kind of worry and anxiety caused them to go through repeated inner choices. After that, the most just choice was made. This is also the essence of the two of them as morally conscious bystanders, which are different from other bystanders-they are more empathetic, not sympathetic. The progress of social civilization cannot be promoted only by sympathy. It requires everyone to have empathy and save others by oneself, which is what Confucius said, "Do not do to others what you do not want to do", so that the world will consciously function in a healthy manner. . Freedom, equality and justice, these universal values that have been advocated for hundreds of years, are all based on people's empathy, not sympathy. And the film uses too little in digging into this aspect. Moreover, the first half of the information is too much irrelevant, which is a bit of no room for digging into the main theme. No wonder many viewers lack sympathy for Sarah, because the scars have not been uncovered at all! It's just scratching the boots. Third, let's talk about the actor's performance. Sarah's performance does have several points. For example, when the door of the CD store is recognized by bystanders, the transition from panic and fear to fleeing to furious two-legged throttle, for example, in a billiards hall, it is indeed like a big drink. But because the overall depth of the movie is not enough, it is inevitable that it also limits the depth of the performance Richness and level, especially in the scene where Sarah went to court, the expressive power was very weak, that is, weeping weakly and cowardly saying no, where is the spirit of resistance? Where is the accumulated anger? It was already in court. The most important point in the film was the outbreak of female lawyers, but Sarah would only cry, and the growth of the characters was not reflected. There are other places where emotions are not quite right. For example, in the CD store, Sarah was still not alert to the strange men's several strikes, which did not fit the character's mood at the time. In two or three scenes of discussing the case with a lawyer, Sarah always focused on the astrology. In actual action, she has not had a lawyer who is attentive and serious about the case. This is a detailed design that can't help but deliberate. In short, when Judy portrayed the role of Sarah, he took some details away from the character, feeling that it did not happen to her, but he was very angry in several quarrels with the lawyer. And grievances, when the two are combined, they feel that the emotions are not in place, and it seems a bit deliberately selling miserably. I think these performance elements are caused by the lack of depth in the script itself. The script does not portray characters, so it is difficult for actors to accurately grasp. Look at the introduction and say that Judy won the Oscar for Best Actress for this film, emm...probably it was created by sensitive themes + disadvantaged groups + large-scale performances. In contrast, I feel that although the character of the lawyer has a facial makeup and plays well, the mood of the character is basically right and there is no sense of separation. And the choice of the female lawyer is also very appropriate. From the appearance, she is tall, solemn, solemn and rational. She wears a windbreaker from beginning to end, just like the image of a superwoman in a cloak, giving people a strong sense of security.
View more about The Accused reviews
