After watching it, it is difficult to have a clear positioning and theme for this movie because the director wants to express too much thinking and reflection. One is the situation of the victim and heroine after being raped, and the other is the justice and compromise in the reporter's heart. It is obvious that the director has arranged two choices for reporters: one is to yield to their interests and the other is to give up their own reputation and stand up for justice. At the beginning, they did oppose each other, but the opposition eventually changed without any disease. Violence and consent in the world does not mean that the seduction of women who raped women caused them to commit crimes. This is equivalent to a saying: women are raped because they wear sexy, they give men sufficient reasons for rape because they are lewd, so women agree to rape by men. Then men’s sexual violence is not rape. The logic is the oppression of women’s desires from the perspective of patriarchy. The fourth is boobs. They are not direct offenders, but they condone criminals and even intimidate them whether they are guilty or not. This is controversial because of this and The fifth is mutually exclusive and the fifth is the witness who did not scream but did not stop by the sidelines, who is the last to prove the rape and prove the screaming. Are the fourth and fifth types of people really different? I may not agree.
If according to the principle of time and the locality of the law rather than absoluteness, or according to "all beings are guilty" and "everyone is one of the people involved in social crimes", then the fifth category of people is also a criminal person who is a guilty person. All the people in the bar who knew about it but didn’t say anything were guilty, but the director did not allow it to happen.
Therefore, only the person who made a noise was convicted-and most of the other silences were not innocent. This may be a reflection and ridicule given by the director. The director simply gave the witness a reason of innocence because he called the police
The sixth is the role of the media. The media here is ineffective, boisterous, and useless, and there is no expression at all.
In short, the director’s perspective is very strange. He uses God’s perspective to show the attitude and psychological changes of all the parties and bystanders, but this lacks a sense of identity. What should we as viewers think about and judge from who should be more inclined to judge? The director seems to put a large amount of pen and ink on the court scene of the booer... But what is presented is the course of the incident that allows the audience to see how the heroine was raped afterwards. To be honest, the scene is a bit off the point.
In addition, feminism, this film is indeed an expression of feminism or even feminism, but it does not seem to be completely, because the heroine first kissed those men proactively. Second, the rest of the women are silent—women are not necessarily Perfect, but the director let the female reporter save them like a saint.
Just like Darren's "Mother", the profoundness of a movie's thinking is not the breadth and breadth it wants to express but the depth.
In addition, the scene did not express much except for the subjective scene of the rape scene.
PS There are some problems with casting
The heroine testified that the scene did not perform very well. In addition, is the eye scene of her female reporter and even the interaction between the two people a bit ambiguous? Some LGBT trends?
View more about The Accused reviews
