It seems that there may be some era limitations in the discussion of evidence (after all, there is no CSI), so all can only be declared innocent on the grounds of "reasonable doubt", so originally it is not to show the truth, but to show how to get the truth. the process of. For the audience, Henry Fonda's typical American image is reassuring. Although the American rational democratic values embodied in him are unclear in a few words, they are similar to the image of a lawyer in to kill a mockingbird. They are responsible, rational, and have Courage, and one more thing, I think they are actually very good at debating, or expressing their opinions in exchanges. They understand the boundaries of communication with others and will not rely on some inner opinions that are only meaningful to individuals.
As far as drama is concerned, there can be a lot of discussions on the portraits of characters. It is absolutely possible to summarize it as humanity and power struggle, but it is much more reliable than the Chinese version in our impression. The most important point is clearly stated in the narration of the justice at the beginning. The jury’s goals and tasks are very clear. Therefore, the view that one thought will accompany life is not correct, and all the responsibilities are attributed to 12 people. Decisions are absolutely infeasible and will overwhelm people. Therefore, the basis of the entire debate afterwards is based on the principle of "reasonable doubt". Only on this basis can do your duty be feasible, and it is possible to talk about cherishing human life. Of course, this is also related to the innocence deduction practiced in the U.S. judiciary, and suspects are treated as innocent until they are convicted.
I think many people will appreciate the judicial rationality embodied in this way. Of course, this is also one of the charms of drama and awe-inspiring. However, the concentrated expression of dramatic tension lies in the process of persuasion, that is, the transfer of power in the debate. What I am most interested in is how those people confuse their opinions with the presentation of the case, and how they suddenly discover the difference between the two and quickly make judgments. It may not be possible to see the details until the second time. The first time I saw it, I was attracted by the development of the whole process.
But what I want to say is that the setting of this play is indeed quite ideal and typical under the guidance of its concept. There is a leader who asks questions and promotes the debate, and there are some more emotional opponents who introduce private emotions into a standardized work environment, so that their personal opinions affect the statement of the facts of the case. There is also a rational opponent, in order to ensure a reasonable distribution of power, and also to promote the debate. Looking at it, this is a very consciously rational jury debate, at least very humane. However, Hollywood has proven that such a process may develop into a Machiavellian-style premeditated power struggle, as we can guess at the worst. The film did not discuss these, such a dramatic estimate has deviated from the category prepared by the director.
So much for the time being.
View more about 12 Angry Men reviews
