If we turn our head to watch those good legal films and good courtroom dramas, we will find that they have one essential thing in common, that is, a clear understanding of the so-called "justice" and "truth".
For people, "truth" is actually just a judgment, a judgment of whether two things are consistent. If b is the truth, the essence, that people believe, then when a matches b, people believe that a is true. The so-called truth b is just the truth that people believe in. They may come from direct personal experience or indirectly from some rumors. Therefore, b is actually strongly subjective.
Good legal films know this, so they design the entire film with, what is the truth in the film? How the audience will be exposed to this truth.
For example, "Assassination of Kennedy", the whole film is to lead the audience back into the fog of history, to sort out the historical data again, and guide the audience to discover the truth.
Movies like Prosecution Witnesses always play with the relationship between the audience and the truth. It constantly leads the audience to believe a certain truth, and then overturns it, and a new truth emerges. The audience's perspective and what they can know are completely under the creator's design, and its purpose is to surprise or make the audience doubt the so-called truth in repeated overthrow and rebuild.
And movies like first-degree murder, from the beginning, let the audience witness the truth with their eyes in the most "real" way (the privilege of the movie). This way is not impossible, "Hurricane" is the same. But when you choose to put the truth in the foreground, you can no longer focus on exploring the truth. First degree murder doesn't make that mistake, but why doesn't it surprise me? Because when the film focuses on the torture of people in prisons, the film does not do any in-depth characterization or exploration of the torture. It's not enough to go from fear to resistance, it's not enough to show whipping and torture the darkness all the time. Because when the picture of Henry being tortured was shown directly to the audience, the audience knew that Henry would win the case. The director realized that adding a scene where Henry murdered in front of everyone's eyes (including the audience) made Henry really guilty, but it wasn't enough, because after the audience saw Henry being tortured like that, his revenge seemed natural, even happy. , so it doesn't make the audience think he's really in danger.
Therefore, it is necessary to really show and expose torture, or the internals of the prison system. Whether it's finding criminals willing to testify from prisons, prison guards, or getting inside by sneaking or recalling. This is the profound source, and also the essence and source of doing a good job in the court trial. Only by carefully examining the facts can we bring more content to the court debate.
Of course, debating skills and speaking skills are necessary for every good court trial, but these skills are only subsidiary effects, and what really matters is the depth of investigation.
View more about Murder in the First reviews
