But human beings are different. As a social animal, human behavior is inevitably subject to moral judgment. According to Kant's theory, human beings are emotional, "its bounded rationality is not enough to make human beings perfect, and the appearance of other pursuits can even influence Reason", that is, human beings need a norm or directive that can act as a precept.
Today, it is obvious that the law is the regulation that restricts human behavior, constraining human beings in a coercive way, so as not to deviate from the track of morality. The role of the law, namely restraint and judgment. However, who can guarantee the justice of the law, who can guarantee the perfection of the law, and who has the right to judge and punish according to the law? Given that the occurrence of any thing may come from countless possibilities, and the truth is often huddled in the shadow of the fog, if the law cannot make the fairest judgment, then, is there a power that can replace the law as the second ruler? .
"12" provides a possibility, that is, conscience.
The film, directed by Russian director Nikita Mikhalkov, is a remake of the 1957 American film "Twelve Angry Men", in which the director himself played one of the angry men, the jury chairperson .
The story tells the story of a boy in Chechnya suspected of killing his adoptive father, a Russian military officer. After a three-day trial, a court handed the final decision to twelve jurors who were sent to a school for sports. In the chamber, judgments need to be made under closed conditions.
I haven't watched the American version of "Twelve Angry Men." The introduction says that the setting is set in a hot summer, and the man suspected of killing his father is a boy in a slum. The Russian version of "12" sets the boy as a Chechen orphan who was adopted by a Russian officer. From this perspective, it is obviously trying to dig deeper contradictions to express a broader content.
The conflict between Russia and Chechnya has lasted for more than two centuries. Until 2007, when the film was filmed, the two sides were still at war from time to time. The Muscovites living in the shadow of the war had obvious hatred and disgust for the Chechens. In this context, the film subtly hints at the mistakes of judgment that may be caused by people's subjective factors in the courtroom, and incorporates ethnic conflicts into the film's system, which invisibly raises the height of the trial results. Led by the film's diehard leader, the taxi driver with a plaid scarf, his anger at the Chechens made him unable to view the whole case rationally, but blindly believed that the boy was the murderer of his adoptive father, and even fought with other jurors for this. Arguing and arguing, once emotionally out of control.
The beginning of the movie is a series of broken and intersected pictures. The boy riding a bicycle on the road, the two sides debating in the courtroom, and the person walking down the stairs quickly. Every detail seems to be unrelated to each other, but in fact, it has a preliminary view of the whole plot. 's account. And the gray tone processing, laid the film's heavy and gloomy tone. All the unfolding plots of the film basically take place in a small sports room, occasionally interspersed with a few symbolic war scenes, the scene of the boy's parents being killed, and the scene of the boy dancing in the prison.
But I have to say, this is a dull but not boring movie. In two and a half hours, the characters of the twelve characters were all vividly displayed, and the settings of small movements and subtle expressions tended to be perfect, but this was not the greatest, the most amazing thing was that only 150 minutes. Here, not only is the process of the characters' psychological changes in dealing with the case presented one by one, but also each character's own story is extended, and each person's soul has been baptized or sublimated in this judgment. , is actually shocking.
From the moment I entered the gym, the different personalities of the Twelve Angry Men have been clearly revealed. In order to find out who is who, I read this back and forth three times, and wrote down on the paper that everyone was more obvious. appearance and personality traits. Detailed records have proven to be very useful, especially at the later stages of the case. Everyone was very impetuous at first. After all, the case had been going on for three days, and there were witnesses and materials. It seemed that it would be easy to start voting on the boy's guilt. The actor man went to play the locked piano, the weak man found a schoolgirl's giant bra in the toilet, the mustache found a syringe, and the man in a vertical striped suit was excited to turn on the TV to watch his mother's show, and the surgeon put the small Beard's needle was thrown onto the dart board, the cemetery keeper sat down to read, and the others also sat down to rest. Until, the host - the director himself prompted the voting to begin.
11 guilty to 1 innocent. The person who raised the objection (just call it the objection man) was immediately surrounded by everyone with astonished eyes. What doubts are there in this case? Why object? Can't you be convicted after three days of trial? But the opposing man just said with a bit of restraint, "It's too easy, it's too easy to make such a decision. This is not buying watermelons. If it's not sweet, you can throw it away. Let's raise our hands, maybe this child will be in prison for the rest of his life."
From here, the film enters an atmosphere of tense tension everywhere. One against eleven, and, importantly, against the male, there is not the slightest evidence that the boy did not kill his father, and the only thing that supports his argument is simply because he believes in the sincerity of the child. With some doubt even he himself could not be entirely sure of, he felt it was his duty to find out the truth, and objecting was the only way to delay.
The second objected by an anonymous vote was an old man with eyes, a Jew. He told the love story of his father, the love between a Jew and a German officer's wife. The old man finished the story with tears and said, "Everything is there. Possibly", and the boy's innocence is also a possibility. In addition, he questioned the attitude of the boy's lawyer. The lawyer's performance was passive and powerless, and there may be other hidden reasons behind it, so he voted that the boy was innocent.
Third place, weak man. The man's character is cowardly, cautious, timid, and neurotic. When I told the story of my uncle, I almost felt that he was dying of excitement. The weak man's uncle once went astray and became a robber, while the police The bureau chief forgave him all his sins, regardless of previous suspicions. This story is not related to the case, but the weak man feels grateful when he thinks of it, and then thinks that people need to tolerate the sins of others.
Fourth place, male performer. The man is half-Jewish, and he was the one who rushed to the show at the beginning, but he also voted for sympathy after thinking of his own experience and the encouragement he received from a smile from others.
Fifth place, mustache. The bearded man stuttered a little, but it was he who raised the first definite doubt in this case, that is, why the boy had to return to the scene after murdering and robbing money, which did not conform to the logic of normal people.
After the five opponents, in order to have a deeper understanding of the case, the Twelve Angry Men set up a simulated crime scene in the gym, and tried to reproduce the whole process of the crime. Some elements of reasoning are introduced here, breaking the dullness of the preceding hour in one fell swoop. After the case was simulated, the man in the striped suit voted against it. But the man in the striped suit was obviously a cowardly and incompetent guy. Under the angry questioning of the taxi driver, he was so frightened that he vomited, and changed his mind a moment later.
Later, when analyzing the usage of homicide, new doubts were discovered, and the surgeon who was skilled in knife surgery voted against it. Six to six. And the movie is halfway through.
Later, after some discussion, the man in the jacket, the director of the cemetery, and the old man who looked like Einstein also objected.
Then the opposition man showed two photos to prove that the witness in the court, the woman in the building opposite the case, gave perjury out of jealousy. After a detailed psychological analysis, the stubborn man told a painful story about himself and his son, On the one hand, he approved the anti-male psychological analysis, and on the other hand, he also proved that he had a prejudice against boys of this age, believing that they would not obey discipline, and thus had a preconceived subjective judgment on the case.
The reason why we have to go to the trouble of explaining the flow of the story is that there are too many things behind these details. For example, all jurors are ordinary people, they have various occupations and different lives, and for An irrelevant Chechen boy who is on the opposite side of them, they can completely ignore it, they can all live their own life after raising their hands and vote guilty, and they can laugh off the verdict as a small episode in their life; Because they are ordinary people, not high-ranking rulers, not absolute dictators, they have a more genuine sympathy and compassion for life, and this sense of responsibility for life, starting from the doubts against men, gradually spread to everyone. The heart of the individual leads them to find their conscience, the noblest quality of human beings.
The film ends with the sentence, "The law is eternal and supreme, but what if mercy is higher than the law?" The symbolic bird and the Virgin Mary in the film all imply true justice. Decisions from the depths of the heart, from the moral yardstick in the human heart. As opposed to what the man said to the bird, you can fly away or stay here, it's your decision.
It is not denied that the appearance of the bird and the statue of the Madonna are props deliberately created by the director to sublimate the theme, which are somewhat blunt and didactic. But the image of the bird spreading its wings and flying into the vast snow, and the objection to the man kissing the Madonna statue, are still moving, just like knowing that the glass in the movie is made of sugar, but seeing someone come out of the broken window, Still in pain for him.
The story is over, the thoughts in my head aren't over yet. What I'm thinking of is the jury system in countries like the US and Russia.
The jury system in the United States refers to a system in which a certain number of citizens with the right to vote participate in deciding whether a suspect is indicted or not. This is the obligation of every adult citizen. The jury is independent of any government force outside the judicial system, and can make judgments completely freely and independently. Juries in Russia are similar to those in the United States, and are also empowered to try defendants for guilt or guilt.
The participants of the jury are not bound by the law and have completely free voting rights, and because of their different education, experience, and moral values and values, they have different views on the case and are extremely subjective. judgments, resulting in unfair judgments. For example, in the sensational Simpson case, the biggest reason Simpson was acquitted was that more than half of the jury was black, and in the context of racism, the majority voted not guilty, thus allowing Simpson to go unpunished. This is certainly a weakness of the jury, but the jury system is more democratic than other judicial systems. It not only allows citizens to participate in the law and experience the honor and disgrace of maintaining the legal system, but more importantly, it reflects the independence of citizens. will. The so-called democracy, without the direct participation of the people, is nothing but empty talk.
When I say this, I think of the Deng Yujiao case this year. "Deng Yujiao, worked at the "Xiongfeng" Hotel in Yesanguan Town, Badong County, as a KTV waiter. At about 8 pm on May 10, 2009, she was molested by three staff members of Yesanguan Town Government, Badong County, Hubei Province. During the conflict, 1 person was stabbed to death with a fruit knife and 1 person was stabbed." Many people who have experienced the case are aware of it, so I won't go into details.
During the trial of this case, many difficulties were encountered, evidence was destroyed, Deng's family had disappeared, and reporters were obstructed, but under the pressure of public opinion, the final court ruled as follows: "The collegial panel pronounced the judgment in court, Deng Yujiao's behavior constituted the crime of intentional injury, but It belongs to excessive self-defense, and Deng Yujiao is limited in criminal responsibility and has surrendered circumstances, so she is exempted from punishment. Deng Yujiao will completely recover her freedom in law." Except for the staff member who was killed, the other two, only It was only sentenced to dismissal and expulsion from the party, not even criminal detention.
Using expulsion from the party as a punishment in lieu of criminal punishment does not mean that party members have double protection. Ridiculous, but true. By the way, in the fire incident in the auditorium in Karamay, Xinjiang, the lady who shouted "Let the leader go first" and caused more than 300 elementary school students to die in the fire was finally sentenced to be expelled from the party. Working in a certain unit, everything seems to have never happened. I've always wondered if a bunch of kids would run after her when she was dreaming.
Pull away. What I want to say is that if the "Deng Yujiao case" was in the United States and other countries, there would be no such verdict. Ordinary people understand the pain of ordinary people better, and can better understand why a beautiful girl would be angry and kill, and she aimed a knife at three big men.
In the past few years, due to the rapid spread of the Internet, public opinion has a certain influence on judicial or government decision-making, but influence does not represent decision-making power, and there is no effective system for citizens to participate in the national legal system. It's at best a glass of water over a raging fire that will eventually subside in time.
Look, it's only been a long time, no one mentions Chen Zhuo in Hangzhou, no one remembers Deng Yujiao, no one knows who Ma Fangfang is, and no one knows that there was a horrific dog killing tragedy in Heihe County. Even the shocking earthquake has not been mentioned anymore. There are many children who were crushed underground by the school building. So far, no one knows their names, not even the dead children. numbers. Also, no one told us who was responsible for those prefabricated slabs without reinforcement.
The unjustly dead cannot sleep peacefully underneath, and the living have forgotten them. Oh, maybe it’s not forgetting, it’s just indifference and numbness. We are all used to injustice, that justice cannot be maintained, that we are used to unspoken rules, we are used to gray income, and we are used to privilege and autocracy under the banner of justice. When the knife points to the chest one day, we will stretch our necks and say, come on, the throat is the softest here, I will save you some effort.
To paraphrase the tone of the third cousin, your country also has words like democracy and justice?
===========
An old article.
View more about 12 reviews
