"The Chief Justice" is a story about a lawyer's son defending his father's conviction.
The plot seems simple, but in fact it is an attempt to be raging-the three sections of "law, reason, and sentiment" in a society under the rule of law.
Unfortunately, there are always people who will selectively forget, and greed can't be chewed.
The role of the father (judge) is a bit of a symbol of ordinary people's stereotyped image of the position of judge, that is, it is like a law and difficult to communicate.
However, the character portrayal in the play is somewhat contradictory:
in the prologue season, through a standard that can no longer be standard, close to the intersection of the scripture textbook tutorial, the protagonist's father and son’s "fa" meanings are different, and they are vividly displayed on the screen:
son, little Robert Downey is a lawyer, a standard metropolitan nomad, but he asks good and evil and only resorts to victory and defeat, and the law is a fight in his hands.
His father, Robert Duvall, was a judge. He had served in the locality for forty years. He talked about nostalgia, and looked at the authenticity. In his heart, the law is a holy place for people to dare not humiliate.
When the young Robert defended his father in the murder case, the older Robert was dissatisfied everywhere. He believed that the witness lines and hearing tactics trained by his son were nothing but the spears that he used to regard as a rat-like little skill.
In my opinion, the character cutting of this character is quite paradoxical.
Father and son are both legal professionals, mixed in the same industry, and have seen each other judges and lawyers. Can people in society who are so familiar with each other's work really create such a barrier that makes it difficult to communicate with each other?
However, Big Robert was involved in a second-level homicide lawsuit (later promoted to the first level). The chance of winning is unknown, and he lost and went to jail. Such a pomp, even if it is as expensive as a president, there is always room for hesitation. But Big Robert always looked like an old Moses. He looked at the court and looked at the pillar of fire and cloud, and he was determined. Would a traditional old man in his seventies, with a high self-esteem and high status, be willing to subordinate himself to what Kafka called the "gateway of the law" without a trace of favoritism? Can he let go of his rare granddaughter and the reputation of the family? Invariability here leads to the point of inhumanity.
However, Big Robert tried to resist the court's direction in the middle of the film. He insisted on winning the case, but he wanted his son not to disclose his dementia history, because this would make his past judgments suspicious and damage his judge's reputation. From this point of view, Big Robert still has selfish intentions, which is his social reputation from President Biragen.
A person hopes that his reputation will last forever, and he does not hesitate to sacrifice the chances of winning, which is reasonable; but this is incompatible with his arrogant attitude that he defends the jurisprudence to the point that he is willing to testify and go to prison. Can a person be a bear and a hero at the same time? Yes, a well-written story is fine, but "The Justice" obviously did not realize this contradiction.
The defense lawyer’s son, Robert Downey Jr., the center of gravity of the drama is the kind of character who intends to please the audience in the film.
He has a cheap mouth, he is middle-class, and he is reasonable and unforgiving.
But at the same time, he is reckless, he is professional, and he has an implicit paternal complex.
There is a role in an American movie that is more pleasing than a prodigal son who wants to be a father and son again, so that the audience can force the audience to sympathize with him in terms of "emotion" and "reason".
......This lawyer is simply Tony Stark in a new line!
Actor Robert Downey claimed that the script of "The Justice" was the kind of movie he wanted to perform for many years, and he waited forty-nine years before he had the opportunity to interpret this kind of actor. Regardless of the fact that he may not be able to act as a barrister when he is young, no matter what the original appearance of the script is, it is right to find Robert to act, because who can be more like Stark than Stark?
The difference between Stark, the lawyer of "The Chief Justice" and the scientist of "Iron Man", is that the lawyer has not saved the world four times, and his emotions are more full. Facing his living father and his own past mistakes, he has a kind of concealment. Sex suppresses the sense of guilt, so much so that he has made many mistakes in the play, and he is a guy who can taste all the joys and sorrows. People who like this kind of character should be very moved. But he is still a Stark. As an actor, Robert Downey still hasn't gotten out of his most popular and probably best cynic role in the past decade.
Conflicts between father and son who are in the same agreement are manifested in and outside the court from time to time, but there are some expectations to follow.
The legal basis must be quarreled in the court, and the family revolution must be caused in the courtyard. There is something to look at when entangled, but in the process of the film, no one from the director to the actors seems to realize it. In fact, the whole film is played in a trick called "out of control." Both father and son had opinions on each other's interpretation of crimes. When the fire broke out and got off each other, walking on the road lawn with no end point, it was out of control; when the father kicked the three sons' beloved camera, laboriously went to each other. Choking, to expose the scar that each other least wants to mention (the second brother is injured and can't play baseball), it is out of control. When the film is out of control all the way to present the plot development of each stage, it can not be accidental that the climax of the court testimony of the whole play, Robert and his son finally performed a final out-of-control scene of talking about housework in the court. This "accidental" turning point was handled too unsurprisingly, and it also lies in the hit rate of this formula.
Although the father’s inner world is not human, the son’s near-father plot often resembles a runaway racing car and bursts from time to time, while other characters have scattered plots just to make up the full length of the film. Don’t hold on to the divorced deputy of Little Lao Bo Pipa. After the line was in the plot, it ended without a problem, so that the film of "The Justice" had no way to let me really enter the plot.
However, the person who wrote the story has some style, and did not allow Robert and his son to win the lawsuit easily. Instead, he was defeated in the final hearing, causing little Robert to lose his family and career. He collapsed and shed tears to the sympathy of his opponents. Allowing Big Job to pay for his stubbornness and avoiding the vulgar reconciliation of this film is to ensure that this film is a court genre film, with proper arrangements in the three aspects of "law, reason, and emotion."
This insistence on not allowing the mediocre to triumph easily is the lower limit of the last book "The Lord Chancellor" as a commercial theater.
View more about The Judge reviews
