Copied from other places, whoever saw the original and told me about it, I will delete this.
# pale reality
When I watched the first episode, I vaguely remembered the word 3 episodes. I thought the show had only 3 episodes. After watching 2 episodes, I thought it was good, so I wanted to watch it all at once, but after a closer look, it turned out that there were 13 episodes in the show. Episode, this time there are 3 new episodes.
I was actually kind of frustrated at the time, I was wondering why this show could have 13 episodes. Actually after watching episodes 1 and 2, I can say 100% already think he didn't kill his wife. It can be said that during the viewing process, in addition to the fact that they sometimes joke, they will laugh, and the more they look back, the more difficult it is to concentrate.
I feel that the director is almost completely loyal to the chronological sequence of the events. Although there are certain clips, these clips are supplementary explanations of the events by the parties, or the timeline has to be interrupted by multiple characters. So there is no foreshadowing, climax, turning point here, in fact, before the latest 3 episodes are added, there may not be an ending that can be called the finale.
With the popularity of modern Hollywood forms of film, the narrative of a film may be polished many times to attract audiences to the greatest extent possible, which often means conscious foreshadowing, wonderful twists, unexpected endings, and in the In the staircase, these cannot be arranged in advance. Despite this, the director adjusted the time scale of some events to suit the series' episode-by-episode narrative.
For example, one event may have a very large impact on the entire story, and the time scale of the actual occurrence may be very short, which would be an episode in a TV series. Other events may not be so important, so several events may form an episode in succession, and the process of many events may have been deliberately omitted. For example, I think many court proceedings are deliberately omitted. Also, I have a feeling that some content that may involve the privacy of the parties has not been included in the documentary. So actually, for real events, the 13-episode TV series doesn't actually record the entire event, but if it did, the entire TV series would be unbearably tedious.
Probably because I just finished watching the show, but I feel that the reason why I am impressed by the plot is that it is a real documentary. For a fictional story, I may only remember part of the plot after watching it, while the real documentary and Like reality, it is constantly repeating, deepening the audience's impression of the whole event.
#lousy work, or?
In Li Changyu's eyes, the county police and SBI investigators are of course all lousy work. The most lousy work here is of course the police, including finding the fire stick and putting it back, and never bringing it up again, and then I think it's a forensic doctor, and it's a bit of a serious nonsense feeling.
As for SBI investigators, I'm not very sure. These people may not have the most basic scientific literacy at all. In the eyes of Li Changyu and professional criminal investigation experts, they are of course lousy work, but in the eyes of the jury, SBI investigators, forensic doctors He is the most professional and impartial expert professor, Li Changyu, etc. are all blackhearted to collect money and say good things. Especially during the focus group interview, it was as if Li Changyu wanted to beat someone when he saw it (although it was a bit like receiving money to talk), but it was already after the OJ simpson case, and no one in the focus group said that Li Changyu's popularity and professionalism would Increase the credibility of his speech. Under the American judicial system, will Li Changyu talk nonsense for money?
But are you saying that the job of a lawyer is not a lousy job? He didn't think about DNA, he didn't get into SBI's procedural errors at all, and his work didn't seem to be perfect compared to Greg's lawyer (the one who had a stroke) afterward, although I also know that he did a lot of work.
# Power, money, knowledge.
In the whole play, the most tragic character I think is the lawyer.
The lawyer appeared as an idealist as soon as he appeared, saying that he wanted to drive away the authority of the government and maintain the power of the people.
During the trial, he presented solid data to refute the forensic doctor and used procedural errors to attack SBI. I can understand his thoughts. Even so, the jury still does not think there is a reasonable doubt in this case, and cannot be acquitted? Maybe in the big city where he lives, there are enough checks and balances and inspection mechanisms, but in this place, the court staff won't even put a ppt on it. This place may be two worlds from the place where he lives.
The reality is so cruel.
In the eyes of the jury, he is not a hero who defends the rights of the people, nor is he a warrior who fights for justice in the United States. He is just a person who takes the client's money and speaks for the money.
In his eyes, fair and reliable data is not as useful as the power of forensics. In his eyes, SBI's procedures are wrong, nor does it defeat SBI's authority in the hearts of local people.
To be honest, the corruption and collusion among the local judges, prosecutors, police, and state agencies is simply appalling. In the face of such a tragic reality, the idealism embraced by this lawyer can only be broken in the end. At the second trial, he Straightforwardly gave up. If he could hold on to the forensic doctor for the first time and stick to SBI's question, maybe the result would be a little different, but the jury turned a blind eye to the fact that was clear to him, just as Li Changyu and other experts thought Lousy work, in the eyes of others, is authority and truth. Not only does power not shed tears without seeing the coffin, but even the people are reluctant to take a step forward without seeing the grave of power.
He thought he was fighting against authority on behalf of the people, but was knocked to the ground by a jury who believed in authority.
Now that I think about it, I can feel the helplessness in his heart. I don't want to come here anymore. This lawsuit made him doubt his life.
In this sense, all people are naive, lawyers are naive to think that reason, checks and balances of power, judicial mechanisms are the truth, while others are willing to accept corrupt power rather than believe that justice actually exists in this world, of course, this There are still people in the play who are paranoid and discriminating against homosexuals, which makes people feel pitiful.
# optimism
I don't know if this is the case for all Americans, or whether the lawyers and protagonists in the bureau are like this. It feels like they are joking all the time. . . . It's a joke before dying. I really admire it. I believe they have a lot of pain behind this, but they don't show it in front of the camera. But one thing is undeniable, that is the happy atmosphere of the protagonist's family. I don't think this kind of environment can be easily faked. I think this is also the reason why the protagonist can survive these things (American prisons are not good either). Wait, I think because he's gay and has been in the news, what's wrong with him in prison? I don't dare to think about it, if he really has lower back pain, he feels good after being released from prison, and this disease and surgery documentary are also Can be photographed but not seen)
Convince the protagonist
View more about The Staircase reviews
