Panic seeks scapegoats among people like the plague.
The different means by which the police and gangs hunt down murderers symbolize two different ideas of action: the police appeal to reason: maps, psychiatry; There is no better way. The only difference between the two was at trial, and there were differences in two senses: Was it reasonable to sentence Beckett? And is it reasonable to set up a private court? It can be seen that in the process of trial, the former is transformed into the latter, and the negation of the outcome of the trial is transformed into the negation of the premise of the trial.
Beckett can't control the killing, so the gang can't be sentenced? Or that no matter who Beckett is, the gang can't judge? The two are connected, and we can say that because ordinary people have no reason to judge whether Beckett was forced to kill, or that they don't care if he can control himself, they can't judge. Therefore, the defense attorney's argument was that people could not sentence Beckett because he claimed he was forced to kill, so the outcome of the trial was to release him and then hand him over to the state. Here, the argument invokes external reason in the court's position: you know, even in a private court, "reason" still has its faithful and powerful spokesman. Chaos is created only when people are unwilling to obey this reason and are determined to subvert the order. This directly proves that the purpose of the private court is to judge Beckett, which is the embodiment of autocracy. To oppose despotism, private courts must abolish themselves and appeal to external reason. But if people could trust external reason, there would be no private courts. Autocracy is an inevitable outcome of an environment of panic.
The police intervened again to stop the chaos. But can chaos then be interpreted as a pushback against reason? Because private courts are autocratic, no matter whether Beckett was a murderer or mentally ill, they were subject to disorderly and reckless trials. But after all, isn't private courtrooms just an imitation of reason? Wasn't the reason that justified Beckett's self-report to judge him as well? Wasn't he going to be tried as a mentally ill man in the courts of the state?
What's more, Beckett's uncontrollable killing implied self-judgment for him, just as he stated in the private court, the thief can be rehabilitated by going to prison and finding a secure job, and he Is it destined to be a sinner: he was among them, and now not only reason and law will judge him, but they will also bring him out and judge him.
Beckett's trial of himself through the mirror, and the trial of murderers in private courts of ordinary people, should finally return to the trial of the state.
But if despotism and judgment are opposed, and judgment should symbolize reason, who is qualified to judge? Who is really rational?
The film does not answer, but the parody plays its real role soon after the film.
It is intriguing that Beckett confronts the trial by asking "Who defends me?" "Who accuses me?" Remember when Beckett faced trial, the director borrowed his eyes.
View more about M reviews
