First of all, I myself watched the entire episode online because I read some of the reviews and was skeptical about it. I will try my best to help friends who come in to understand the show without spoilers, and tell me some of my views on other negative comments, so as to dispel the concerns of some friends who are waiting to watch the movie. Secondly, how to reasonably balance "case restoration" and "discussion of human nature" within the limited 180 minutes is not easy. I hope you don't miss such an excellent Netflix-style documentary after seeing some negative comments.
It should be noted that the film itself was shot for most passers-by who have no in-depth understanding of this matter or even heard of Lin Jun. It needs a certain degree of universality, which makes it impossible to have too many bloody scenes. It can also prevent people from paying too much attention to the curious part of the event and re-consuming the experience of the deceased. The film has an irrelevant name just to prevent people who know about it from coming in with a curious mentality, and replace the main "life" of the discussion with a "pet" that can also arouse strong human emotional resonance as an entry point , and led to the theme of the film "Internet Crime".
After reading most of the comments under the show, I would also like to briefly express my personal opinion regarding some of the negative comments. I can understand all the accusations about the restoration of a small number of details in the show, but I don’t think the crew made the principled mistake of inverting black and white. If there is a problem with the three views of “human life”, Netflix will cut it internally. But for the "sex" aspect, we must admit that there are differences in the cognition between the East and the West. How the deceased and the murderer met or who took the initiative is not the point, nor does it affect the nature of the case, and the film's passing can be regarded as protecting the privacy of the deceased to the greatest extent. On the contrary, some of the details and content shown in the play are not found on the Internet, which helps us understand the ins and outs of the whole thing and the so-called "truth". The above is how I look at these issues from a different starting point, hoping to help you understand some of the things.
Regarding the rhythm of the episode itself, the film's use of the length of the first episode to guide the audience's thinking about watching the movie can be considered well-intentioned. After the homicide case was subsequently introduced, most of the film's length was distributed in the pursuit of the case, the discussion of the psychology of the crime, and the growth environment of the murderer. It is not unreasonable to focus on the murderer. It is necessary to list all objective factors as detailed as possible within a limited period of time, and peel off the surrounding environment of the "murderer" layer by layer for the audience to see. To see what is "evil" and what is "manny". Understand exactly why the killer committed this horrific case. A small amount of empathy can help us understand the event itself, and the film does not deliberately exaggerate any atmosphere to induce the audience to sympathize with the murderer. On the contrary, it is precisely because the three views of the drama itself are normal that the ignorance and wishful thinking of the murderer's mother's words in an interview can be contrasted. And at the end of the film, the ultimate question is raised through the mouth of the experiencer: "What does the Internet mean to modern humans?" "Did we feed this ferocious beast?" Black screen, contemplation.
The film itself explores issues and depths far beyond what we can find on the Internet, such as gore videos or press releases. If you really want to be honest and care about whether the deceased and their family members are respected or other so-called "truths", I would like to ask if the "truth" you have learned is more "truth" than the parents and friends of the deceased who left the country in the film. ? If the family of the deceased feels offended, do netizens need to speak for them? Are we feeding on another invisible "beast"?
The film was neither made into a Hollywood-style cool film that eats human blood and steamed buns, nor was it made into a domestic CCTV12 spectacle. After watching it, we will come back and think about whether the film is "disrespecting the victim" as some comments said at the beginning, or the murderer's mother's words are "helping the murderer's son to clean up", the answer is obvious. I think as long as the show is watched coherently and completely, friends with normal reading comprehension will not take it out of context. The film truly respects the feelings of the deceased and their families to the greatest extent possible in addition to discussing "Internet crime" and "crime" itself. Use a different perspective to remind the world around you to be wary of those who challenge the bottom line of human beings.
In the end, I believe that time will correct the name of this film, just like "Chernobyl" in the same period last year, Netflix-style documentaries are more and more I look forward to.
View more about Don't F**k with Cats: Hunting an Internet Killer reviews
