The object, a bad boy in a small town with little education suffered judicial rape, that is, oppression by the upper class, reminds me of Shunji Iwai's swallowtail butterfly, where is the pure land in the world, but at least the rights are relatively scattered, maybe they think that no one will care. A small gangster, focus on how to modify the system, and the results of the official confrontation, the role of the media, seeing the second episode and knowing that the disparity of power can only become a story that makes people sigh, the incompetence of the media, the incompetence of the police, The incompetence of the system, and even those who are upright and bright and want to help him appear to be utterly stupid. In fact, it should rise to another level, that is, how sheep survive among wolves, not by being kind and weak, and sheep still want to eat wolves. A bite of meat, this is the stupidity of this story, and what is the final direction and output value of this film? Still have to say, if the female victim and the male protagonist are really innocent, the media and the stupid helpers are mainly responsible, and here I see the limitations of the documentary, that is, the one-sidedness of values, and the powerlessness because of being limited to reality. In the third episode, there are two arguments, but they all revolve around the same question, whether the male protagonist murdered, there is a lot of evidence on each side, and finally it comes down to Brandon alone, unless Brandon is dead, the truth is always It will come out, because people will grow up, and I think the film is suspicious of appetite, there is no debate, just disagreements, no details, just confusion.
Episode 4, I haven't finished watching it yet, I can't help laughing bitterly when I see what this so-called 16-year-old kid said on the phone. Even a retarded person can be used as evidence. It seems that people say that judges are all idiots.
In the fifth episode, it turns out that the origin of the strange flower is the American judiciary. It relies on speeches and performances. When I see this, I think the two lawyers are too much. How should I say it? Brave? To sue the police, first, they are people within the system, domestic and foreign as well. Inside the system is a community, but outside the system is a barbaric environment. Second, they are the people investigating the case. They have all the evidence. What can you do with them? Fighting, third, they were originally tit for tat, and the power is incomparable. If they win, the two lawyers will be directly on the altar. If there is no freedom of speech, this case will not happen, because without freedom of speech, it is estimated that even Lawyers can't protect themselves, and no one dares to speak up. It is the right way to report directly to the thigh.
View more about Making a Murderer reviews
