I saw someone discussing, isn't it all because of that little black boy? Yes. The little boy has nothing to do to steal other people's little lions, all because this bear child caused a big disaster. But is it okay for other characters? The police not only added firewood, but also poured a whole barrel of gasoline to help. To make an inappropriate analogy, when someone steals your wallet, you as a policeman can take out a gun and threaten him, punch him, slap him, and put the muzzle in someone else's mouth?
The police captain in the movie (anti-crime brigade, it sounds like it means picket brigade, is the police force too insufficient!), rather than the police captain, he is the boss of another gang in the city - the government this gang. His law enforcement principles are not implemented according to the police manual, but like a gang, using the cards in his hand - the handle of other gangs - or lure, or threat, or cooperation, to control and balance the entire city.
As for the new police officer, he did not completely lose his principles, and he also considered the pros and cons, not only out of the protection of his black police colleagues: he believed that if he turned in the memory card or made it public, it would not solve the problem. Some problems, on the contrary, will lead to riots in the entire city, and even disorderly confrontation in the entire country. Reducing the government's credibility to a low point and twisting the police's trust into hatred will not solve the problem, and it seems that the cost is so huge that it will take decades or even more than a hundred years to heal. Just like our Cultural Revolution.
For him, there seem to be three options: first, report the captain for abuse of power; second, continue to acquiesce to the captain's behavior; third, resign or apply for transfer. He chose the second one, and the contradiction escalated.
There is a saying: those who are born by the sword will die by the sword. For the police captain's set, it is bound to be difficult for him to live safely into his later years. The various means of coercion and inducement he has used will eventually be devoured. Abuse of violence will only be swallowed up by violence, making the situation worse. Romain Rolland has a saying, which in turn is: "To spread hatred into others' hearts, you must first have hatred in your own heart."
So this becomes a dilemma of a vicious circle - it is difficult to gain trust, easy to lose trust, and even more difficult to regain lost trust. I suddenly remembered the corruption of the Hong Kong police in the past. Later, the Hong Kong police became one of the best examples of efficiency and integrity in the world, and now they have lost trust. I remember gaining trust in the past. First, the ICAC Commission was established. Second, the entire police let the past go by, but repeated offenses will be severely punished.
In the movie, the police captain is the main source of the conflict, because even if the little boy hadn't stolen the lion, something else would have happened. But what is the source of social conflict? In the end is the system, or the economy? Still have to solve it? Or, historical legacy?
PS:
1. In the opening sequence, when everyone, black and white, bearded or curly-haired, wears the French flag and cheers for the French football team, they are united, regardless of race and color.
2. Regarding the role, in fact, more considerations can be made. Like the cop who shot, he's not black, but white or an Asian? Will it lead to a completely different direction due to the delicate relationship between them? Hard to say.
3. In fact, the director can send the boy home, the drone memory card is taken away, the police go back to their respective homes, and then the movie ends. This is actually a relatively open ending, and it can also leave a lot of thinking for the audience. But apparently the director had other plans, and he escalated the conflict. I think this ending is better.
View more about Les Misérables reviews
