I was confused at the beginning of this film. Everyone who came out of the factory told different stories, which made it difficult to sort out the timeline and story line for a while, with scattered testimonies, constantly emerging narrators and truth And the video material of the shooting is really impressive. Suddenly, when the film reaches a certain stage, you will have a sudden realization, find the main line from the intricate information group, and recognize the relationship between the characters. As the film progresses, the events expressed in the film become more and more clear.
In my impression, this shooting method is also used in many legal programs and some documentary documentaries: someone is telling, and as the content of the story progresses, some real materials (images, recordings, evidence) will be released or filmed according to the event. The video data to echo the content of the narrative. Everyone tells from their own point of view, which may lead to conflicts in the content of the narrative, and no one can be sure that everything a person tells is true, but it can also restore an event from multiple perspectives and more objectively. At this time, the audience is not a pure "recipient", but needs to think for themselves, and then discover the truth through the director's or no guidance.
I have to say that this film is very exciting. The two groups of people are fighting each other. Whoever is right makes it difficult to tell who is the real culprit. Especially the countless shooting scenes are intertwined, as if they are all the truth. But there is only one truth. There are always people who are talking about panic. Through more and more stories, we gradually find that the 16-year-old who seems to be an unlikely criminal is the real murderer. But the judge still found Adams guilty. It seems that this conclusion is in line with the habitual thinking of most people. The director exposed the flaws of American justice through this, and finally succeeded in proving that Adams was wronged.
"If you want to add a crime, there is nothing to worry about." To borrow a sentence from Mr. Luo Xiang, "In modern society, criminal law must have two values. One is to protect functions, punish crimes, and protect legal interests; the other is to protect functions, protect human rights, and limit criminal rights. Therefore, in modern society, criminal law is no longer a knife handle like in ancient times, because everyone sees the word "criminal" and thinks it is like a knife handle. In modern society, criminal law is a double-edged sword. It has two edges, one The blade is slashed at criminals, punishing crimes to protect the people; there is another blade, slashing at the judiciary, limiting the rights of the judiciary.” While the law restricts citizens, it also restricts the abuse of power by those in power.
In real life, many people question why lawyers defend criminals, thinking that those who defend bad people are paid and are scumbags. Let's think about it from another angle, if one day you are framed as a criminal, do you want a lawyer to defend you? Just like the case in the film, if there is no lawyer to help Adams and work hard to uncover the truth, it is almost impossible to restore the truth of the incident only by the director, and Adams may only bear the infamy.
View more about The Thin Blue Line reviews
