At the beginning of the film, from the description of the talker on the screen and the director's constant switching of perspectives, the audience knows the names of the two and the beginning of the entire police shooting case.
The narrative structure of the film.
First of all, the incident of the shot policeman is reproduced through the scene, and the cause of death is only led out by the sound of gunshots and the victim falling to the ground.
The identity of the deceased as a policeman was then revealed through the badge on the deceased's clothes.
The time of the event is indicated by the newspaper date display
The director explained the main line at the beginning of the film through this series of side descriptions.
There is no narration in the whole film, any transition to the next picture is expressed through the description of the case in the newspaper, and the remarks of the police, suspects, witnesses, prosecutors and others are also carried out through the reproduction of the scene and the keywords reported by the newspaper at that time. Replenish. The director does not have any subjective ideas, and the testimonies and descriptions from all angles are presented, allowing the audience to judge the truth by themselves.
Narration of the characters in the film.
Memoirs of the two protagonists. The memories of the two protagonists of the events are interspersed through the timeline to achieve a feeling of different perspectives. And through their dictation, scene reproduction and newspaper information insertion were carried out, so that the case that had been in the past 11 years became flesh and blood.
Witnesses' descriptions. The three witnesses recited in unison that Adams had bragged to someone he knew that he had killed the police victim reported in the news. The other three claimed that they saw what happened at the crime scene. The film reproduced the testimony of each witness through the scene, and then overturned it through the words of others. The black-and-white couple gave false testimony for money, and the person who overthrew them in the film said what the black-and-white couple said to her: "Say what they told him to say, he will say it, he will see what they want him to see"
Investigate internal conflicts. Some police officers are negligent in their duties; some police officers just want to find the murderer quickly and close the case regardless of whether the facts are true or not; some police officers hope to clear innocent people; some prosecutors add a stroke to their winning record...
The female police officer claimed that she ran over and shot to save people, but the stolen vehicle found by the police did not have any marks of being hit by a gun. I don't know whether the model of the car was a vega or a comet. It was claimed that the person who shot the gun was a fur collar, but the real The killer confessed to having a casual jacket and "probably shaggy hair", even though his testimony changed after an internal investigation two weeks later.
The police interrogating Adams pointed a gun at him and asked him to sign a confession. The transcript he signed became a confession, and the district court didn't focus on whether he was guilty, but more on how to kill him. The flawed testimony of three "eyewitnesses" gave the police "evidence".
The local court eliminated the possibility of a retrial only for fear of Adams' reversal in the retrial.
Those who really want to find the real murderer. They found contradictions in the "testimony" and "evidence" of witnesses and police, and believed that Adams was innocent, and when it rose to the higher court, the jury vote was reversed with that of the local court. But all they can do is blocked by the majority.
Some interesting points of the whole article:
1️⃣ David was wearing orange clothes when he recounted his recollection. When he saw the middle, the context of the case gradually became clear, which made people wonder if it was a prison uniform. Then at the end of the movie, David raised his With one hand, we can see the handcuffs on his hands.
2️⃣The real murderer - David showed off his demonic behavior to people he knew, and even denied it to the police
3️⃣ David laughed and talked about his murder process. He ran into another victim’s house in the middle of the night and took his girlfriend away. After the victim rushed out with a gun, he thought that this person should not have rushed out with a gun. Damn, with all the time emphasizing the way he was only 16 when he killed the police, being a kid can't help but feel like he's contradictory, and mentally ill.
4️⃣The director even explained David's growing environment: his brother was drowned because of his father's negligence, and then his father preferred his younger brother... David even said that these actions were just for revenge on his father, and he didn't. Thinking of the final victim is himself.
View more about The Thin Blue Line reviews
