What impressed me the most was the role played by Henry Fonda. He wasn't sure at first that the boy was guilty, just not so sure. It was his reasonable suspicion and conscience that made him cast his innocent vote, saving a glimmer of hope for this life. When the other eleven people are clamoring: why bother with those little details? ! Those don't help, the old man downstairs heard the boy kill someone, the woman across the street saw her kill someone, what's there to argue? Make a decision now, and do your own work!
This is to decide the life and death of a person. When the law gives ordinary citizens the right to influence the life and death of others, citizens must also have this conscience and treat this life well. There is no distinction in life, and it is immoral to send people hastily to hell without careful discussion. Even if there is no crime, they should be punished more severely than the law. Respect for the lives of others is also respect for your own personality.
Not everyone can voluntarily and consciously have such qualities, but everyone has such potential. At first, only 1 person thought that the boy was innocent, but later there were 3, 4, 9, and 11. It was because of the initial inspiration that everyone found their reasonable doubts and began to take this matter seriously. Made me believe that not only in this respect are all good, but in many other respects, I believe that human nature is also good. The so-called "those who know good will be able to do good", a person does not realize that what he is doing is immoral and incorrect, it must be that he does not know that what he is doing is wrong at all, or in his consciousness , this thing has always been correct, and it is definitely not his fault. Therefore, what others should do should not be contempt, but persuasion.
One of the Twelve Angry Men is always emphasizing: I know them too well, not a single word of their words is true, they fight, go shopping, and kill without blinking an eye—yes, they are born hooligans!
How can a person make such a positive judgment of a group of people just because they have seen such a person before? He himself can't even be sure whether the old man who testified in court said that he "walked" to the porch or "runned" to the porch, so how could he dare to draw conclusions on the character of a group of people with such certainty, and use this as a gift Evidence of guillotine? ! Extremely irresponsible for life! Taking a step back, how can he, in the face of a particular life, use conventional inferences to determine whether a person is guilty or not, shouldn't all the elements of special coincidence be taken into account? What if the person was his own child? I'm afraid no one is in a hurry to go home to do business or watch football?
The Twelve Angry Men come from different occupational and life backgrounds. From the way they dress and talk, you can see what role they play at work or in the family. It's really interesting to discuss the child's trial. All beings can be seen here~
View more about 12 Angry Men reviews
