Since Trump's astonishing becoming the President of the United States, I have become suspicious and interested in the American political system again. After watching "American Crime Story", I immediately started watching "Game Change" about the Obama campaign. , the story of McCain and Palin. Coincidentally, the heroine of American Crime Story, Sarah Paulson, played the second female lead in this film, and it seems that she likes political films very much. ^_^
Back to the topic, this drama is very good-looking. The amazing thing is that under the premise that everyone knows the result, the audience can't wait to watch this "legal movie" that has always been tense with suspense movies. What I'm not sure about is whether all the plots are factual, and whether the plot based on the original book is full of facts, rather than the words of a family? I hope it's based on facts, but at least part of it is about the secret love affair between the male and female prosecutors, the plot of the female prosecutor being cold to the male prosecutor after spending the weekend together seems a bit bizarre, I don't know if it's made up.
This film reviews all the main plots of the court debate, but the director's implication is very clear, that is: the defense lawyers used inflammatory to introduce the LAPD police's injustice to the long-term black people in order to win the case ( This sentiment still exists today), using the police’s discriminatory remarks against blacks to lead jurors to a verdict of not guilty. OJ is a person with a bad personal record, and he was later sentenced to 33 years in prison for stealing, which also proved his character. The director intends to establish an image for female prosecutors: dedicated, upholding justice, diligent and conscientious, suffering from grievances and indomitable; while the image established for black defense lawyers is: have a history of domestic violence, cannot bear the discrimination of whites against blacks, and have a history of domestic violence. The determination and perseverance of the once shameful, tongue-in-cheek, and unscrupulous to win the lawsuit; what the black prosecutors shape is: adhere to the sense of justice, not copy what others say, understand the black community but never join forces. The director's inclination is obvious, but how could such a case where the culprit seem to be very clear have such a big reversal? Of course, prosecutors made mistakes in some important choices, such as the selection of jurors, which led to many people who believed that they were innocent from the beginning; of course, the police also had imprecise places in the collection of evidence, allowing the defense to catch loopholes; the most important thing may be a strong lineup of defense attorneys' dream team. One regret of the show, though, is that it tells too little about how the jury came to a consensus, especially how the two guilty votes changed their minds? Is it just for the crowd? Is it because the law does not allow jurors to reveal the facts of the previous case, so there is no historical statement to rely on? I think this is also very important information.
Almost all of my knowledge of the American legal system comes from film and television. I think most of us Chinese are like this, and they are a little confused. This is what the director wants the audience to think about.
Why did the United States choose to allow ordinary people (for example, most of the show is a civilian class with a low education level), 12 people with no legal knowledge and their own values to judge whether people are guilty? Is this a valid form of trial?
The jury system has also led to the fact that the focus of the American courts has become the debate competition for jurors. It is inevitable to change the judgment that should be based on the laws and regulations into a persuasive speech competition with guidance, demonstration and persuasion, and the focus has become storytelling. Therefore, The US Criminal Court is a speech contest. The prosecution and the police are no longer arrogant, but to win the favor of the jurors. Both parties have to figure out the thoughts and inclinations of each juror. Of course, they cannot use any form of bribes, but they can impress the jurors with words and emotions.
Based on my non-professional and limited thinking ability, I can only explain it this way: the founding fathers of the United States are willing to believe that the eyes of the broad masses of the people are sharp and the people's judgment can be relied on, because jurors are usually not in the judicial system. Therefore, they will not be motivated by interests, and police, prosecutors, and lawyers are here every day, and they usually have great power. But in this way, a trade off is that the juror will be led by the lawyer's nose, and the juror will be somewhat influenced by his own experience to judge the affairs. Although they swear to judge objectively and impartially, not based on personal bias, who can judge without pre-existing values and experience and knowledge? If you want to be completely objective, only a robot can do it. But American pioneers were willing to take the risk because they believed that a broad collection of non-unique individuals was less risky than relying on a single judge, and even a few wrongful cases were a matter of small percentages. In film and television dramas, Americans always have prejudice against the police. It seems that the police in the United States abuse force and corrupt a lot. This is very different from our high evaluation of the police as "people's servants". In fact, which country's police officers What about serving the people?
In European and American political systems, laws are more or less the form of debate and voting. This is completely different from ours in China, and we are also very unfamiliar. What China emphasizes is not debate, not bottom-up, but top-down. Therefore, whether it is the U.S. presidential campaign system or the judgment method of the U.S. criminal court determines how important the level of storytelling is in the United States, no wonder American children pay attention to presentation since childhood, and their expressive ability is much stronger than that of Chinese people. , to be able to say hype, because America is just a show business.
View more about American Crime Story reviews
