"People cannot be simply divided into good people and bad people. People are multifaceted." Without affecting others, everyone has the right to do what they are happy to do.
Number seven score: 7.90
Synopsis
Paul (James Stewart) was originally a prosecutor. Because of his outstanding professional ability, he was shunned by his peers, so he had no choice but to resign and open a law firm to become a defense lawyer.
Because there are usually no cases, he is so poor that he can hardly solve the problem, and he can't even afford the salary of the office staff. Bored, he often goes fishing to pass the day.
At this moment, a murder occurred. Lieutenant Mannion (played by Ben Gozana) surrendered to the police station because he shot and killed the innkeeper Barney, and he claimed that the reason for the murder was that Barney had raped his wife Laura ( Li Lemick).
As the client, Laura hopes that Paul can take the case.
Anxious to make money, Paul decided to talk to Mannion first to understand what happened.
Mannion is a veteran. He married Laura four years ago. After many years of service, he is not very stable. Paul believes that insanity can be used as a defense.
So, he took the case, but in the communication with Laura, he felt that Laura was a somewhat "random" girl, which was very detrimental to the defense.
As the investigation progressed, Paul discovered that Mannion was a very jealous person. He didn't like Laura having physical contact with other men, which Laura didn't care about.
Paul told Laura about the seriousness of the matter. If Mannion wants to be safe, she must act "a little lady", at least not dressing too casually in court.
The only good news is the results of Mannion’s psychiatric examination. He was diagnosed with "temporary insanity", and this disease can cause the patient to have "uncontrollable impulses."
By consulting related cases, Paul found that this disease had a precedent that was convicted of innocence.
In the court, Paul demonstrated superb debating skills. In questioning prosecution witnesses, he left the focus of the debate without leaving a trace from the murder to the rape of Laura.
However, as the prosecution, the assistant to the inspector general, Claude, is not a gas-saving lamp. He used the relationship between the Mannion and his wife to regain the initiative. The two of you come and go, it is very exciting.
Gradually, Claude took the initiative. By asking the witnesses, he hinted that Laura was a very "random" woman, which made Paul furious.
Paul knows that if this goes on, this lawsuit will undoubtedly be defeated, but his assistant brought back a secret from Canada, which is likely to be the winner of this case...
Film Analysis
In the 1950s and 1960s, excellent court films appeared endlessly. "Twelve Angry Men" showed us the process of jurors seeking the truth. "The Prosecution Witness" brought me the pleasure of high IQ reversal; "Killing a Mockingbird" let us know that the defense is not sure to win; and this "Peachy Blood Case" almost shows us the whole process from the lawyer's acceptance of the case to the outcome of the trial.
The film has a slow pace, but there are almost no redundant remarks and useless dialogue. The director starts from how a defense lawyer takes the next case, and shows us the whole process of the trial, including every conversation with the client, such details. The show is unprecedented. As viewers, we are the jurors' perspective throughout the whole process, and we get the same information as the jurors in the film, and the so-called truth may only exist in our own hearts.
The movie is 160 minutes long, and nearly 100 minutes of court debates require us to focus on every debate between the prosecution and the defense for a long time, and the strength of both parties is equal, and this "battle" has become extremely exciting.
I have seen a few movies starring James Stewart. I think this character is the most charming: talented, witty, and a sense of humor that has countless fans.
I want to talk about the hostess Laura: The first impression she gave me was a very "random" woman with high heels and a pet dog. She was like a lonely young woman, sexy and seductive. She would flirt with Paul from time to time. When in Paul’s office, she said to him, "I have time, as long as you want." When in Paul’s car, she involuntarily shook Paul’s hand; at the door of the RV, she asked Should Paul come in and sit down?
Can this say that she did something wrong? You can accuse her of being "harmful," but you must know that she has not violated anyone's rights. I believe that there are such people in reality. They don't think there is a problem with what they are doing. They don't mind unexpected eyes and be true to themselves. I think there is nothing wrong with doing whatever one is willing to do without affecting others. On the contrary, it is even more hateful for people who are pointing and talking behind their backs.
The film mentioned that "people cannot be simply divided into good people and bad people. People are multifaceted." Everyone has their own ideas: consumption outlook, life attitude, aesthetics, etc. are different. Use the movie as an analogy. No matter how good the movie is, everyone can’t like it. Therefore, everyone has the right to do what they like to do. She dresses revealingly and has a voluptuous body. Is your excuse for raping her?
This reminds me of "the victim's guilt theory." Women are assaulted from time to time. Many people commit crimes on the grounds that women’s clothes are too revealing or their physical movements are sexually suggestive. Some netizens also commented on whether women should be more prudent. Protect yourself. This logic is very ridiculous, putting the cart before the horse. According to this logic, there should be no sex crimes in winter, and the seaside is a gathering place for sex offenders.
There is such a wonderful passage in the court scene. When the prosecution questioned the witness, it was implied that Laura had lured the dead, and Paul gave a very sharp counterattack at the time. The irony is that I believe that many viewers, like me, had the same idea: did Laura seduce the dead, and we didn't get the answer until the end of the film. Let us think about it, does this issue matter?
What is the truth? I'm not sure. The only certainty is that what the director wanted to tell us has passed the jury's verdict. At least I also changed my mind in the process of watching the movie. From the beginning I thought that Laura was a "random" woman, and later sympathized with her. She was just a naive, innocent, and silly girl with no scheming. In my heart, this case already has an answer. When a woman smiles at you, it doesn’t mean that she wants to do shameful things with you. A woman crying at you must mean that you hurt her.
"These twelve people were asked to make a judgment on another person. This person is also completely different from them, just as they are different from each other, and when they make a judgment, they must become one mind: unanimous agreement. This is One of the miracles that the chaotic human mind can do, and in most cases, it does a good job."
View more about Anatomy of a Murder reviews
