Revisiting Twelve Angry Men's Little Insights - Not a Film Critic

Blanca 2022-04-21 09:01:11

Inspired by the "Mother-humiliating Murder Case", when Sarah and I were discussing the utility of the Public Prosecution Law, I remembered a movie "12 Angery Men" (12 Angry Men) I watched N years ago. So I downloaded the 1957 version and revisited it. The jury system is a unique aspect of the American legal system, which is not found in the Chinese legal system. This film precisely describes very delicately how the jury reflects the prudence of the good side of human nature in the determination of guilt, and the reasoning process that reasonably doubts the rationality of the evidence, beyond the legal provisions. The whole movie only uses a single scene to interpret the story, but the plot is smooth and fascinating. It tells the story of a jury of 12 members of the community discussing whether a murder charge is warranted.
The protagonist of this story is an eighteen-year-old boy accused of murdering his own father. All the evidence points to the result that he is the murderer of his father. When the members of the jury expressed that there was no doubt about the result, one person stood up and said that he could not simply decide the life and death of a teenager who had experienced all kinds of hardships. Because he could not be sure of the facts, he doubted some of the evidence. This is how the story unfolds... The
ending is known to everyone, and the jury finally came to a unanimous conclusion that the juvenile was innocent. Whether such a reversal really exists in life, I don't know, if this story is true, then undoubtedly this teenager is lucky. Because his defense lawyers gave up on him, gave up his justice as a lawyer, failed to fulfill his defense responsibilities, doubted all kinds of evidence from the perspective of the defendant's innocence, and the testimony of witnesses directly pointed to the juvenile's guilt of. On the surface, the result is uncontroversial, but one member of the jury, out of insight into this situation, a trace of persistence in the beauty of human nature, and the courage to challenge social consensus, made it possible for things to turn around. In China, if there is no Weibo, no public indignation, and no public awareness, such as the mother-humiliating murder case, the Lijiang disfigurement case, the sudden death of a master's degree at the National People's Congress, etc., the parties who encounter these things may not be able to find inner peace for a long time.
I also suffered from my father's domestic violence as a child, and sometimes I also hate what happened to me, my father who did it to me, and my mother who was incapable of preventing it from happening. I remember that when I was in the fourth and fifth grade of elementary school, because I couldn’t stand my father’s beatings and scolding, I summoned the courage to call 110, hoping to seek help from the police. On the phone, he heard that I was a child and only asked me roughly. Where, I said that I was in XX, and then he said that the place was not under their control. There was a local police station, and he suggested that I go to them for help. But I still didn't give up, I hope they can come to help me, he may not be able to bear me, and finally promised me that they will come. I had been expecting them to come to my rescue, but in the end, they didn't show up.
Maybe it was from that time that I lost trust in the police. Looking back now, although I think it is understandable, at that time, it was a common thing for parents to beat their children. Whose children were not beaten up, and there was an old saying about a filial son under the stick. It can only be said that the times are changing. How I hope that the society that my children lived in can provide them with more sense of security. It will not happen when they are helpless and desperate. When they need help, they should be full of justice and selfless help. betrayed by the police.
Now I can also understand how great Lu Xun's choice of abandoning medicine and pursuing literature is in the textbook. For those people who cannot think independently and are used to following the crowd, we can only slowly guide and change their thoughts.
It is dramatic that most people change their views in such a short period of time in the movie, because they have the ability to think rationally and are willing to listen to the ideas of others. Of course, this is also because the jury selects the elites in the society class related. If it were someone like the type of people who kill people with their mouths on the Internet, the results may be completely different.
Sometimes what is the truth, no one knows, but as long as it is any possibility that threatens a person's life, we should treat it with dignity and respect.
Also, hold on.

View more about 12 Angry Men reviews

Extended Reading
  • Ron 2021-10-20 18:58:47

    Stupid B, I even read the introduction first, but the film itself felt very artificial during the viewing process.

  • Ignatius 2022-03-26 09:01:01

    The ten most exciting movies I've seen this year! Law-God on earth, the jury represents God's authority to examine, convict, forgive, and discriminate against others. Sometimes hearing is fictitious, seeing is not believing, using wisdom to distinguish the truth from false, using observation details to restore the truth, using justice to determine right from wrong, and a humble, benevolent, cautious and fearful heart

12 Angry Men quotes

  • Juror #8: [justifying his reason for voting "not guilty"] I just think we owe him a few words, that's all.

    Juror #10: I don't mind telling you this, mister: we don't owe him a thing. He got a fair trial, didn't he? What do you think that trial cost? He's lucky he got it. Know what I mean? Now, look - we're all grown-ups in here. We heard the facts, didn't we? You're not gonna tell me that we're supposed to believe this kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I've lived among them all my life - you can't believe a word they say, you know that. I mean they're born liars.

    Juror #9: Only an ignorant man can believe that.

    Juror #10: Now, listen...

    Juror #9: [gets up] Do you think you were born with a monopoly on the truth?

    [turns to Juror #8, indicating #10]

    Juror #9: I think certain things should be pointed out to this man.

  • Juror #8: [after Juror #10 explains that he believes the boy is guilty because of the testimony of the woman across the street] I'd like to ask you something: you don't believe the boy's story. How come you believe the woman's? She's one of "them", too, isn't she?

    Juror #10: [the smile vanishes from his face] You're a pretty smart fella, aren't you?