The movie opens with a debate scene in a political science school, a mock courtroom of a university.
A mock courtroom at a university is debating a real case that happened in society not long ago.
A 21-year-old son of a wealthy businessman is reported to have killed his biological father.
A law school also argued the case, which was reportedly covered by online media from all walks of life.
The students argued the case, and the parents had to serve as a jury, and after the defense exam
Parents also need to move to other venues to discuss, the discussion time of 1 hour
The first vote began, 11 jurors voted guilty, only Mr. No. 8 voted not guilty
At this point, No. 8 immediately became the target, the other jurors were verbally attacked
But this is No. 8 said that everything is not absolute, assuming that the child is innocent of what?
Since No. 8 had a different opinion, we decided to take turns to convince him
First No. 2 spoke
Juror No. 2 is a good guy with a smile on his face, holding the principle of not offending either side, but still feel guilty
From a counter-evidence point of view, there is no way to prove that he didn't kill this man.
At this point juror number 8 interrupts and says, "We don't have to prove he didn't kill him, we just have to prove that there's doubt in the process.
That's not going to work.
Juror #3, a cab driver, was so disgusted with his father's murderous son that he couldn't wait to rebut;
The old man who lived at the crime scene heard the father and son arguing upstairs at 12:10 p.m. on the night of the murder.
The rich boy shouted: I'll kill you, and a second later he heard someone fall to the ground
The old man rushed to the door and found a knife stuck in the body of the deceased, so the ironclad evidence, he would have to pay for what he did
Juror No. 4 is a real estate businessman, clear-headed and good at thinking, he felt that the testimony of the rich young man was too far-fetched and
He said he locked himself in his room because he was in a bad mood during the time of the crime, but his friends who were having a party at his house said they hadn't seen him
No. 5 is a social boss, he chose to skip the tough talk
Juror No. 6 is an emergency physician who approves of No. 8's attitude, but disagrees with No. 8's view that
Because the murderer's biological father blackmailed the boy every time and quarreled every time and slammed the car door and left, it was this blackmail that was his motive for the crime
At this point it was finally the turn of No. 7 to speak, he was the owner of the school kiosk, temporarily allowing the school his participation in the seminar, he was eager to express his views
He was a rich kid who had been spoiled since he was a kid and had a lot of problems, and he wanted to put all the blame on the boy so he could continue to sell his popsicles.
Juror number ten, he is a local landlord, a regional black, looking down on foreigners, stood up and said; you have to see what kind of people he is educated.
His own father, a farmer in Henan, has been in prison and divorced.
His stepfather is also a farmer in Henan, ten years of work from a debt-ridden to worth more than a billion big money
Do not do something for the rebellion can earn so much? The son of such a person trained to kill people, you think it is impossible?
Open mouth and shut up are Henan people, which also provoked the anger of No. 11
No. 11 juror is a simple and honest Henan security guards, strongly dissatisfied with No. 10 quarrel, but No. 10 dislike after No. 11 and dislike with No. 5, dislike after No. 5 and dislike with No. 1
No. 10 felt that No. 8 was too fussy.
No. 8 angrily said; there is no 100% under the sky, and 100% are rounded to a result.
And the truth is often in the little things that are easy to ignore
Now in a law university, discussing the life and death of a man for the sake of a group of young people who may become judges, for the sake of our children.
Should this be a matter of nitpicking?
Shouldn't we be fussy about deciding whether a person should be shot or not? Shouldn't you be fussy when it comes to the fairness of the laws of a country?
Everyone was shocked by No. 8 and the discussion resumed in earnest.
The 3rd raised their own questions; what happened to the knife at the murder scene? It was not an ordinary spring knife, but after the crime the rich boy said that the knife was lost
The knife at the crime scene and the rich boy's knife is almost the same, it can almost conclude that the rich boy is the murderer
At this point, No. 8 stood up and pulled out the same knife from his body and stuck it on the table, saying that the knife was bought by him online. 66 also includes postage
There are ten such knives there may be ten such suspects, is the chance of one in ten million, that is also possible to happen
But this still does not convince everyone, everyone can not convince No. 8.
In desperation, No. 8 proposed a secret ballot, he did not participate in the vote, but where there is a person voted not guilty to continue the discussion
Waiting with anxiety, the results of the vote came out, and there was a change of vote to not guilty
No. 10 and No. 7 were the first to stand up and angrily question who it was, while No. 3 also questioned No. 5 in a slightly provocative manner
When everyone was red-faced and arguing, No. 9 said that he voted for it himself, while telling about his own life.
Because in 1957, his parents and 18-year-old self were beaten into XX, every day by the criticism, the whole of their own do not want to live, when someone said to him
Encouraging words, he also survived, comparing his own life
He felt that the boy was really not guilty, he felt that someone should come forward to say a fair word, so the ending may be different
At this point, everyone was silent, No. 1 saw this situation and let everyone rest for a while
2. the next discussion, we all focus on the old man and the woman, the physical evidence can not be fully characterized, but what if the evidence is wrong?
But what if the evidence is wrong?
No. 3 was the first to disagree; the old man downstairs not only heard but also saw
And the woman across the street also witnessed the murder.
And through the last two of the six cars of the city railway, saw the murder process
No. 8 suddenly asked, "Does anyone know how long it takes to cross a point on a city train?
The security guard, because he had worked in a subway station before, said that a carriage is almost 20 meters, and the speed of the car is 70 to 80 when fast, and 50 to 60 when slow
No. 2 at 75 kilometers per hour, six carriages through the time is 5.7 seconds, that is to say, the woman saw the city railway, the train
Through the scene of the crime takes about 6 seconds, an average of one carriage a second, that is, the last two sections saw the process of the crime, the first four seconds of the case has not happened
The old man said he heard someone shouting I'm going to kill you upstairs a second before the crime, but the loud roar of the train passing the old man was actually inaudible
The same case of two key testimony contradictory, which does not make sense
No. 3 said with a disdainful face, you are talking about a few seconds, no one can say so precisely
No. 8 retorted A piece of testimony that will kill people must be so precise, No. 5 No. 6 also affirmed No. 8's statement
No. 3 furiously asked Why did the old man lie? What does he get out of it
At this point No. 9 old man yelled angrily importance He was trying to get attention, did you notice his clothes, the clothes are open thread
He's being interviewed for the first time on TV and he's holding his armpit for fear of being seen and his leg is crippled and he knows someone's filming him and he's trying to walk less crippled for that and he's being taken seriously for the first time on TV and he's got to say even if it's wrong, he's got to say it,
Just then No. 5 changed his vote to not guilty, because No. 5 is a person who has been wrongly imprisoned
He said one in 10,000 mistakes is a 100 percent disaster for the person involved.
The security guard also felt that there were loopholes in the whole thing, and that the witnesses and testimony did not make sense.
The guard stood up and also changed his vote to not guilty.
No. 8 proposed another vote
The third round of voting became four to eight
At this point, No. 3 mockingly said, "The father is the son, the king is the subject, and the son of a rebel is holding his feet to the fire.
No. 7 also agreed with No. 3, the old man said he heard the body in the end 15 seconds after running to the door, saw with his own eyes that the rich boy ran downstairs
At this point the word "run" attracted everyone's attention, but the old man is clearly a cripple
At this point, No. 8 reconstructed the scene and began to recreate the scenario
After measuring the distance, No. 8 measured the time in 43 seconds through simulation.
This speculation is very dissatisfied with No. 3, he thinks that No. 8 from the beginning has been for the rich man to shirk the blame, and ridiculed No. 8 your head that you are not the same.
And ridiculed No. 8, your head was beaten for God's sake, like you deserve to be beaten.
No. 8 was also enraged, you are educated in this ah, you are not a violent tendency
Two people argued fiercely, No. 3 shouted I want to kill you
No. 8 asked in return, "You don't really want to kill me, do you?
Remembering what he just said, No. 3 calmed down and walked away
Next, the fourth round of voting began, and the vote was six to six.
At this point, No. 2 had a question, the rich second generation is 11 centimeters shorter than the biological father, why is the wound inward and downward?
No. 3 took the knife and said he wanted to demonstrate to everyone, No. 8 stepped forward to cooperate with the demonstration
No. 3 squatted down and took the knife and made a downward and inward stabbing motion
No. 5 but refuted his point of view, he said this kind of spring knife for a fast, out of the knife will be stabbed out of the moment, no one will be the key time to fall down hands
The fifth round of voting began, No. 7, No. 12 and No. 1 have changed their choice of innocent, the vote became nine to three
At this time, No. 10 launched a complaint, the bus is full of college students, only one foreigner, the wallet lost your first thought of the thief will be who
Like such a rich young man, kill first and then ask questions will not be wrongful
This time the fourth real estate agent raised the last question
The woman witnessed the crime process, how can this be explained?
At this time, the ninth old man subtle observation of the real estate agent kept rubbing the bridge of the nose, eye sockets and two pits
The real estate agent said rubbing his eyes is to relieve eye fatigue, the two pits are wearing glasses to wear, without glasses to see things if the eyes are squinting
According to the old man's observation, the woman is also rubbing the bridge of the nose, the eye sockets also have two pits, when looking at things is also squinting
The crime is at midnight, sleeping people do not wear glasses, and how can people without glasses in the dark to see the opposite murderer in the end who is?
Subsequently, under the questioning of No. 8, No. 4 and No. 8 have changed their votes to not guilty.
At this point the vote became eleven to one
Now only No. 3 is stubbornly insisting on their position, you have the right to insist on your point of view, I also have the right to insist on my opinion
Said the scoundrel lying on the chair
and mentioned his own son, my son was 16 years old and I had a fight, I did not start I was wrong, but he ran away for 6 years did not return home
I don't have a phone number and his mother is divorced from me I can spend a few bucks, I have to run a cab early and late, I don't know who for
When I saw the rich boy, I felt a knife stabbing me in the heart
After saying that he cried
He has too much grievance and anger to vent, but justice must be fair
But how can a judge judge judge someone's life and death based on his own happiness or anger?
No. 8 went to his side and comforted him.
The last round of voting No. 3 on the table, raised his hand to vote not guilty
At this point the last round of voting 12 votes passed unanimously, the boy is not guilty
At the end of the film, everyone walked out of the warehouse with a sense of relief, and Mr. No. 8 returned to the warehouse to retrieve his lost papers.
It turns out that he is a judge
Twelve Citizens is based on the 1957 American film Twelve Angry Men.
The film tells the story of the most intense courtroom battle in contemporary China, sparked by the "murder case" of a rich young man.
Twelve Angry Men is an American film from 1957, almost sixty years after its release.
Its remake, Twelve Citizens, still resonates with Chinese audiences. The film takes the traditional jury system of the legal system and
The film recreates the traditional jury system of the legal system in the form of a political science school examination. Families of students of different professions and identities
After learning more about the background and investigation of a real case, they sit together to discuss and decide whether the main suspect in the case
The family members of the student, who are of different professions and identities, sit together to discuss and decide whether the main suspect in the case is the real father killer or not. The label of "rich kid".
In our society, it has long been synonymous with "unkindness for the rich" and "arrogance and extravagance". They are envied, but also hated.
In the movie, despite not knowing each other, the families still consider the rich generation "arrogant" and "morally low" and find them "guilty".
The movie is a great success. The audience is shocked by the arbitrariness of the characters in the film, but this arbitrariness is the real response of our society to those labels.
"rich generation", "driver", "civil servant", "civil worker", guilty or not guilty.
The hostile comments and judgments on the internet often come from a biased media report, or even a summary of an app push.
Even an overview pushed by an app, or even a news headline, is manipulated by unscrupulous media to feed their clicks.
We are used to playing the judge, but we are oblivious to our own mistakes.
We celebrate the right to freedom of expression, but are not yet ready to take responsibility for it.
Leave a comment