The script of "Article 20" is rotten and the problem of villains has not been solved
Article 20 is being screened in major theaters across the country, and many audiences have walked into the theater and shared their viewing experience. I have conducted a detailed review and analysis of the film, and although the theme is profound, there are some problems with the script, which ultimately leads to mediocre performance in other aspects.
In order to ** this work more comprehensively, many fans and friends hope that I can further analyze it in depth.
I would like to emphasize that the main purpose of Article 20's rule of law publicity is worthy of recognition, but it needs to be improved in terms of script creation. This article is mainly concerned with the issue of script creation, and although I am a family, I welcome corrections from professionals.
In filmmaking, both the pros and cons are indispensable. Decency is usually played by characters or characters, while villains can be played by characters, characters, non-characters, non-characters, and things in nature.
In the movie "Article 20", the character played by Lei Jiayin and the national power behind it are regarded as decent.
In the movie "Article 20", we can see a group of complex villains. The character played by Fan Wei, his village ruffian son, the little brother around him, and the teaching director, they may all become villains.
The antagonistic relationship between the pros and the cons is clear, with one side firmly believing that the suspect is defending themselves, while the other side is opposed. This kind of confrontational relationship is fully expressed in the film, such as Fan Wei's character organizing to block the door, asking a lawyer to find Lei Jiayin's role, and so on.
However, what about the strength of the villain character? They are nothing more than a bunch of village ruffians. Although there may be greater power hidden behind the village ruffians, in "Article 20", what we see is that they began to act mischief under the honor of martyrs, and there is no such thing behind them as in Zhang Yimou's "Solid as a Rock"."Rock solid"The power of support.
Therefore, in Article 20, the villain faced by the decent people (Lei Jiayin's character and the national power behind it) is just a family village ruffian organization, whose power is like an egg hitting a stone compared to that of decency.
So, in the face of decent forces, what is the resistance to determining the legitimate defense of criminal suspects? There is no reasonable answer given in the film.
The film is reinterpreted as a contest between the strong and the weak. The righteous side of the film is too strong to make the story seem unrealistic. This has led fans to question Zhang Yimou and the screenwriter of "Article 20", who want to know whether the suspect's legitimate defense has been resisted.
They questioned whether the village ruffians represented by Fan Wei's character could really constitute this resistance, whether Zhang Yimou really believed in this setting, and whether fans could accept it.
As long as you delve into this question, you will find that the movie "Article 20" is just blindly inciting emotions and lacks the ability to truly answer questions. After "Article 20", can fans answer the resistance to the criminal suspect being identified as legitimate defense?
The knife at the beginning of the film can't be found can be said to be a resistance, but later the knife is found or can't be recognized as legitimate defense, so what is the resistance?
In the general offensive stage of "Article 20", the film blurs the resistance that was originally created for decent behavior, and it can even be said that after the knife is found, there is no decent resistance in the movie.
Then, trying to make the group of people sitting under the podium a bit of a push. In fact, in real life, when such an incident occurs, who can stand on the side of the village ruffian and form a huge resistance to the power of decency and the state?
*, netizen or legal expert? I think people are more likely to be on the side of the vulnerable. Returning to the film, the group of people sitting under the rostrum may be the first to stand on the side of the suspect, and they will not become an obstacle to the determination of the suspect's legitimate defense, but will become a force to promote this identification.
The film's script has serious problems, the biggest of which is the inability to find an effective villain. Especially in the end, the person under the rostrum is set as the villain, which is far from reality and very embarrassing.
This kind of scriptwriting is logically difficult to make sense. Therefore, I believe that "Article 20" did not succeed in popularizing the law, which is a mistake on the part of the screenwriter and director.
As a popular law movie built with a lot of money, it should be found that the real resistance to "legitimate defense" often cannot be recognized. This resistance may come from the village ruffians, or it may come from those who "testify" in the audience.
Director Zhang Yimou should understand that the real resistance lies in the end, and it is necessary to have a sincere attitude to investigate and collect the style of popular law films. And the script of "Article 20" simply sets some villains and resistance, and if such a movie is made, it will only become a bad movie.