The flavor of 2024 is getting stronger "Article 20" is being screened in theaters, and there are already many fans who have seen it. I have done a review and analysis of the film, and I think it has a good theme, but the script is very bad, and it is a bad script, which causes other works to be powerless. My fans want me to continue to analyze it.
Let me emphasize once again that the main purpose of the "Article 20" popularization of law is very good, but the level of script creation is very low, resulting in a large number of problems at the level of script creation.
In any movie, there needs to be two sides. The decent ones are often people, and they are the characters. The villain can be human, it can be a character, it can be non-human, non-character, natural, etc. The movie "Article 20", on the decent side, is the role played by Lei Jiayin, and the national power behind this role.
On the villain's side, who is it?
The villains that can be found in the movie "Article 20" include but are not limited to the role played by Fan Wei, the village ruffian son of this character, the group of little brothers around this character, and the teaching director. In other words, the dean of teachings is half a villain.
What is the relationship between the positive and negative sides in the movie "Article 20"? On the side of the decent character, they think that the suspect is justified defense, and on the side of the villain, they do not recognize. This antagonistic relationship is evident in the film. For example, Fan Wei's role is to organize the blocking of the door, let the lawyer find the role of Lei Jiayin, and so on.
However, let's just talk about the villains, how good are they? It's just some snake on the ground. Is there a backer like the one in "Rock Solid"? No. At least, "Article 20" tells the audience that these local snakes began to act in the name of martyrs, but there was no strong support behind them.
In short, in "Article 20", the villains against the righteous people (the role played by Lei Jiayin and the national power behind him) are nothing more than a group of family snakes. For the forces of justice, this villain is, at most, a bug encountering a mountain. Therefore, on the side of justice, it is necessary to determine whether the criminal suspect is justified in the defense. In the movie, this question is like a ball of mud on a stone, and you can't find the answer.
In this way, the film becomes a story that is vigorously pressed against the small. On the side of justice, it is so strong that it should not have this story. Then, the audience will keep questioning Zhang Yimou and the screenwriter of "Article 20", why can the criminal suspect be recognized as an obstacle to legitimate defense*** It is said that it is a few local snakes, the role played by Fan Wei, does Zhang Yimou believe it himself? Can the audience be trusted?
As long as you question it, you will find that Article 20 is only playing with emotions, but it lacks the ability to truly answer questions. After watching this movie, can the audience answer why the suspect is identified as a legitimate defense? At first, I couldn't find the knife, and it was kind of resistance. Later, the knife was found, but the legitimate defense was still uncertain, where did the resistance come from?
In the general offensive stage of the story of "Article 20", there seems to be no resistance to the progress of justice, which is handled quite vaguely by the film. It can even be said that once the knife is found, the righteous side in the movie is unhindered. The subsequent plot setting is like a hearing, trying to make the group of people sitting under the rostrum into "resistance", but this setting seems reluctant.
In fact, this plot can also find a counterpart in reality. In real life, in the face of the bad behavior of the village ruffians, the villagers take legitimate defense, who will support the village ruffians? What force will stand on the side of a great resistance to justice and the power of the state? **Netizen? Legal experts? I think more people will support the disadvantaged.
Judging from the actual situation, those who sit under the rostrum in Article 20 may support the criminal suspect first. They will not be an obstacle to the determination of a suspect's legitimate defense, but on the contrary, they may be the driving force behind that determination.
After a little thought about the script of this movie, it turns out that there is a huge problem in it. It simply can't find the right villain. Especially in the end, it is very embarrassing to make those who sit under the rostrum "villains", out of touch with reality. Such script creation is logically untenable.
Therefore, I think that the movie "Article 20" has not achieved the effect of popularizing the law at all, mainly because of the problems of the screenwriter and director! A popular law film that invests a lot of money to shoot should focus on the core of the contradictions, and find the real obstacles to "legitimate defense" that are often impossible to identify.
These obstacles may exist in the village gangsters, or they may exist in the so-called "hearing witnesses" in the audience, and I dare say that director Zhang Yimou himself will also laugh bitterly about this.
Understanding where the real obstacle lies is is the most important place for those films that are sincere about popular law to be collected and investigated. "Article 20" has created some villains and created some obstacles, but can this convince fans? If such a script is filmed, what is it if it is not a bad movie? (Wen Ma Qingyun).