In the theater, a family conversation triggered me to think deeply about social phenomena. The mother asks the child what to do if he is bullied by four classmates. This simple question involves a series of social issues in the movie "Article 20", which makes people fall into deep thought.
The appeal of the film lies not only in its dense laughter, but also in its revelation of the problems around society. Children being bullied, family members being humiliated, and witnessing violence are all questions that once made us feel at a loss, and the answers are gradually found in the movie. The film is not only an entertainment film, but also a deep reflection on the boundaries of social ethics and law.
In the film, prosecutor Han Ming's son, Han Yuchen, did not hesitate to rescue his classmates when he saw them being bullied. However, it was caught up in an unexpected legal battle. This plot provokes the audience to think about righteousness and courage and the boundaries of the law. Under what circumstances does acting in the name of justice become illegal?
In the story, Han Yuchen's behavior was reported by the bullier's father for the crime of injury. This plot involves two key points: there is no surveillance video at the scene of the bullying, which becomes an isolated evidence; Han Yuchen broke the bridge of the bullie's nose, causing a minor injury. Through such a small story, the film reveals the delicate balance on the legal boundary. Behind the jokes, there is a profound interpretation of the provisions of the criminal law. Hitting people without slapping them in the face seems to have become a symbol of legal wisdom.
In the movie, Han Yuchen was beaten by social gangsters, but he didn't fight back. This plot sparked a controversy between parents about calling the police. Han Ming stopped his wife from calling the police, and his explanation was straightforward: "4 hit one, why is the injury so light?" "Behind this is an in-depth analysis of the provisions of the criminal law, which contains an understanding of the legal boundaries of the degree of harm. Through this vignette, the film provokes the audience to reflect on the practice of law.
Through the setting of cases, the film shows the real dilemma that righteous and brave people often fall into the legal whirlpool. The bullied classmates did not dare to stand up and testify, and the righteous and brave became the only witnesses. This phenomenon is not an isolated case in society, and the film allows the audience to have a deeper understanding of the common problems in society through the cross-echoing of different cases.
And in the movie, the discussion of justifiable defense is even more thought-provoking. The heated debate surrounding Wang Yongqiang's anti-murder case has led us to re-examine the definition of justifiable defense. Through case analysis, the film puts forward a new point of view: whether the infringement stops or not cannot be viewed from a single point, but the overall risk should be judged by extending the time period. This is also reflected in real-life cases, which makes us re-examine our understanding of legitimate defense.
Article 20 is not only an entertainment film, but also a profound reflection on the boundaries of social ethics and law. Behind the jokes in the film are a profound interpretation of the law and an in-depth reflection on social phenomena. After watching the film, perhaps we will have a sharper observation of social issues and a clearer understanding of legal boundaries.
In the face of bullying, the movie gives a series of suggestions: call for help in time, keep evidence, check the injury, ask for help from the parents' school and report the crime. It is emphasized that the sooner the incident is handled, the better, in order to avoid habitual helplessness, which can lead to greater harm. These suggestions are not only the plot setting of the movie, but also the realistic response to social phenomena.
Finally, "Article 20" allows the audience to re-examine this legal concept through its in-depth treatment of legitimate defense. The cases in the film present different outcomes, triggering deep thinking about legitimate defense in the audience. At the end of the film, there is a reference to the "sleeping clause" in Article 20 of the Criminal Law, which provides protection for legitimate defenders. This has also been confirmed in real cases, which makes our understanding of the law more comprehensive.
Overall, Article 20 provokes deep reflection on the boundaries of social ethics and law through humorous narratives and profound case analysis. Behind the laughter is an in-depth observation of social issues and a profound interpretation of the law. This film is not only an entertainment, but also a deep reflection on social phenomena. It is hoped that the audience will have a more acute understanding of social issues in addition to laughter.
February** Dynamic Incentive Program