As a representative work of a suspense film, in addition to seeing this film as a success in terms of suspense, there are many issues to think about, especially whether the death penalty should be abolished.
From the very beginning of the film, the male protagonist is presented to us as a murderer who is imprisoned. Through interviews with female reporters, the story of the male protagonist is slowly revealed: Ben is an influential philosophy professor, and his friend Kang Standing actively to abolish the death penalty, but because of his involvement in the sexual assault of students, his career and family are in crisis. In fact, in the process of watching the movie, we and the female reporter have a similar perspective, from the curiosity and doubt about the murderer at the beginning, to the sympathy and worry about the fate of the male protagonist after the truth is solved layer by layer. The false accusation by the female student made the audience have more trust and sympathy for the male protagonist. Therefore, in the middle section, most people actually do not believe in the murder of the male protagonist, that is, they think that the possibility of being framed is high. But the crime scene and the evidence on the female victim also made us doubtful and puzzled. We are just as busy looking for the truth and looking for the real culprit from a reporter's point of view. As the videotapes were sent to the female reporters again and again, the case gradually became clear: Constantine was dying of a terminal illness soon, and the movement to abolish the death penalty was unsuccessful after repeated battles. Being silenced by the sheriff's sentence that he has never been wrongly convicted, Konstantin and his trusted friends decided to go all out and die for the cause they love. She chose to disguise herself as a victim in an extremely painful way, and set her friend as a murderer. After David was sentenced to death, she asked another friend to send a video of the truth, which was the first wrongful conviction to turn the tide. Complete the career you have dedicated your life to. . . At the end of the film, from the video, we finally found that David was actually a member of the insiders and practitioners of the plan. He never saved himself by clearing his name, but instead made female reporters the participants and discoverers of the plan. To carry out this cause, this kind of decision to die for life has brought me a lot of shock and thinking. . .
First of all, as a martyr, I can only say that I admire their perseverance and courage, the tenacity of their beliefs that they would sacrifice their own lives to achieve their goals. Really emotional! But it is more about thinking in this way: from their point of view, the abolition of the death penalty is from the perspective of a murderer who has committed mistakes, emphasizing the pricelessness and preciousness of life, emphasizing dignity, and emphasizing the opportunity for reform, Not to mention the human rights of prisoners and whether it is reasonable to abolish the death penalty, because even in this day and age, this is still an issue that can be widely debated. What makes me feel ambiguous and suspicious is this: as two fighters who support human rights and life, they chose to use life as a bargaining chip to complete the bet in safeguarding this cause. Isn't it the greatest blasphemy to their own cause? In order to win the tough battle, I don't know if it's a tragedy or irony, so I can only say that I'm speechless. . . Secondly, from the perspective of female reporters, what they see is the clear distinction between good and evil, professional ethics, and persistence in pursuing the truth. With the contact and understanding of David, the reporter gradually changed from an objective perspective of interviewing to saving From a subjective point of view, in the end, when she tried desperately to save her but was powerless, and saw David's death before her eyes, how guilty and what a blow she must have suffered. It can be said that this mental blow of the female reporter is actually the sacrifice that David and the others must use to realize this cause. Then, because this cause can save more lives if it is successful, they can be reckless and at ease. Is it a premise to inflict a guilt blow on others or even sacrifice one's life? Wouldn't this self-promotion of "sacrificing the ego and fulfilling the big ego" be too self-righteous and overly manipulating the law and public opinion? No one wants to be a sacrificed "ego", because every "ego", no matter how insignificant, has an "ego"!
Therefore, in the final analysis, this film is still a very philosophical discussion, about morality and philosophy, about whether it is possible to do whatever you want with a correct starting point, even if the sword is slanted in terms of methods and methods. You may need to learn more about philosophical thinking and think deeply before you can have a further insight!
View more about The Life of David Gale reviews
