Rather than calling it an environmental-themed film, consider it a legal-themed film. Environmental protection is only a role player in that controversy in this story.
The story is based on a true story. In the 1880s, EAST WOBURN, Massachusetts, had 8 children die of blood cancer in 15 years. Residents suspected that the children were sick because of sewage discharged from two local factories. So the mother of one of the bereaved children turned to civil litigator Jan Schlichtmann to represent the prosecution against the two industrial giants. At first, Jan agreed to be the prosecution's lawyer because he saw the huge economic benefits and publicity effect of winning the case. However, in such an era when environmental protection laws were still poor, the lengthy civil proceedings turned Jan from a young and promising diamond king to a pauper with nothing. Complaining, dismissing, appealing, until resolved, in 8 years, he lost his partner of the year, lost all his belongings, just to win this lawsuit. Although justice was not done at the end of the film, but ended in endless efforts, I still think this is a film worth remembering, not only because of the great significance of this case in the cause of environmental protection, but also because it restores The truth of the legal world is that lawyers are neither evil liars nor omnipotent saviors. To a certain extent, they are just hired labor to help clients solve problems. It is a duty and a duty for him to do his duty faithfully, but it is not a sin if he is powerless, and there is no need to tie the lawyer to justice forever. After all, if the justice of each client costs the life of a lawyer, the price is not only too great, but also unfair to the lawyer.
About this film, tell me three feelings
1. Professional ethics of lawyers
As we all know, there is a strict distinction between factual truth and legal fact. What really happened, even in human memory, may be distorted, not to mention the legal facts obtained through logical reasoning and evidence. Any kind of reenactment would be distorted, and the point of a courtroom confrontation is not to make a documentary with its ups and downs. Both parties came to the court with injuries, hoping that when the problem could be resolved through due process, what a fair court can do is to learn as much information as possible, in the hope of returning justice to the party who has been treated relatively unfairly. This is the sanctity of the law, even the courts. Not the meaning of the existence of lawyers. Lawyers do not work through their own compassion. As said in the movie, "If a lawyer is sympathetic, it is as terrible as a doctor fainting." No patient wants to know that his doctor faints, but many clients at least hope that their own Lawyers sympathize, pity and even lend a helping hand. And this is precisely the most challenging thing about lawyers' professional ethics, because empathy tends to "clouds the eyes." Lawyers rely on professionalism, rationality, and a responsible attitude towards their clients. And this kind of professionalism, in some cases, may run counter to the conscience of a person. Often this is the critical moment to test whether a lawyer has professional ethics. There is no need to put the loss of social morality on the criticism of a profession. After all, both the plaintiff and the defendant have the rights stipulated by the law. What lawyers have to do is not to distort justice, but to maximize their own interests. The parties strive for their legal rights. This is also a major reason why the profession of lawyers has always attracted me. The choice between reason and emotion has always been the most severe test to find the answer.
2. About name translation
The film has multiple translations, forbidden truths, civil action, civil action, fringe of the French Open, and more. It seems that major websites also prefer the name "Civil Action". I think the best translation should be "Civil Litigation", not the fringe of the legal net, etc. "Civil Action" can only show that the translator does not understand the law. First, the English title of the film is "A Civil Action". Anyone who has studied law knows that in English, a civil action refers to civil litigation, which is a professional legal vocabulary. At the same time, the reason why this film has such a plot development is largely because this is not a criminal lawsuit, nor an administrative lawsuit, but a civil lawsuit. In the case of a criminal case, the prosecution would be seated by a team of prosecutors backed by the government. And these teams of prosecutors are funded by the government to investigate and collect evidence, so there will be no cases where the prosecutors themselves go bankrupt in the name of lawsuits. It is translated as "Civil Action", probably because the 15 families who lost their children in the film jointly sued to find out the culprit of polluting the water source, so the translators will interpret it as a feat of citizens rising up. Citizens are the government. But this film is not about a citizen claiming constitutional rights from the government, but a civil lawsuit filed by 15 families, like two local factories suspected of emitting wastewater. As said in the movie, the most important thing in a compensation case is the amount of compensation, which is also a major point that Jan has been attacked by defense lawyers. Justice and money are not mutually exclusive. But it seems that justice does not seem so pure when it is associated with huge economic interests. So, Jan went to great lengths to prove that the pollution in Wuborn was indeed the work of the two factories. And the process of proving the truth has dragged down this confident lawyer. Eight years after another, when Jan got rid of all the anger and injustice, he naturally lost everything he already had. It should be said that at this time, he regained the sanity that a lawyer should have, so he saw again. The scene of water pouring on the table, will suddenly realize. The charm of civil litigation lies in this. In most cases, no one party is absolutely righteous, and some parties are just fighting on their own merits. Therefore, only the name "Civil Litigation" can be regarded as a satisfactory expression of the theme of the film.
3. environmental protection
Various countries have been involved in environmental protection laws for a long time, and most of them are based on principles. If the United States still has an organization such as the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) to supervise it, what about the situation in our country? In China, the idyllic feeling of rural life is difficult to achieve. If it is too remote, the transportation will be inconvenient and the living standard will be too low. If it is slightly developed, it will be full of industrial waste eliminated by the city. In this film, such a situation should occur in small towns in China from time to time. But the law in China, at this stage, seems to only be able to solve individual problems. We are polluting, we all know that, but no one can stop our country's rapid development for any reason. Some people say that this is the third major development in the world. If China cannot catch up this time, it will never catch up. Is it to sacrifice generations or not to develop? This question is too difficult to answer.
Finally, talk about the ending of the story. The movie ends with a scene where Jan writes a letter, and the content of the letter moved me. Because Jan said in his letter to the EPA, hope you pick up where I left off. At this time, this lawyer has no desire for profit and reputation at all. He is not successful, but it is very real. Real life is not even as good as in the movies. A good lawyer met an unfair judge, so the battle started unfairly and continued unfairly until the blood of all the soldiers was drained. If you were looking forward to seeing the legal victory in this movie, you must be disappointed. The law in this movie is incompetent. However, this is an aspect of the law, a very important aspect that everyone needs to know. The law is often incompetent. Eternally powerful characters can only appear in movies, like 007.
In real life, the lawyer lost even more, and he ended up filing for bankruptcy protection and living as far away as Hawaii. I have fought against powerful forces in the society without success. It may be the biggest blow to a confident person, but it must also be the best life experience. I admire him, not only for his bravery, but also because he didn't make it in the end, didn't choose to promote himself, just left.
I think everyone who studies law should know early in their hearts that some things are difficult for the law to overcome, but our morality lets us know what is right, even though we may never see the day when justice is realized . As long as we get closer to that right goal, every step is an achievement, so it is a wise move that the film does not capture the moment of success and celebration, as the lawyer's letter said, I hope you stop by me Continue to the next place.
(I recommend a reading note, which is the original novel of this movie. The author is Jonathan Harr, a well-known legal news documentary writer. I agree with many of these points, and they were written in 2004, which has a nostalgic charm.
http:/ /my.donews.com/dani19/2004/06/22/Reading Notes: a-civil-action/)
Brain Disabled Blog Post http://hmilypty.blogbus.com/logs/32415610.html
View more about A Civil Action reviews
