Review of the Fifth Commandment Killing Short Film

This short film about killing people makes me want to say something.

How to become a good work, from different angles, has different value judgments. In my opinion, arousing people's thinking is the primary value of a good work. Keith's short film about murder is just such a film that asks us questions.

Thinking 1: Do people have the right to judge others?

The story of the film can be summarized in one sentence: a young man killed a taxi driver and was sentenced to hang. If you hear such a story at ordinary times, a person sentenced to death for murder will probably feel justified, not to mention how he felt when he saw Jacek hanged. Express my feelings by the lawyer's last sentence: I hate them. I don't hate judges, but I hate trials based on law.

From the previous religious trial to the current legal trial, I don't think this shows any qualitative leap in human civilization, because it is still based on violence and autocracy. Athena established a court based on justice, so people began to slaughter people with shining words of justice. We will have our own value judgments, such as not killing people, not cheating, not stealing, which restricts us to do something. Who will punish a person for doing something wrong? Conscience will punish. If we think that a person has done something wrong, but he doesn't think that he has done something wrong and has not been whipped by his conscience, he uses violence to punish others or even deprive them of their lives. What is the difference between this and the nature of Nazism?

Someone brought an adulteress before the Lord and asked her to be stoned to death. The Lord said that only innocent people can judge her, but no one can stone her. I even think that as long as it is the same person, it is not qualified to judge others.

"Since the promulgation of the law, people's crimes have not decreased." Since the law has not played a practical role, is it natural for people to take people by law?

Thinking 2: Good and evil?

What kind of person is the driver? He will feed stray dogs and clear the way for children; But he is lewd and always plays tricks on others with malicious intent.

What kind of person is Jacek? Love his sister and family, sometimes as simple as a big child; But he kills people and steals other people's cars and money.

All represent the normal state of human beings. We divide human nature into good and evil, and each of us is a synthesis of good and evil, but in different forms, some are pranks and some are murders. Evil is evil, there is no big evil and little evil.

Thinking 3: Fate?

What caused the death of the driver? Jacek's sister had an accident, a stone, the old woman watching pigeons in the square, the driver himself (naughty refused to pick up two passengers, and finally made Jacek his last passenger), and the cow heard the distress signal instead of the cyclist. The passing of the train became the best cover at the crime scene. All the details are fatal. Did the fortune teller's curse come true? Was Jacek punished for his sister's death or for the driver's bad behavior? Neither. Everything may or may not happen. Fate is fate, which does not carry all the moral explanations people want.

Many questions have been thought about, but there are no answers. I really think this is a good movie. Because I don't think the law is qualified to judge people, and the logic and cause and effect of conviction can't make a fair judgment at all, so I can imagine the embarrassing situation in reality.

Don't forget to mention the movie soundtrack. Keesh's movie soundtrack always works well and naturally with movies.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"You shouldn't kill people."

Five commandments: You shouldn't kill anyone.

This is a famous one of the Ten Commandments, which is a little different from the previous one. First of all, its plot is not as simple as the previous ones, but very simple. A boy killed someone, and then another group of people killed him in the name of the law. Compared with the previous films, there is a mystery hidden in the plot setting. This time, because of the shock of the event itself, the director prefers the event itself rather than exploring it in a complicated way. Secondly, contact the last one, although the director's consistent theme about fate and people can be found in the middle of this film (in the first episode, the man who warmed himself appeared again, standing in front of the ruler in the middle of the road, his eyes were still pitiful before the boy killed, shaking his head as if nothing had happened. It seems that he was the one who carried the ladder before the execution. ), but the director's sub-topic this time-who has the right to end another person's life, is almost equal to his mother's topic, and the sub-topics of previous films are almost too close to the mother's topic to distinguish clearly, which is probably the reason why this film was later pulled out and filmed separately. Indeed, it is so unique.

The first is the unique image style. If you still remember, the first four films were basically conducted in a cold and white tone, but this one started to turn yellow with memories. Once the boy who wants to kill later appears in the picture, the empty edge around the boy in the lens will be blurred into black. In addition to giving people a sense of highlighting the boy, there are some blurred shots around him, and even giving people a feeling of squinting. But when the first killing ended and the second killing began, the camera completely returned to the white cold and hard style in the past, especially when the death penalty was executed, which almost smelled like the final autopsy of One Reality by Yu Hua, as if the camera itself was a deadpan on-site prosecutor. But after this scene, when I saw the last bitter lawyer, the camera returned to a kind of warmth, which seemed to be a comfort to the suffering people.

The second uniqueness lies in that compared with other films, this film not only has a consistent philosophical meaning, but also has realistic criticism. For example, the monologue of the lawyer who passed the qualification examination at the beginning of the film can be regarded as Ke Yan's own voice:

"The law should not imitate human nature, and the law should improve it to regulate the relationship between individuals. Nowadays, we and our way of life are the result of legal operation. Whether we abide by it or violate it, human beings are free. His freedom is within the scope of not interfering with another person's freedom. Punishment? Punishment is a kind of revenge, especially when the purpose of punishment is to hurt criminals rather than prevent them from committing crimes. But the current law may be retaliatory. Is it really for innocent people? Is the legislator really innocent? "

No word has anything to do with religion, but with God. A series of cross-examination are aimed at the real law itself. But the problem is that when these questions are put forward and return to the ultimate, people still have to ask why the law conflicts with people. Why is the law not for crime prevention but for revenge? Is this law a crime in itself? Therefore, God, who has never spoken, still wants to appear as an arbitrator.

Some time ago, the Wang case has been hotly discussing the abolition of the death penalty. Here, I won't specifically talk about the death penalty, just movies. The director is always cold, but he arranges lawyers to appear and endorse him-it is hard to imagine that Ji will be impatient, but then again, if he is still calm and flashing cold light on this issue of life, I am afraid he is not a saint but a non-human. A lawyer who embodies rationality is an emotional person. The judge said you were too sensitive to be a lawyer. Do lawyers have to be machines when I'm cold?

Boys have almost no motive to kill, which can only be understood as the painful catharsis after human indifference. He loves children, no matter the little girl who models for people in the square or the primary school students who leave school in front of the cafe, he will show a rare smile when he sees them, but at other times, even the old lady in the square will scold him for no reason. When he threw stones mischievously, when he drove away the pigeons and knocked the man in the toilet to the ground, those eyes that finally got attention made him feel happy. As for killing people, there is a bigger prank, which is no different from the last one. He is not nervous, and he is almost as calm as tying his shoelaces when preparing the rope. He is extremely cruel when he kills people, and the evil side of human nature is vividly reflected. Even if the director expressed sympathy for his death, he didn't avoid every cruel detail of his murder-being sympathetic doesn't mean he is innocent. Before he died, he revealed to his lawyer that he only wanted to see him because he called his name Jackie, which made him feel less alienated.

The driver in the film is mediocre, even a little bad. He looked at the coquettish girl in the neighbor, the passenger who didn't manage money, and scared away other people's dogs with his horn. But when he threw the cheese to a dog and waited for the child to cross the road at the zebra crossing, you still thought this person was a little cute. There are two considerations for killing him. First, everyone has some small shortcomings and valuable things, and no one has the right to finally judge others. Secondly, while the driver was still complaining about a rag that hit him this morning, he soon became the victim of a murder. Yes, back to the subject, the impermanence of fate.

It's also murder. Why does the director sympathize with the former and criticize the latter? Because the crime of the former is carried out under the condition of human nature, it is a manifestation of evil, and the criminal himself does not know the horror of its evil. Then, when the court sentenced the boy to death, it showed that they knew how big the crime of murder was, but they still insisted on killing, even on the grounds of killing to protect themselves from being killed! When Kierkegaard exposed the absurdity of this fact, why not treat it differently?

In the last warmth of the film, the desperate lawyer shouted: I hate you! Who does he hate? Is it a system? Or the person who implements the system? For example, the executioner of the death penalty, when he saw his professional and skillful inspection of hanging instruments, I couldn't help thinking of adolf eichmann, the Nazi officer stained with the blood of countless Jews. In fact, in the eyes of his colleagues, they are all excellent and qualified civil servants with high efficiency, but they are indifferent to figures and instruments, as if they are just irrelevant data or factory equipment, and they can't see the life behind them. Stalin said that killing one person is a tragedy, and killing one million people is a statistic. Behind the dead, it is the alienated machine of Taiwan Province people. They are all functioning normally, but they are not people.

The film mentioned the child more than once, Jackie's sister, the girl smiling outside the glass window, the girl in the square and the young lawyer in the photo studio. From the conversation, we can know that he has just become a father. Is the light at the end hope? Is it a child?