Chapter 1359: Moral high point
If audio player doesn't work, press Stop then Play button again
Roger Ebert had an in-depth discussion on "Death Row" in this film review. Obviously he has countless ideas to express and discuss the core idea of the whole story. After analyzing the role of Matthew, he He also briefly expressed his views on the death penalty.
"In the movie, the lawyer mentioned a point of view. With the continuous development of human civilization, the method of execution of the death penalty has also been continuously developed from cruel to humane. This shows that the law is constantly improving and compromises are made in safeguarding human rights and dignity. ; The field of application of death penalty is also gradually shrinking, which shows that human understanding of the value of life is constantly refreshing.
However, the debate about whether the death penalty should be abolished has continued. Even in the upcoming election year, the issue of the death penalty is still one of the focuses of attention. In this work, Tim Robbins did not express his views simply and rudely. On the contrary, he only showed the complexity of the death penalty issue from the standpoint of a bystander.
As the prison guard said in the movie, ‘it’s easy to comment on the level of execution. What seems unreasonable or unnecessary on the surface actually has profound theories and long-term experience. 'Perhaps, this is the core idea that Tim wants to express: under a legal system, there will always be differences in outlook on life, values, and world outlook. The system cannot satisfy everyone’s understanding of life, but it is accompanied by history. The advancement and continuous improvement.
Therefore, whether the death penalty will be abolished in the future is still a focus of debate. The'Death Prisoner's Walk' only shows one of the ordinary and unusual cases.
The point of view of the film can be divided into three perspectives, the first is the victim’s family and bystanders; the second is Matthew and Matthew’s family; the third is the nun Helen.
In the film, it is clear that the people who support the death penalty are ordinary people represented by the victims Walter and Hope. There are multiple details in the film that show this. The local newspaper published pictures of the victim’s grief, with the headline “Parents’ Sadness Never Ends”; there was also the story of Hope’s mother when the dentist put his hand in the victim’s rotting Before confirming the dental record of the deceased, he always opposed the death penalty, but after that day, he fully supported the death penalty.
Including ordinary people who reject Matthew, reject Matthew's family, and reject the lawyers and nuns who help Matthew, their attitude towards the death penalty is undoubtedly simple and clear: that is a demon, and he should pay the price for his life.
But for Matthew, before he pleaded guilty, the death penalty did not punish him, because he did not think that he should be sentenced to death at all. It was not until he restored his dignity that he calmly faced the death penalty, including the death penalty. Fear and comfort to family members. But even though Matthew is a vicious murderer, his family is innocent. For them, like Walter and Hope’s family, they have to lose their loved ones.
The confrontation between these two angles is also the biggest contradiction in the movie. When someone kills one's own relatives, all we can think of is revenge, hoping to see the murderer pay the corresponding punishment-life, even at the expense of breaking the law. Solve each other. But when a life ends, can you really let yourself go? Seeing a person's eyes slowly close in front of me, can this really calm me?
The mood of the movie has been hesitating back and forth on this contradictory point. At the end of the story, everyone participates in the ceremony of execution of Matthew like a feast. For some people, this is numb, but for some people. Said it was fun again. But when the audience sees Hugo Lancaster’s amber, desperate, help-seeking eyes, it’s hard for the audience to remain unmoved, just hoping to give him a chance to survive, even if only to let him survive. Life imprisonment. But in a blink of an eye, the movie showed the process of Matthew's murder in a real and cold manner. It was **** and cruel without any temperature. When the sight of the victim finally stayed on the victim's parents, it made the audience feel ashamed of their tears.
This is a mixed and terrible idea. The audience does not want Matthew to die, but he has no reason to live on. When Matthew slowly closed his eyes and died slowly and calmly and cruelly, the victim's family seemed emotionally mixed, because they knew that Matthew's death could not bring their children back to life. For Matthew's mother, she also didn't have a son.
This contradictory point of view was finally condensed to the third perspective, the nun Helen, which became the focus of the whole movie.
As a religious believer, Helen’s view on the death penalty is blurred in this film. She is only defending the dignity of life. She is concerned about how Matthew can achieve the dignity of life, not that Matthew deserves to be treated. Sentenced to death. In Helen's concept, God loves everyone, even if the other party is a death row, even if the other party is a cold-blooded murderer, they have precious things deep in their hearts, so everyone deserves to be respected and listened to. So Helen chose to help Matthew, even she was not sure whether Matthew was really innocent, because it was not important to her.
But Helen’s point of view is difficult to understand by the world. Are murderers as cruel as Matthew really human? It should be a beast! They are not worthy of God's tolerance at all! This also caused Helen to fall into self-doubt.
When Helen faced the victim’s family, they questioned, ‘why do you worry about criminals without thinking that maybe we need you? Faced with such doubts, Helen was painful, struggling, and even more puzzled, especially after she discovered Matthew's racism and other characteristics, she began to doubt herself. But Helen bravely walked into the victim's family and listened to their feelings, but was misunderstood that she changed her attitude and turned to support the victim. When the victim's family found that this was not the case, Helen's situation became even worse.
This is a very realistic problem. In the face of many problems, we always simply look at it as'right or wrong'. It seems that it is either black or white, good or evil, and rudely ignores the hidden possibilities behind things. , Just look at the plight of others coldly from the eyes of a bystander.
Because of a murder incident, Matthew has actually been deprived of all rights by most people-even when the law protects his basic human rights, people will think that he is not worthy to live and he is not worthy to communicate with others. Not worthy of the help of a lawyer, it is strange for anyone to help him-either he is in hell, or is used, or there is a problem with his brain, they will be divided into a line with Matthew, and they will also be affected by the angry public. Questioning and despising.
This is the typical moral high ground. Because people simply didn’t realize whether there was a story behind Matthew, whether Matthew’s family was innocent, whether those who helped Matthew had any hidden secrets, people just stood on the moral high ground and accused the “murderer” to show. Own justice.
But this is obviously ridiculous.
What if Matthew was wronged? Then people will call for procedural justice and call for someone to help him; but if Matthew is really guilty, then people will hysterically call out to kill, even if the other party makes a reasonable defense according to the procedure, people die of patience. At this time, the public's psychology is often, ‘legal procedures are all being manipulated, I just hope that this demon will come to justice soon’.
But people have no real patience to inquire the truth: is it wrong? Is the truth hidden behind the sin? Where did the murderer's crime come from? People do not realize that their indifference and impatience, and their indifference may be one of the sources of crime. Or, people refuse to realize this.
This is also the reason Helen is great. Helen understands the anger of the victim's family, but she insists on some bottom lines in the emotional anger of the public: human dignity is inviolable. Helen also condemned Matthew's crimes and refuted Matthew's sophistry, but she also calmed Matthew's heart, let Matthew confess the crime, and finally walked calmly on Huangquan Road. Let the punishment represented by the ‘death penalty’ truly have meaning.
Should the death penalty really exist?
The collision of the three parties' views still did not give an answer. Of course, the law needs to be rational and humane, but as a system, the law cannot pay attention to the feelings of specific individuals because it must maintain consistency. Most people under the rule of law have no way to discuss and criticize events rationally, nor can they judge whether the parties’ actions are rational and dignified. This is also the meaning of the existence of law.
Law constrains the public’s thinking As a tool to achieve justice, the core proposition of law is whether justice has been done, but the way it is done is a subjective proposition. This proposition cannot be separated from the existence and individuality of individuals. Feelings, and these often determine the limits of thinking.
However, the film still proposes a direction for rational thinking beyond discrimination, prejudice, and hatred for the death penalty, that is, Matthew’s last words before his execution, ‘no matter who it is, killing is wrong. Whether it’s me, you, or the government...’
Indeed, killing is wrong, and no one has the right to end a life. Controlling anger with anger, resisting violence with violence, and resisting life with fate are all trampling on life. Especially deliberate murder.
Our attitude towards death is the mirror that reflects our soul. Helen made the best interpretation with love and perseverance. After all this was over, Helen returned to her place of work. She saw the words written on the wall by the children, "We love you, Sister Helen". This sentence is enough to make her struggle for a lifetime. Humanity may be promoted, and we may also be saved. This is the answer to the question posed by the "Death Row" to the "Seven Deadly Sins".
Calm down and savor the "Death Row", this is the biggest harvest of this movie. Maybe you, maybe me, maybe they all have different ideas. "
Please report us if you find any errors so we can fix it asap!
Roger Ebert had an in-depth discussion on "Death Row" in this film review. Obviously he has countless ideas to express and discuss the core idea of the whole story. After analyzing the role of Matthew, he He also briefly expressed his views on the death penalty.
"In the movie, the lawyer mentioned a point of view. With the continuous development of human civilization, the method of execution of the death penalty has also been continuously developed from cruel to humane. This shows that the law is constantly improving and compromises are made in safeguarding human rights and dignity. ; The field of application of death penalty is also gradually shrinking, which shows that human understanding of the value of life is constantly refreshing.
However, the debate about whether the death penalty should be abolished has continued. Even in the upcoming election year, the issue of the death penalty is still one of the focuses of attention. In this work, Tim Robbins did not express his views simply and rudely. On the contrary, he only showed the complexity of the death penalty issue from the standpoint of a bystander.
As the prison guard said in the movie, ‘it’s easy to comment on the level of execution. What seems unreasonable or unnecessary on the surface actually has profound theories and long-term experience. 'Perhaps, this is the core idea that Tim wants to express: under a legal system, there will always be differences in outlook on life, values, and world outlook. The system cannot satisfy everyone’s understanding of life, but it is accompanied by history. The advancement and continuous improvement.
Therefore, whether the death penalty will be abolished in the future is still a focus of debate. The'Death Prisoner's Walk' only shows one of the ordinary and unusual cases.
The point of view of the film can be divided into three perspectives, the first is the victim’s family and bystanders; the second is Matthew and Matthew’s family; the third is the nun Helen.
In the film, it is clear that the people who support the death penalty are ordinary people represented by the victims Walter and Hope. There are multiple details in the film that show this. The local newspaper published pictures of the victim’s grief, with the headline “Parents’ Sadness Never Ends”; there was also the story of Hope’s mother when the dentist put his hand in the victim’s rotting Before confirming the dental record of the deceased, he always opposed the death penalty, but after that day, he fully supported the death penalty.
Including ordinary people who reject Matthew, reject Matthew's family, and reject the lawyers and nuns who help Matthew, their attitude towards the death penalty is undoubtedly simple and clear: that is a demon, and he should pay the price for his life.
But for Matthew, before he pleaded guilty, the death penalty did not punish him, because he did not think that he should be sentenced to death at all. It was not until he restored his dignity that he calmly faced the death penalty, including the death penalty. Fear and comfort to family members. But even though Matthew is a vicious murderer, his family is innocent. For them, like Walter and Hope’s family, they have to lose their loved ones.
The confrontation between these two angles is also the biggest contradiction in the movie. When someone kills one's own relatives, all we can think of is revenge, hoping to see the murderer pay the corresponding punishment-life, even at the expense of breaking the law. Solve each other. But when a life ends, can you really let yourself go? Seeing a person's eyes slowly close in front of me, can this really calm me?
The mood of the movie has been hesitating back and forth on this contradictory point. At the end of the story, everyone participates in the ceremony of execution of Matthew like a feast. For some people, this is numb, but for some people. Said it was fun again. But when the audience sees Hugo Lancaster’s amber, desperate, help-seeking eyes, it’s hard for the audience to remain unmoved, just hoping to give him a chance to survive, even if only to let him survive. Life imprisonment. But in a blink of an eye, the movie showed the process of Matthew's murder in a real and cold manner. It was **** and cruel without any temperature. When the sight of the victim finally stayed on the victim's parents, it made the audience feel ashamed of their tears.
This is a mixed and terrible idea. The audience does not want Matthew to die, but he has no reason to live on. When Matthew slowly closed his eyes and died slowly and calmly and cruelly, the victim's family seemed emotionally mixed, because they knew that Matthew's death could not bring their children back to life. For Matthew's mother, she also didn't have a son.
This contradictory point of view was finally condensed to the third perspective, the nun Helen, which became the focus of the whole movie.
As a religious believer, Helen’s view on the death penalty is blurred in this film. She is only defending the dignity of life. She is concerned about how Matthew can achieve the dignity of life, not that Matthew deserves to be treated. Sentenced to death. In Helen's concept, God loves everyone, even if the other party is a death row, even if the other party is a cold-blooded murderer, they have precious things deep in their hearts, so everyone deserves to be respected and listened to. So Helen chose to help Matthew, even she was not sure whether Matthew was really innocent, because it was not important to her.
But Helen’s point of view is difficult to understand by the world. Are murderers as cruel as Matthew really human? It should be a beast! They are not worthy of God's tolerance at all! This also caused Helen to fall into self-doubt.
When Helen faced the victim’s family, they questioned, ‘why do you worry about criminals without thinking that maybe we need you? Faced with such doubts, Helen was painful, struggling, and even more puzzled, especially after she discovered Matthew's racism and other characteristics, she began to doubt herself. But Helen bravely walked into the victim's family and listened to their feelings, but was misunderstood that she changed her attitude and turned to support the victim. When the victim's family found that this was not the case, Helen's situation became even worse.
This is a very realistic problem. In the face of many problems, we always simply look at it as'right or wrong'. It seems that it is either black or white, good or evil, and rudely ignores the hidden possibilities behind things. , Just look at the plight of others coldly from the eyes of a bystander.
Because of a murder incident, Matthew has actually been deprived of all rights by most people-even when the law protects his basic human rights, people will think that he is not worthy to live and he is not worthy to communicate with others. Not worthy of the help of a lawyer, it is strange for anyone to help him-either he is in hell, or is used, or there is a problem with his brain, they will be divided into a line with Matthew, and they will also be affected by the angry public. Questioning and despising.
This is the typical moral high ground. Because people simply didn’t realize whether there was a story behind Matthew, whether Matthew’s family was innocent, whether those who helped Matthew had any hidden secrets, people just stood on the moral high ground and accused the “murderer” to show. Own justice.
But this is obviously ridiculous.
What if Matthew was wronged? Then people will call for procedural justice and call for someone to help him; but if Matthew is really guilty, then people will hysterically call out to kill, even if the other party makes a reasonable defense according to the procedure, people die of patience. At this time, the public's psychology is often, ‘legal procedures are all being manipulated, I just hope that this demon will come to justice soon’.
But people have no real patience to inquire the truth: is it wrong? Is the truth hidden behind the sin? Where did the murderer's crime come from? People do not realize that their indifference and impatience, and their indifference may be one of the sources of crime. Or, people refuse to realize this.
This is also the reason Helen is great. Helen understands the anger of the victim's family, but she insists on some bottom lines in the emotional anger of the public: human dignity is inviolable. Helen also condemned Matthew's crimes and refuted Matthew's sophistry, but she also calmed Matthew's heart, let Matthew confess the crime, and finally walked calmly on Huangquan Road. Let the punishment represented by the ‘death penalty’ truly have meaning.
Should the death penalty really exist?
The collision of the three parties' views still did not give an answer. Of course, the law needs to be rational and humane, but as a system, the law cannot pay attention to the feelings of specific individuals because it must maintain consistency. Most people under the rule of law have no way to discuss and criticize events rationally, nor can they judge whether the parties’ actions are rational and dignified. This is also the meaning of the existence of law.
Law constrains the public’s thinking As a tool to achieve justice, the core proposition of law is whether justice has been done, but the way it is done is a subjective proposition. This proposition cannot be separated from the existence and individuality of individuals. Feelings, and these often determine the limits of thinking.
However, the film still proposes a direction for rational thinking beyond discrimination, prejudice, and hatred for the death penalty, that is, Matthew’s last words before his execution, ‘no matter who it is, killing is wrong. Whether it’s me, you, or the government...’
Indeed, killing is wrong, and no one has the right to end a life. Controlling anger with anger, resisting violence with violence, and resisting life with fate are all trampling on life. Especially deliberate murder.
Our attitude towards death is the mirror that reflects our soul. Helen made the best interpretation with love and perseverance. After all this was over, Helen returned to her place of work. She saw the words written on the wall by the children, "We love you, Sister Helen". This sentence is enough to make her struggle for a lifetime. Humanity may be promoted, and we may also be saved. This is the answer to the question posed by the "Death Row" to the "Seven Deadly Sins".
Calm down and savor the "Death Row", this is the biggest harvest of this movie. Maybe you, maybe me, maybe they all have different ideas. "
Roger Ebert had an in-depth discussion on "Death Row" in this film review. Obviously he has countless ideas to express and discuss the core idea of the whole story. After analyzing the role of Matthew, he He also briefly expressed his views on the death penalty."In the movie, the lawyer mentioned a point of view. With the continuous development of human civilization, the method of execution of the death penalty has also been continuously developed from cruel to humane. This shows that the law is constantly improving and compromises are made in safeguarding human rights and dignity. ; The field of application of death penalty is also gradually shrinking, which shows that human understanding of the value of life is constantly refreshing.However, the debate about whether the death penalty should be abolished has continued. Even in the upcoming election year, the issue of the death penalty is still one of the focuses of attention. In this work, Tim Robbins did not express his views simply and rudely. On the contrary, he only showed the complexity of the death penalty issue from the standpoint of a bystander.As the prison guard said in the movie, it's easy to comment on the level of execution. What seems unreasonable or unnecessary on the surface actually has profound theories and long-term experience. 'Perhaps, this is the core idea that Tim wants to express: under a legal system, there will always be differences in outlook on life, values, and world outlook. The system cannot satisfy everyone's understanding of life, but it is accompanied by history. The advancement and continuous improvement.Therefore, whether the death penalty will be abolished in the future is still a focus of debate. The'Death Prisoner's Walk' only shows one of the ordinary and unusual cases.The point of view of the film can be divided into three perspectives, the first is the victim's family and bystanders; the second is Matthew and Matthew's family; the third is the nun Helen.In the film, it is clear that the people who support the death penalty are ordinary people represented by the victims Walter and Hope. There are multiple details in the film that show this. The local newspaper published pictures of the victim's grief, with the headline Parents' Sadness Never Ends; there was also the story of Hope's mother when the dentist put his hand in the victim's rotting Before confirming the dental record of the deceased, he always opposed the death penalty, but after that day, he fully supported the death penalty.Including ordinary people who reject Matthew, reject Matthew's family, and reject the lawyers and nuns who help Matthew, their attitude towards the death penalty is undoubtedly simple and clear: that is a demon, and he should pay the price for his life.But for Matthew, before he pleaded guilty, the death penalty did not punish him, because he did not think that he should be sentenced to death at all. It was not until he restored his dignity that he calmly faced the death penalty, including the death penalty. Fear and comfort to family members. But even though Matthew is a vicious murderer, his family is innocent. For them, like Walter and Hope's family, they have to lose their loved ones.The confrontation between these two angles is also the biggest contradiction in the movie. When someone kills one's own relatives, all we can think of is revenge, hoping to see the murderer pay the corresponding punishment-life, even at the expense of breaking the law. Solve each other. But when a life ends, can you really let yourself go? Seeing a person's eyes slowly close in front of me, can this really calm me?The mood of the movie has been hesitating back and forth on this contradictory point. At the end of the story, everyone participates in the ceremony of execution of Matthew like a feast. For some people, this is numb, but for some people. Said it was fun again. But when the audience sees Hugo Lancaster's amber, desperate, help-seeking eyes, it's hard for the audience to remain unmoved, just hoping to give him a chance to survive, even if only to let him survive. Life imprisonment. But in a blink of an eye, the movie showed the process of Matthew's murder in a real and cold manner. It was **** and cruel without any temperature. When the sight of the victim finally stayed on the victim's parents, it made the audience feel ashamed of their tears.This is a mixed and terrible idea. The audience does not want Matthew to die, but he has no reason to live on. When Matthew slowly closed his eyes and died slowly and calmly and cruelly, the victim's family seemed emotionally mixed, because they knew that Matthew's death could not bring their children back to life. For Matthew's mother, she also didn't have a son.This contradictory point of view was finally condensed to the third perspective, the nun Helen, which became the focus of the whole movie.As a religious believer, Helen's view on the death penalty is blurred in this film. She is only defending the dignity of life. She is concerned about how Matthew can achieve the dignity of life, not that Matthew deserves to be treated. Sentenced to death. In Helen's concept, God loves everyone, even if the other party is a death row, even if the other party is a cold-blooded murderer, they have precious things deep in their hearts, so everyone deserves to be respected and listened to. So Helen chose to help Matthew, even she was not sure whether Matthew was really innocent, because it was not important to her.But Helen's point of view is difficult to understand by the world. Are murderers as cruel as Matthew really human? It should be a beast! They are not worthy of God's tolerance at all! This also caused Helen to fall into self-doubt.When Helen faced the victim's family, they questioned, why do you worry about criminals without thinking that maybe we need you? Faced with such doubts, Helen was painful, struggling, and even more puzzled, especially after she discovered Matthew's racism and other characteristics, she began to doubt herself. But Helen bravely walked into the victim's family and listened to their feelings, but was misunderstood that she changed her attitude and turned to support the victim. When the victim's family found that this was not the case, Helen's situation became even worse.This is a very realistic problem. In the face of many problems, we always simply look at it as'right or wrong'. It seems that it is either black or white, good or evil, and rudely ignores the hidden possibilities behind things. , Just look at the plight of others coldly from the eyes of a bystander.Because of a murder incident, Matthew has actually been deprived of all rights by most people-even when the law protects his basic human rights, people will think that he is not worthy to live and he is not worthy to communicate with others. Not worthy of the help of a lawyer, it is strange for anyone to help him-either he is in hell, or is used, or there is a problem with his brain, they will be divided into a line with Matthew, and they will also be affected by the angry public. Questioning and despising.This is the typical moral high ground. Because people simply didn't realize whether there was a story behind Matthew, whether Matthew's family was innocent, whether those who helped Matthew had any hidden secrets, people just stood on the moral high ground and accused the murderer to show. Own justice.But this is obviously ridiculous.What if Matthew was wronged? Then people will call for procedural justice and call for someone to help him; but if Matthew is really guilty, then people will hysterically call out to kill, even if the other party makes a reasonable defense according to the procedure, people die of patience. At this time, the public's psychology is often, legal procedures are all being manipulated, I just hope that this demon will come to justice soon'.But people have no real patience to inquire the truth: is it wrong? Is the truth hidden behind the sin? Where did the murderer's crime come from? People do not realize that their indifference and impatience, and their indifference may be one of the sources of crime. Or, people refuse to realize this.This is also the reason Helen is great. Helen understands the anger of the victim's family, but she insists on some bottom lines in the emotional anger of the public: human dignity is inviolable. Helen also condemned Matthew's crimes and refuted Matthew's sophistry, but she also calmed Matthew's heart, let Matthew confess the crime, and finally walked calmly on Huangquan Road. Let the punishment represented by the death penalty' truly have meaning.Should the death penalty really exist?The collision of the three parties' views still did not give an answer. Of course, the law needs to be rational and humane, but as a system, the law cannot pay attention to the feelings of specific individuals because it must maintain consistency. Most people under the rule of law have no way to discuss and criticize events rationally, nor can they judge whether the parties' actions are rational and dignified. This is also the meaning of the existence of law.Law constrains the public's thinking As a tool to achieve justice, the core proposition of law is whether justice has been done, but the way it is done is a subjective proposition. This proposition cannot be separated from the existence and individuality of individuals. Feelings, and these often determine the limits of thinking.However, the film still proposes a direction for rational thinking beyond discrimination, prejudice, and hatred for the death penalty, that is, Matthew's last words before his execution, no matter who it is, killing is wrong. Whether it's me, you, or the government...'Indeed, killing is wrong, and no one has the right to end a life. Controlling anger with anger, resisting violence with violence, and resisting life with fate are all trampling on life. Especially deliberate murder.Our attitude towards death is the mirror that reflects our soul. Helen made the best interpretation with love and perseverance. After all this was over, Helen returned to her place of work. She saw the words written on the wall by the children, "We love you, Sister Helen". This sentence is enough to make her struggle for a lifetime. Humanity may be promoted, and we may also be saved. This is the answer to the question posed by the "Death Row" to the "Seven Deadly Sins".Calm down and savor the "Death Row", this is the biggest harvest of this movie. Maybe you, maybe me, maybe they all have different ideas. "
