染雾十二怒汉观后感英语 篇一
After watching "12 Angry Men," I was deeply moved by the power of dialogue and the importance of standing up for what one believes in. The film, directed by Sidney Lumet, takes place almost entirely in a jury room, where twelve jurors are deliberating the fate of a young man accused of murder.
The film explores themes of prejudice, justice, and the power of persuasion. Each juror has their own biases and preconceived notions about the case, but as the deliberations progress, they start to question their initial judgments. The film beautifully captures the transformation of these twelve men from being strangers with different opinions to a united force seeking the truth.
One of the aspects that struck me the most was the power of dialogue. The film shows how open and honest discussions can challenge our assumptions and change our perspectives. The jurors engage in heated debates, presenting their arguments and counterarguments, and as a viewer, I found myself getting emotionally invested in their conversations. It made me realize the importance of listening to different perspectives and engaging in respectful conversations to reach a fair and just decision.
Furthermore, "12 Angry Men" highlights the significance of standing up for what one believes in, even in the face of opposition. Juror number eight, played brilliantly by Henry Fonda, is the only juror initially convinced of the defendant's innocence. Despite facing hostility and resistance from the other jurors, he persists in presenting his doubts and challenging their assumptions. His unwavering conviction and determination to seek the truth inspired me to have the courage to stand up for my beliefs, even when it may be unpopular or challenging.
The film also sheds light on the issue of prejudice. Several jurors hold biased views towards the defendant based on his race and socio-economic background. As the deliberations progress, these prejudices are confronted and debunked, revealing the dangers of making judgments based on stereotypes. The film serves as a reminder to question our own biases and to not let prejudice cloud our judgment.
In conclusion, "12 Angry Men" is a thought-provoking film that explores the power of dialogue, the importance of standing up for what one believes in, and the dangers of prejudice. It reminded me of the significance of open conversations, critical thinking, and the courage to challenge the status quo. This film serves as a timeless reminder for all of us to seek truth and justice in our everyday lives.
十二怒汉观后感英语 篇二
"12 Angry Men" is a gripping courtroom drama that delves deep into the human psyche and highlights the flaws and strengths of the justice system. Directed by Sidney Lumet, the film presents a story of twelve jurors who must decide the fate of a young man accused of killing his father.
The film takes place almost entirely in a small jury room, which adds to the intensity and claustrophobia of the narrative. As the jurors deliberate, their individual biases, prejudices, and personal baggage come to the surface, creating tension and conflict among the group. The film brilliantly captures the dynamics of group decision-making and the power of persuasion.
One of the aspects that stood out to me was the exploration of the flaws within the justice system. The jurors are selected randomly, representing a cross-section of society. However, their biases and personal experiences heavily influence their decision-making process. This raises questions about the reliability of the justice system and the potential for injustice to occur. The film serves as a reminder that justice is not always objective and that personal biases can cloud judgment.
Furthermore, "12 Angry Men" highlights the importance of empathy and understanding. As the jurors engage in heated debates, they begin to understand the significance of the defendant's life hanging in the balance. They start to question their initial judgments and consider the implications of their decision. The film showcases the power of empathy to challenge prejudice and change hearts and minds.
The film also explores the theme of moral courage. Juror number eight, played by Henry Fonda, is the lone dissenter who initially believes in the defendant's innocence. Despite facing intense pressure and ridicule from the other jurors, he stands firm in his convictions and challenges their assumptions. His moral courage serves as a beacon of hope and inspiration, reminding us of the importance of standing up for what is right.
In conclusion, "12 Angry Men" is a thought-provoking film that raises important questions about the justice system, prejudice, and the power of empathy. It serves as a reminder of the flaws within our legal system and the importance of critical thinking and moral courage. This film left a lasting impact on me and reinforced the significance of seeking truth and justice in our society.
十二怒汉观后感英语 篇三
Russian version has a strong sense of subtlety.
I never love political overtones, did not think this movie was involved in a war of national social factors and so on, more than two hours of film has let me unable to stop procrastinating, do something else, watch more than 8 hours, it was very.
The story is a Chechen boy killed stepfather was brought to court, 12 jurors in a small room from only one person that he was innocent, the people put forward all kinds of evidence of doubt, finally everyone voted innocent boy. Almost everyone's background, ideas, opinions, etc..
I do not say this movie is good or not, anyway, for political white ethnic confrontation problem has always been an insulator. It is said that after the first vote, there was a man who was not guilty, because he thought he could not be so hasty to send the child to the guillotine, so he proposed to carry out second anonymous voting, a person has also been acquitted.
In this section I can not understand, though it should be the expression of real name and anonymous can change a person's decisions, do not blindly follow the crowd, but after the voting, the people immediately stand out is their own investment, which will soon be exposed "defection", also really can. In particular, the argument is not to take the child's life away.
Hea
rd that the black and white version 1957 better, so the next day is the turning point of view.
From the rhythm, indeed very good grasp. Pinch out all kinds of unnecessary plot, is completely 12 people for each child to put forward their own justifications.
Everything is at the center: if the child is likely to be innocent, he should not be convicted of the crime.
The United States Justice, I have seen in the description of Linda to be truly understand, this movie is very perfect to show the American judicial philosophy: I would rather let one thousand, not kill the wrong one.
In this story, every juror has no name, did not find out who is the real murderer, (because the Russian version of the real estate business, demolitions) discrimination the boy's identity is a slum origin, rather than racial conflicts......
Until the last we walked out of the court, there are only two of the most important to insist on the innocent boy reported the name of each other, no phone, no address, there will be no intersection. From the people, back to the people.
Space seems to be better.
十二怒汉观后感英语 篇四
Read the drama "12 people", and came back to review the United States under the old film of the year twelve, "the anger of the 57 Han".
The story is very simple, a child, the film is colored, the drama did not appear, was accused of murdering his father. The family lived in the slums, in the eyes of some people from generation to generation are criminals and bad ass villain, natural. And all the evidence points to the child as the murderer. The draw for the 12 jurors, all staff have what occupation, 11 people think children guilty, only Henry Fonda architects think of doubt, although he is not very sure. As a result, an increasing number of jurors saw the suspect in the case and voted to pass.
The result is not important, the process can glimpse the essence of Democracy: defend everyone's right to freedom of speech (Note: should be everybody's birthright, rather than the gifts of others, power) this person is either young or old, poor or rich, or who is ru. Democracy is the freedom to give everyone the full expression of their views. Of course, from this story can also be seen, small people, muddle along without any aim of moral justice or a sense of super guard unknown to the ordinary people are likely to be the representation of fudge, may also be in the democratic system under control. So, I agree, in the overall quality of the public is not high, the democracy is likely to fail, because many people vote not worth several Steamed Buns, or a lot of people do not know what is the election of a large number of inpidual shares, so after the collapse of the Soviet Union to the public ownership of private ownership by capitalists acquisition the situation may also occur in the family who have an ulterior motive power.
After the liberation of China, there have been grassroots democracy experiment, which is Liu Shaoji pushed, but because of the resistance of the hair, did not push down. Now the community election, there are a lot of people say it is a formality, but from a positive point of view, this is not a democratic education, at least let everyone know how is the process of election. After a few years of your community appeared in a car with the big horn canvassing, do propaganda scenes, is very likely. At this time, democracy really into the lives of ordinary people, that is, democratic life. I met several people, without exception, and they talk of democracy in Taiwan, elected, they are not interested in, it is said that the Taiwan few young people are interested in politics; but in the mainland, in the premise of not achieve universal suffrage, politics seems to often is a topic of gossip for you talk about the. This is not because, people naturally than Taiwanese people interested in politics, just like to put you in the Qinghai Tibet Plateau, you think too little oxygen, need oxygen, but in the plain here, you will not care about what the air is. This is a scarce resource in economics. After the democratic life, everyone has become commonplace, It is quite common for a part of life, so everyone's interest naturally low, rather than talk about the star's private life is stimulated.
Look at the handling of drama and movies, including the plot lines are exactly the same, but in the scene of the atmosphere, it reflects the different understanding of democracy under the two kinds of social systems. The drama is full of black background, spacious and solemn, express a kind of democracy and the pine worship, understanding of democracy from the mouth of a jury in the mouth, with the obvious meaning of religion. The scene is a small room with a narrow, is a sultry fidgety summer afternoon, twelve men crowded in a small space, discuss a majority of people think a foregone conclusion, nature is not love. And one of the twelve fans, boss, advertisers are logical to have these occupation identity of a life of the background. Their tone of voice is also relatively soft and casual, although there are arguments, confrontation, but to give the feeling that this is a real life scene, their argument is part of their lives. On the stage of the jury is clearly an ideal space, let the audience start to think, in such a solemn place, the nature is a heavy topic, 12 people take is also sacred and arduous responsibility. This is a religious scene. I do not deny the 12 jurors responsibility is sacred and arduous, but in a democratic society, this responsibility has been a part of their lives, without the need for a special ceremony to worship.
I think I should make it clear that the issue of democratic life, the next time to discuss the issue of democratization of life.
