十二怒汉观后感中英版.docx

十二怒汉观后感中英版十二怒汉观后感中英版 十二怒汉整个故事发生在一间陪审团休息室里。 一个在贫民窟长大的 18 岁少年因为杀害自己的父亲被告上 法庭，证人言之凿凿，各方面的证据都对他极为不利。十 二个不同职业的人组成了这个案件的陪审团，他们要在休 息室达成一致的意见，裁定少年是否有罪，如果罪名成立， 少年将会被判处死刑。十二个陪审团成员各有不同，除了 8 号陪审员之外，其他人对这个犯罪事实如此清晰的案子不 屑一顾，还没有开始讨论就认定了少年有罪。8 号陪审员提 出了自己的“合理疑点” ，耐心地说服其他的陪审员，在这 个过程中，他们每个人不同的人生观也在冲突和较量。下 面是中英版的十二怒汉观后感，欢迎阅读。 十二怒汉观后感中英版 第一次看西德尼.美特的十二 怒 ，想到是我看的最好的影片，本片于 1957 年，得了第 7 柏林影金熊以及其他影多提名和，一部女座作品就能得如 此多，可演西德尼.美特定成一名影大。 除了和尾的境交代，全片就是在一小室的景拍完成的， 能在一“枯燥”的境下故事不失精彩，度是相大的，一是 得力于精彩的本，二是得力于出色的演，三是得力于精密 的和度。 本本身的就非常具有可性，一人孤到最後所有人的倒 戈相向，程看上去是一“不可能完成的任” ，但因主角亨利.方 生命的尊重、真相密的剖析、法律公平公正的持、 “怒”之 人的容和醒等等秀的品，最後征服了所有反他的人，并使 各行各麻木之人得到了正的醒。通一的景就明多哲理，且 的相互交不失密、人物定具有典型的代表性，不能不在是 高明。 影片非常具有性，甚至可以修改就能成一部舞本，已 有人做了。因景的固定所以演的表演要求甚高，而了原性， 保持演於角色和的新感，很多都是用了超的一呵成，就要 求演不能出差，但是 12 人的和度免出差，可以看得出很多 是精心排的，尤其是影度的配合需要更加精和密，如果有 一人出差可能就致全重，所以演的表演既要高度又要保持 弛和自然，度一不於真的舞表演。於人物性格的把握各有 千秋，老和方的表演最出色。 本片有一更加突出的特色便是演於把控，面用了多分 的，是很的，有一失就影整部的奏并耗大量拍源，所以在 拍前演做了大量的排，互相“” ，如影走到哪哪演始到哪， 演道或者行到哪影怎的曲到哪，而之光音又要怎配合等等。 路大的考何功底，差的真玩不起。而且在桌上向外的也非 常，涉及到十二人以上的角度，之的切及度有很的也是很 的。但本片正因的度才一密空的不至呆板。 是一部具值的老影，我能和借的地方特多，比如面的 拍和，直到今天在很多影片能到它的影子，些是最最基本 的西，如今某些自“演”的人掌握的如何了? 有本片的自然氛描我想到了雷雨 ，而十二人圈投票 我想起了“人” 。 First look at Sidney. “Lumets Twelve Angry Men“, did not think it was the best I have seen the film dialogue, this movie was made in 1957, won the Golden Bear award at the seventh Berlin Film Festival and other festivals many nominations and awards, a Virgo works can be obtained so much honor, visible director Sidney. He was destined to become a movie master. In addition to the environment at the beginning and end of the film is explained, in a small conference room this scene filmed, in such a “dull“ environment also make the story yet exciting, the difficulty is quite large, this is due to the wonderful script, two is due to the excellent actor. The three lens is due to the precise design and scheduling. The script itself is very readable, from one person to all people are finally fight a lone battle backlash, this process seems to be a “mission impossible“, but because of the protagonist Henry Fonda, respect for life, for the truth of the legal analysis, close fair, adhere to “anger“ the man woke up and so on tolerance and excellent quality, finally conquered all who opposed him, and who has been numb to all walks of life just woke up. Through a simple scene to illustrate a lot of philosophy, and the lines of mutual staggered rigorous careful, character set with a typical representation, can not help but say that the screenwriter is really clever. This film is very dramatic, and even can be easily modified to become a stage play, I heard that some people have done so. Because of the fixed and so on scene actors performance requirements is very high, and in order to restore the continuity, keep on actor roles and lines of freshness, have a lot of play is a long shot one, which requires the actors can not go wrong, but the 12 lines and scheduling will inevitably make mistakes, can see draw a lot of drama is carefully rehearsed, especially with the camera scheduling need more accurate and rigorous, if there is one error might lead to reinvent the wheel, so the actors must attach a few and stay relaxed and natural, a little difficulty is no less than the real stage show. To grasp the character of the old man and each one has its own merits, is the most outstanding fonda. This movie also has a more prominent feature is the director for the lens to control, there are a several minutes long long shot, this is very difficult, a little mistake will affect the entire movie shooting rhythm and spend a lot of resources, so before shooting with the actors to do a lot of rehearsal. Each other “surveillance“, such as the camera to which point which began to move to the point at which the actor, actor said or action where the camera picture how to sweep curve piece, and that between compensation and recording how coordination etc This line will be a great test of the geometry of the foundation, poor math really can not afford to play. But at the time of the meeting on the table outside of the lens design is also very difficult, involving more than twelve people, no switching and scheduling between the logical mind is very strong but also very difficult. But this film is precisely because of the lens scheduling to allow a closed space of the play is not rigid. This is a valuable old movie, we can learn from many places, such as the meeting of the filming of the director and several shots, until see their shadows in a lot of films but also today, these should be the most basic things, now some domestic calls “director“ who know how to? There is the natural environment description reminds me of “Thunderstorm“, while the twelve rim vote reminds me of “killing the game“. 十二怒汉观后感中英版 看了话剧12 个人 ，回来又温 习了下美国 57 年的老电影十二怒汉 。 剧情很简单，一个小孩，电影里是有色人种，话剧里 就没出现，被指控谋杀了亲生父亲。这一家子住在贫民窟， 在一些人眼里世代都是混蛋加恶棍，是天然的犯罪分子。 并且，所有的证据都指向孩子是凶手。法院抽签找来了 12 个陪审员，各色人员什么职业都有，11 个人都认为孩子有 罪，只有亨利方达扮演的建筑师认为有疑问，虽然他也不 是很确定。结果是越来越多的陪审员看出了这案子的疑点， 并表决通过无罪。 结果并不重要，辩论的过程可以一窥民主制度之本质： 捍卫每个人的话语自由权(注意：是每个人应有的与生俱来 的权利，而不是别人恩赐的权力)，无论这个人是年轻还是 年老，是穷人还是富人，是鸿儒还是白丁。民主就是让每 个人都有充分表达自己看法的自由，这个自由是天赋人权。 当然，从这个故事里也可以看到，浑浑噩噩的小民、道德 正义感超强的卫道士或者不明就里的普通百姓都可能被表 象所蒙混，也可能在民主体制下被人操控。所以，我同意， 在社会民众整体素质不高的情况下，实行全体的民主是很 可能失败的，因为许多人的选票抵不上几个馒头，或者许 多人不知道选举是什么，那么苏联解体后公有制转私有制 时出现的大量个人股份被资本家收购的情况，也可能出现 在别有用心的权谋家身上。 中国解放后有过基层民主的实验，那是刘少奇推的， 但由于毛的阻力，没有推下去。现在基层社区的普选，有 很多人说那是走形式，但从积极的意义上来看，这未尝不 是一场民主的普及教育，至少让大家知道选举是怎么个过 程。若干年后你的社区里出现一辆拉票车，架着大喇叭做 宣传的场景，是非常有可能的。这时，民主才真正地融入 普通人的生活中，即民主生活化了。我碰到过好几个台湾 人，无一例外的是，和他们聊台湾民主制度、民选，他们 都不感兴趣，据说台湾的年轻人没几个对政治感兴趣;而在 大陆，在还未实现普选的前提下，政治似乎经常是大家茶 余饭后拿来做谈资的一个话题。这不是因为大陆人就天然 地比台湾人对政治感兴趣，这就好比把你放到青藏高原上， 你觉得氧气太少，得找氧气，但在平原这里，你连空气是 什么都不会关心。这在经济学上叫稀缺资源。当民主生活 化了以后，就成为大家司空见惯、稀松平常的生活一部分， 那么大家的兴趣自然也就低了，还不如谈谈明星的私生活 来得刺激了。 看一下话剧和电影的处理手法，剧情包括台词都如出 一辙，但在场景的氛围营造上，就体现出了两种社会制度 下对民主的不同认识。话剧用的是全黑背景，宽敞而严肃 庄重，表达出一种民主的神圣和对其的膜拜，从一位陪审 员口中说出的对民主的理解，具有明显的宗教意涵。电影 里的场景是一个狭仄的小房间，是一个闷热烦躁的夏日午 后，十二个男人挤在一个狭小空间内，讨论一个大多数人 都认为已成定论的问题，自然是不讨人喜欢的。而这十二 个人中的球迷、汽修厂老板、广告制作人这些职业身份都 顺理成章地有了一个生活化的背景。他们的说话语气也比 较柔和随意，虽然有争论、有对峙，但给人的感觉这是一 个真实的生活场景，他们的争论就是他们生活的一部分。 话剧舞台上的陪审团显然是一个理想化空间，让观众一开 始就想到，在这样一个庄严肃穆的地方，讨论的自然是沉 重的话题，12 个人担负的也是神圣而艰巨的责任。这是一 个宗教化了的场景。我不否认 12 位陪审员的责任是神圣而 艰巨，不过在民主社会里，这份责任已经化为他们生活的 一部分，而不需要用特别的仪式来进行顶礼膜拜。 我想我把民主生活化的问题，应该讲得比较清楚了， 下次再讨论生活民主化问题。 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 everyones right to freedom of speech (Note: should be everybodys 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 individual 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 everyones interest naturally low, rather than talk about the stars 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 divine 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. 十二怒汉观后感中英版 不得不说十二怒汉(12 angry men)(1957 年版)是一部神作，一个半小时的电影中 95%的场景都是在一个小屋子中，围绕在 12 个男人的对话 中，故事不复杂，却跌宕起伏，戏剧张力十足，让我欲罢 不能。 在开庭审理之后，12 位来自社会各阶层，性格各异的 陪审员在一个炎热的午后要决定一个被指控杀害父亲的男 孩是否有罪，大家举手表决，11 人认为男孩有罪，1 位建 筑师(亨利方达饰)认为无罪。由于决议需要全票才能通过， 所以争论由此开始。第一次表决是值得注意的，在男孩的 谋杀案中，有两个目击者，可以说是确凿无疑了，所以人 们难免会对出现一个反对者感到意外，有人问You really think he is innocent?“，建筑师回答I dont know。 有人说这个案件证据确凿，所以问What do you want?，I just want to talk.Were talking about somebodys life here. We cant decide it in five minutes. 建筑师回答。这一个随后持续一个小时的 talk 产生了戏剧性的结果，11 个人被一一说服，最后都认为男 孩无罪。 一 对于陪审制度的利弊，我似乎没有评判的资格。电影 告诉我，12 个背景不同，性格各异的男人有权利决定一个 人的生死，握有这样的权力，你我会怎样做。证据确凿， 有 11 人认为男孩有罪似乎再正常不过，但 11 人做出判断 的原因却各异，有人本身就对贫民出身的孩子抱有偏见， 有人完全相信一切证据，有人根本不关心案情，只想快点 儿结束讨论。一个富有同情心，充满质疑态度的人成了一 个另类，他并不肯定自己的判断，有人问So how come you vote not guilty?，他说：There were 11 votes for guilty. Its not easy to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.Supposing were wrong. 在有些人看来，这个 suppose 和怀疑房子会倒下来一样可笑。但对于一个事关生 死决定的质疑是不可笑的。为何要让司法案件的结果由可 能没有司法知识，甚至没接收过什么教育的人来决定?因为 每个人都可能犯错。正是对目击者证词的质疑与分析，建 筑师使其他人也渐渐意识到案情中的漏洞，从而最后放弃 了自己的误判与偏见，选择了否定一个小时前确凿无疑的 判断。 我们似乎可以轻易指出陪审制度的缺点，一群“无知” 的人们是多么容易犯错啊，如果没有那位“稀罕”的质疑 者，无辜者很可能就被剥夺了生命(例如苏格拉底)，或许 可能正相反，作恶者也可能因此而逍遥法外。其实我也很 容易找出法官制度的问题，如果一个专业的法官一定能够 主持正义，那么司法不公又是怎么回事。 二 质疑在有些人的眼中总是坏事的。或许有些人天生就 没有资格作出评判。国家管理为何不只交给由政治精英和 管理精英组成的政府，司法审判为何不只由法律专家来操 作，立法工作哪又值得普通民众来讨论。没有来自普通人 的干扰，社会岂不安定到极致了，哪来的维稳问题。 但有些文明却偏偏选择了“化简为繁” ，质疑的力量始 终在他们的血液中涌动，这股力量改变了大自然的面貌， 改变了他们的生活方式。 电影就为我们展现了他们的一种生活方式。当 12 个人 中有 11 人认为男孩有罪时，1 个人的质疑仍是有意义的， 因为他有权力独立地作出选择，他的声音可以被听到，甚 至被采纳。他们称那种生活方式为民主。 当我们的先辈在一百年前呼喊着要请来“德先生”和 “赛先生”时，他们是否理解了民主的精神意义，科学的 真正源头，并深刻体味到了那个文明骨子里的那种力量。 关于民主和科学，我们已经历了不少，学习了太多，但时 至今日，有人仍苦恼于我们民主制度的落后，有人仍在思 索我们为什么没有大师。 三 质疑的力量从何而来?对于科学，她起源于人们对于真 理的追求，一种真正的真理，一种人类理性与客观世界的 微妙平衡。时至今日，科学研究似乎仍是少数人的事务， 那群人充满了探索未知领域的激情，加上那么些才华与方 法，他们不难在巨人的肩膀上看的更远。 科学的高门槛足以将让大多数人在她的宏伟殿堂外选 择止步，但民主却天生是为多数人准备的。在影片结尾， 当陪审团的讨论结束后，陪审员们走出法院，各自消失在 纷繁的城市人群之中。不难看到，12 个人背景不同，性格 各异，其中不乏心存偏见、漠不关心和随波逐流者，就是 这群人，最后统一在了一个由同情心发轫的理性判断之下。 人们不是被什么道德准则和社会规范说服的，是理性让人 们认为男孩无罪。此种理性源自于民众之中，并为民众所 接受，并发挥作用，这是对民主的深刻解读。 有人总要质疑民众是否有足够的智慧或理性，他们是 否有资格来质疑“专家”的判断。我要说，如果科学的理 性来自于对纯粹真理的理智判断，那么社会理性则源自于 人们对于人的价值与利益的尊重。人们有质疑的权利，这 在于任何人都没有能力涵括所有人的观点，尊重所有人的 利益，也就是说，在任何人看来，其他人都可能“犯错” 。 有人的地方，就会有分歧。面对分歧，人类有不同的 解决方式，比如“独”裁、比如民主、比如“代表” 。电影 中的小房间是民主形式的大缩影，在其中，观点相互对立， 价值观不断碰撞，正因为如此，12 个人才会是“angry men，而不是”silent men。 “我不同意你的观点，但我 誓死捍卫你说话的权利“，在这样的氛围下，没有人是 silent man，也不会有人人愿意做silent man。当 12 个人最终统一在理性的判断之下时，影片实现了对价值判 断统一性的最好解读。 如果说人类的价值标准深植于理性对于民众价值判断 的统一，那么政治则代表了理性对于不同利益诉求的合理 统一。如果有可能，没有人会在利益诉求上选择沉默;如果 不是迫不得已，没有人愿意使用非文明的方式需求利益的 实现。利益的博弈场便是政治，而博弈的方式则决定了政 治的形态。 历史上总有那么一群人试图以某种名义涵括一切价值 标准，代表一切利益诉求，甚至垄断真理，但他们永远也 做不到这一点，因为每个人都有自己的生活，每个人都有 独一无二的灵魂。 四 不得不谈谈所谓的“无罪推断” ，这是影片结果的逻辑 基础。陪审团所做的一切只不过是推翻了所有证据的合理 性，有人就会想，这足以判定嫌疑人无罪吗?是的，因为” 无罪推断“假定嫌疑人是无辜的，所以当一切指控都不成 立，没有证据能证明他犯罪时，他自然就是无罪的。 我们经常可以在西方电影上看到穷凶极恶的大坏蛋神 气十足地被无罪释放，这是西方”宁可错放三千，不能错 杀一个“的生动写照，有人认为这是他们制度的弊病，或 许是这样，但与”宁可错杀三千，不能放走一个“相比， 哪个更能体现对于人类生命的尊重，这里不言自明。 一部能带来深深思索的电影才是一部好电影，至少对 我来说如此。12 个怒汉平白地向我们展示了一个文明的思 维方式，生活方式，也许我们这个文明尚无令人以那种方 式愤怒的条件，我们是一个传统上含蓄的民族，一个 angry man，同时也是一个 silent man，这是个可笑的矛盾，一个 发生在大多数”公民“身上的笑话。 Have to say “Twelve Angry Men“ (12 angry men) (1957 Edition) is a masterpiece, hour movie in 95% scenes are in a small room, around 12 men in the dialogue, the story is not complicated, but the ups and downs, drama full of tension, let me to stop. In the trial, 12 from all sectors of society, the different characters of the jury to decide a boy accused of killing his father is guilty on a hot afternoon, a show of hands, 11 people think that the boy is guilty, 1 Architects (Henry Fonda ornaments) that no crime. The resolution requires unanimous to pass, so the debate began. The first vote is worth noting that, in the boys murder, two witnesses, can be said to be conclusive, so people will inevitably be surprised by a opponents, someone askedYou really think he is innocent?I dont know, “the architect replied. Some people say that the evidence of this case is conclusive, so askWhat do want ,I just to talking about life here. We cant decide it in minutes. architects answer in want five. The talk, which lasted for an hour at the same time, produced dramatic results. The 11 men were convinced that the boy was not guilty. One I dont seem to have the right to judge the pros and cons of the jury system. The movie tells me that 12 different backgrounds, different personalities of men have the right to decide a persons life and death, with such power, you what I will do. Irrefutable evidence, 11 people think the boy guilty seems to be normal, but 11 people judge the cause is different, some people itself is biased against the poor kid, people totally believe that all evidence, someone doesnt care about the case, just want to hurry the end of the discussion. A compassionate, questioning attitude of the people into an offbeat he is not sure of himself, judgment, someone askedSo how come you vote not guilty? , he said:There were 11 votes for guilty. Its not easy to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.Supposing were wrong. in some people, the suppose and the house will fall down as ridiculous as doubt. But for a matter of life and death decisions are not funny. Why should the outcome of a judicial case be decided by those who may not have the knowledge of justice, or even what they have received?. It is questioned and analysis of eyewitness testimony, the architect makes other people become aware of the vulnerability in which finally gave up their own prejudices and false negative selection, an hour before conclusive judgment. It seems that we can easily pointed out the shortcomings of the system of the people, a group of “ignorance“ is how fallible ah, if not the “rare“ doubt, innocent is likely to be deprived of life (such as Socrates), perhaps on the contrary, the perpetrator may therefore unpunished. In fact, I am also very easy to find out the problem of the judge system, if a professional judge must be able to preside over justice, then judicial injustice is how. Two Doubt is always bad in some peoples eyes. Maybe some people are not qualified to judge. Why not only to the state management by the political elite and the management of the elite composed of the government, the judiciary is not only by the legal experts to operate, which is worthy of the general public to discuss the legislative work. There is no interference from ordinary people, the community will not settle to the extreme, where t