In modern societies, where rules and institutions are used to pursue basic logic, the main core point is rules, and the so-called rules that protect the legitimate rights and interests of the majority of people have, in a sense, become the prerequisite for social stability. If the rules are broken, we may be faced with a disaster.
The rules are only the most favorable option for the majority of people, but when they are applied to an individual, it can sometimes seem inhumane.
This is one of the trials and choices that many criminal cases face during the investigation process. The rule of law allows us to treat criminals equally, but the downside is obvious: in many cases, the perpetrator is not necessarily a bad person in life.
In many cases, the offender is not necessarily a bad person in life. However, it is not a good idea to be fair to the law when it is humane. Whether it is humane or legalistic, I believe that everyone who actually faces real cases has their own natural judgment. This judgment can often change a person’s life. For example, the movie we recommend to you today is “Sin Jianlan”.
Sin Jianlan is a Mongolian film, after Wang Quan’an’s Dinosaur’s Egg, which seems to be the first Mongolian film we have been exposed to in recent years. This film is a bit earlier, but we can also get a sense that Mongolian cinema is essentially a kind of sound feedback from the Eastern civilization.
Of course, the costumes and props in the film are still somewhat similar to those in China, so the basic emotion of the film can still resonate. Although not completely understood linguistically, there is some visual affinity.
Sin Jianlan is a story about the choice between law and human emotions. A mother alone with two children, one day, is confronted with the situation of her eldest daughter and the ghost of a young drug dealer.
She can’t take it anymore and finally finds the young man’s lair. However, during the confrontation, the mother accidentally kills the youth, tries to cover up the evidence of the crime, packs him into a large suitcase and drives to the mountains to finally bury him.
Later, the mother also came into the attention of the police after they received a 911 call from the youth’s father. The police officer who led the case, however, lost his own child because of his own leniency.
Therefore, when faced with this kind of incident, the police officer has always had a difficult time in his mind, even though he is known for his impartiality. However, when faced with this dilemma, the police had a choice to make. Whether to let the mother go or to uphold his own legal justice, the police officer’s choice becomes the key to this film.
It’s a simple case, and it’s simple because any outcome of the film is predictable. Because it is a logical and straightforward narrative in itself.
This film is a good touch point for us to understand Mongolian cinema. Because often we know very little about Mongolian cinema. The scenes in this film and the various logics of reality can help us shorten this journey.
It is a simple story with a bit of a mix of plot and style, and we can see a lot of traces of other countries’ movies, such as Korean movies. In the crime film genre, we see the imprint of Korean films deeply rooted in this film.
For example, the killing and burying of a corpse, the police’s reasoning about the case, and so on. If you have seen “Manslaughter to Hide the Truth”, the flavor of Indian cinema also comes out. It is also for the sake of one’s own children, and it is also a great film that uses family ties to show greatness. Although the film is not as well conceived, the result is positive. The bad guys are distinguished from the good guys, and eventually they all find their own destiny.
But please note that the destination here is the one in this film, which is based on the Mongolian environment. If it were in another country, the ending of the film might have been different. Because we want to discuss the choice between legalism and rationalism, the answers given in this film are neutral.
If you look at it from the legal point of view, then it is not a victory for justice, but if you look at it from the legal point of view, then it is unconvincing that no one is responsible for the destruction of the family, and that the emphasis is on the punishment of the perpetrators and not on the suffering of the victims.
However, when you look at it from the victim’s point of view and analyze it from a rational point of view, the film still has its good and bad points. The bad guys are punished, but the good guys are punished in ways that are not normal. This method is also worth discussing. Therefore, we cannot generalize whether it is legal or rational. If the conclusion is centered purely on the good guys and bad guys, the film does it.
However, the question arises as to who should set the standard for good guys and bad guys, or whether the person who sets the standard is absolutely fair. This is an infinite loop. We can certainly hope that the executors are absolutely fair, but such absolute fairness itself is relative.
If there were absolute justice, then the old policeman’s choice would be less tedious. When we sympathize with the weak, however, the very existence of absolute justice itself is questionable. It is again a matter of choice.
Thus, at all times throughout history, absolute justice has been based on the sacrifice of some. Most of the time, we divide people into victims and those with the greatest vested interests, which speaks volumes about the relative justice that our entire society espouses. The question of justification or reasoning will continue to be asked.
Recent Comments