Fair point well made

Rating: 9/10 (22 March 2016)

I haven't watched a film like this in years, it feels like ice cubes constantly slipping down my back, and it still have its wonderful impact on me although I love commercial films and am all for new filming technologies. I feel obliged to praise it without conservation.
This is a typical example of minority influence: a single person sticking to his point gradually change everyone's opinion. The process is more than intriguing. I initially feel like the guys that vote for guilty are the kind of guys that vote for Donald Trump: ignorant, single-minded, stubborn, indifferent, selfish, occupied by stereotypes and prejudices, and always ready to comply. But as the film proceed, I gradually feel the warmth and intelligence that they possess, and to watch this amazing glare of humanity gradually brought out by the architect is most pleasant. It is a grandiose fight between calmness and arbitrariness, indifference and mercy, critical thinking and groupthink, equality and prejudice, "supposition" and "facts".
The most startling technique this film uses is the transformation from above eyesight wide-angle shots to at eyesight level close-up shots. This change of distance between the camera to the audience makes the tempo tenser, and attracts significantly more attention to their points. Like many, I was not into the film in the first five minutes, but the longer I watched, the more my emotions were swayed by different points of view. Yet I wasn't even aware of it before I read it here. It is a very startling invention indeed.
My favorite shot in the movie is when the man talked about how "they" are born to be villains, or how "they" naturally have the violent tendencies, all the juries walked from their seats one by one to show quiet disagreement. The impact was like shoving a bottle of icy soda into my chest, I was so touched that I started clapping my hands. Although racism might be a reason why all of them vote for guilty in the first place, the knowledge eventually dawned on them that this is wrong. My psychology teacher taught us that prejudices often occurs unconsciously. As soon as it is dragged from the shadow of unconsciousness to the level of reasonable judgment, its flaws immediately reveal themselves. The man remained silent for the rest of the film.
Although I wonder whether they caught the true murderer or not, it is fairly clear that the boy wasn't necessarily the murderer. He could be, but he didn't deserve to be sent to death sentence immediately. My friend said that she suspected the murderer to be the architect, I'd say is fairly reasonable, or why would he bought an identical knife in the neighborhood? But anyway, the architect successfully avoided murdering an innocent boy with silence, I will give him a round applause for that.