tearjerker director

A movie like "Twelve Angry Men" is a dialogue-based movie, and it is also plot-oriented. It will definitely involve all aspects, and even be interpreted by many people as something that even Li Yi himself did not expect.

Especially for the key figure No. 8, various interpretations have been extended.

"Awesome, so awesome. I feel like the whole movie is a real-life version of various strategies!"

"Like what?"

"For example, combining hardness and softness, such as making friends at a distance and attacking closely, and knowing yourself and your enemy!"

"Stop talking about it, there are also things like secretly infiltrating Chencang, playing hard to get, killing three people with one peach, turning against the guest, etc."

"Why do I feel like we're not watching the same movie?"

And in fact?
In fact, these things are completely justified by public opinion and mother-in-law said by mother-in-law. This kind of interpretation does not need to be too rigorous. It only needs to be self-justifying and logically consistent.

Film critics soon gave relevant interpretations.

"If "[-] Angry Men" starts from the single role of Juror No. [-] played by Chen Weijie and puts aside everything else and only talks about strategy, it is really wonderful.

First of all, we need to know that in order to convince the eleven jurors, Juror No. 8 can be said to have used different strategies. You are soft and you are tough, you are tough and you are soft, and you use your strength to fight.For those who are taciturn and think seriously or whose logic is clear on the surface but not actually thinking seriously, fully grasp the mature logical argument and persuade them directly without giving in, or use the opportunity to highlight the correctness of their logic and gain trust, for example, in face-to-face interviews For No. 12, keep questioning him until he says, "No one can confirm that - the witness will not make mistakes, and we are not making a scientific argument"; for those who are controlled by emotions, create silence, avoid their sharp edges, and use group pressure , highlighting their irrationality, such as the attitude towards No. 3 and No. 10 in many cases; fully amplifying and exploiting the inconsistencies between them to cause internal disputes, wait and see what happens, and get more arguments and support that are beneficial to you. For example, when No. 5, who was born in a slum, had a dispute with others about his origins, there were many cases where everyone was allowed to discuss each other without rushing to express their opinions, although sometimes he had actually already Have mature opinions.

Let’s start from the beginning. What did he use in the beginning?It shows weakness to the enemy.

Why do you say that?

Eleven people raised their hands to say they were guilty, but he did not.

When being attacked by a group, he chose to show weakness to the enemy. In fact, we can see from the subsequent plot that he actually had a deep study of the case, such as questioning the evidence in advance. and preparation to persuade others.

Therefore, he just showed weakness and said, I don't think he is innocent, but it took a few minutes to make a verdict without discussion. Isn't it a bit hasty?

Yes, he just wanted to discuss it. At this time, everyone was thinking about how to convince him, rather than how to be convinced by him.

Because the disparity between the enemy and ourselves is too great, 11:1!
In such a situation, if he were to be tough, he would definitely be attacked by a group of people!
Of course, in some cases, it is necessary to use force against force, but the joints must be hit to make them unable to avoid and turn around.When you have a trump card in your hand that refutes the opponent's logical basis or basic evidence, you purposely push the opponent to the last step, and then strike accurately to fundamentally knock down the opponent's logical confidence. Faced with the evidence of the murder weapon presented by No. 3, No. 8 will take it The most confident and unexpected argument came out, a folding knife that was exactly the same as the murder weapon, and he only took out the murder weapon after forcing everyone's evidence from general "originality" and "criminal record" to the murder weapon.

So why can he have the confidence to convince these eleven people?The answer is, know yourself and the enemy!
Eleven opponents form an opposition group, which is actually divided into two parts, the core opponents and the support personnel. When reflected in the individual, the role of the group is reflected in two types - social facilitation and social inhibition. The former refers to In group activities, the efficiency of individual activities is improved due to the influence of other members of the group. On the contrary, the efficiency of individual activities is weakened due to the influence of other members of the group.To put it more simply, some people get excited when they see a lot of people, and some people get discouraged when they see a lot of people.To divide, disintegrate, and persuade this group, we must use debate to fully expose and understand the composition structure and member personalities of the opposing group, and use a targeted combination of language, emotions, and logic.

Through a series of votes and a series of conversations, he carefully observed the other eleven people. He knew that the evidence he questioned was not enough to completely overturn the guilty argument, but through observation, he could find allies among them!That is, among these eleven people, he is the player with a socially-enabled personality.

Therefore, when facing helpers, those with a social-enhancing personality can inspire their heroic sense of responsibility. For example, when No. 6 asked the elderly No. 9 seriously for their opinions, it prompted them to fully express their unique opinions; social inhibition If you have a typical personality, you can reduce the pressure of responsibilities on them, give them attention, and improve their confidence and enthusiasm for participation by praising and providing opportunities to express their expertise. For example, for No. 2 who wears glasses and No. 5 who was born in a slum, during the discussion When the tram passed by, No. 8 specifically asked for their opinions, giving No. 11, who paid attention to grammar, the opportunity to vote not guilty and be fully taken into account and express their opinions.There is also a group of lazy people, people who just want to follow the crowd. For them, pressure must be given and used. Two kinds of pressure - the pressure of being responsible and thinking, and the pressure of being eager to end. When discussing where the knife penetrated, 8 No. 12 specifically asked No. 7 and No. 7, which directly caused No. [-] to easily change his vote to "not guilty".

For core opponents such as No. 10 and No. 3, you can leave and shelve them, reduce passion and motivation, and avoid possible blind paranoia. For example, when discussing why the child went back to get the knife, No. 10 was very excited and accused everyone, and No. 8 Instead of arguing with them, they suggested voting again to alleviate their paranoid mood; those with socially inhibited personalities can close the psychological distance or persuade them through attention, understanding and active understanding, which makes many think seriously. After agreeing to "not guilty", the opposition with firm opinions became a very important force in the "not guilty" side and raised many new questions.

At the same time, make good use of group pressure. When you are in a weak position, avoid group pressure. For example, using a secret written vote for the second time will prevent those who agree from being afraid to agree to acquittal due to group pressure, and use the opportunity to rely on "empathy." Gained more support.

For this reason, he successfully opened up the situation and obtained an extremely crucial vote, vote No. 9!From 1 to 2, or from 0 to 1, this is a very critical process.

And when one's own side has the upper hand, it can give full play to the role of group pressure: emphasizing the fact of the dominant position, and using silence to intensify the pressure. In a state of silence, emotional pressure is often greater.When there were only three guilty votes in the end, everyone ignored the emotional No. 10, which made this old man with a social-enhancing personality become cowardly and powerless.

Make the most of your strengths and avoid your weaknesses!

In fact, how do you get someone to change their mind?
In other words, how to make a person confident?

For example, No. 5 has always had low self-esteem because he was born in a slum. Even if he skipped the job later, in fact, he was still not confident at this moment.

why?
Because the things he was talking about were not what he was good at.

So, when it came to the follow-up, how to use a folding knife, he really began to build absolute confidence, because no one present had seen the scene of the young and Dangerous boys fighting each other with folding knives, only him know.

Then the confidence came out.

On the other hand, as for No. 3 and No. 10, these two can be said to be the most difficult and stubborn characters among the twelve people in the entire movie.

What is No. 8’s strategy?
In addition to reducing their passion and motivation, he actually used one to subtly irritate them!
Let them in turn exploit their weaknesses and avoid their strengths. In fact, whether they are No. 10 or No. 3, are they really poor in logic?The answer is no, but the fact is that from beginning to end, they actually said nothing really useful.

For No. 10, it is actually very easy to do this, that is, keep repeating the child's origin through various description processes, emphasizing that, for example, although the other person was born in poverty, it is not his fault. The other party used to have a lot of criminal records, but we can't do anything just because of this.None of this is the important point. What is emphasized is that he comes from the bottom of society.

This can be said to be the trigger for No. 10 Baolei to lose his mind, because he looks down on such people and cannot allow others to have the slightest sympathy for such people.

Therefore, he lost all effective arguments and all he said was discrimination, discrimination, discrimination!
And this is obviously disgusting. No one likes to be forced to change their mind. You can discriminate, but don't force it on us.

But No. 10 fell into such a trap, and he became an isolated and helpless outcast.

For No. 3, he is an angry person. By the same token, the trigger of his anger is that he is a young man, and that is enough.

So, he also started not to think at all, and just wanted to tell everyone that today's young people are not good, and today's young people should do whatever they want.

But he forgot that he was the only one who thought this way, so he actually became the same as No. 10. Just because the other party is a young man, and because the defendant has a criminal record and is not a good boy, you cannot directly say that he is guilty. of.

Long distance close attack!

This can be said to be No. [-]'s key strategy in gaining key allies.

Respect people's feelings and emotions, and use all details to infect others. Care and comfort are the best opportunities to break through psychological barriers. For different people and different viewpoints, seek common content or perspectives to narrow the gap and build trust. Seeking supporters not only divides and disintegrates opponents of the argument, but also provides support and encouragement to those on one's own side.

For example, pay attention to No. 1’s conscientiousness as a host, fully respect his organizational rights, and listen carefully to the team coach’s stories when closing the window; pay attention to No. 2’s desire to do something, and treat No. 2 as a considerate person. When No. 9 came to the rescue and asked who wanted throat lozenges, No. 8 immediately expressed his support and asked him to record the time when simulating the door opening scene; he paid attention to No. 7's request for the time of the ball game and did not say that his request was unreasonable; for many Some of the people’s doubts were supported in a timely manner.Many of these detailed behaviors only highlighted the unreasonableness of other jurors who were controlled by their emotions or simply believed they were guilty.

This allowed him to easily win the subconscious favor of these people.

People are emotional beings, and although there are cases of extermination of relatives for the sake of justice, for the vast majority of people, in fact, usually when their own interests are not particularly involved, they will always choose to help relatives rather than help.

A person who has a good relationship with you, even if some of his remarks may not be so perfect, you are still willing to stand on his side.

Then there is the secret assassination of Chen Cang.

When a hostile party tries to close the distance, you can accept its efforts to establish a relationship. This influence is actually two-way. While it is subjectively approaching, it will also be unknowingly influenced by your own party, which can avoid overcoming hostility and one-way approach. , which party can ultimately influence and change the other party depends on beliefs, concepts, logic and strategies.For example, the attitude toward No. 6 and No. 7 in the bathroom.

For No. 6, I think the most critical sentence is "What if you are the one being judged?" Although No. 6 did not show any attitude towards this sentence, in fact, when he said this sentence time, he will inevitably think about this issue.

And this was a subtle change that made him start to think about this issue. In fact, No. [-] had already won this vote.

Playing hard to get is equally important.

When speaking, you should grasp the key points and key circumstances. Don't argue with others. Listen or let them get emotional. Talking more and exposing them more may be more conducive to finding problem points.

"We can spend an hour discussing it, the game doesn't start until eight o'clock"; "He has lived a miserable 18 years, I think we should give him a chance";
"I want to raise some questions, maybe they are meaningless"... Faced with the weak situation of everyone's opposition, No. 8 did not speak much, and always maintained a restrained mood, did not move around, was not impassioned, and was Some people who are easily excited tend to guide and avoid, rather than being tit-for-tat.

The early attitude towards No. 3 is usually tit-for-tat, irritating him, creating conflicts between him and other jurors, accumulating his emotional impulses and the repulsion and group pressure from other jurors. Moreover, the words No. 3 said in excitement What he did, in fact, provided him with evidence many times. He took the wrong folding knife - not the murder weapon in the case, but the exact same knife bought on the 8th. "How can he be sure that what he saw was Really", "I'm going to kill him"

Wait, wait, it's all just playing hard to get, because there are some things that you say no with your mouth, but your body is very honest!

No. 3 explained this very honestly.

So he said, "I'm going to kill him!"

So he picked up the knife, which was not the murder weapon.

So he made a mistake while talking!

These are all laid out in advance on the [-]th.

Finally, when the real decisive moment came, No. [-] was equally unambiguous. He changed his previous show of weakness and began to really show his fangs.

Started to turn against the client: When only No. 3 was left insisting on guilt, No. 8 began to question the opponents one by one, and finally stood staring and questioning No. 3, giving it the greatest group pressure and emotional pressure, "We want to hear Listen to what you have to say."As a person facing emotional pressure, No. 3 often uses actions to cover up their vulnerability and pain, which may expose the real source of pain or opinions, as well as all the truth behind it.It was this kind of anti-customer pressure, everyone's stares and speechlessness that prompted No. 3 to reveal his paranoia due to emotional reasons. After all his emotions were vented, he could only admit "not guilty."

Therefore, this is definitely a classic film. If you watch it carefully and think about it seriously, you will learn a lot of interesting things from it!

"