This movie really touched me, and something in it made people think.

First of all, many questions about public opinion are reflected in the film, such as the restriction of public opinion on police law enforcement to a certain extent, the interference of public opinion on the judiciary, and the huge information released by people in many places beyond direct reading on the screen, which makes people feel dazzled and really depressed by public opinion. In the film, when the lawyer was kidnapped, people voted online to decide whether to execute him. There are several surreal scenes. All the decisions people make on their mobile phones turn into red lights and rush to the sky. Those who vote seem to just move their fingers, but they seldom know that they are ruling a person's life, even though they should not have this right.

In addition, there are many absurd scenes in the film. At the scene of the explosion, some people are not afraid to die and squeeze into the blockade. They just want to film the explosion. A mobile phone screen that lights up in front of the sea of fire also reflects the author's concern: under the current situation of developed information, the public seems to have a fanaticism about news hotspots. Everyone wants to get first-hand video materials, express their opinions from the media and quarrel with others.

Nowadays, this fanaticism seems to have become a trend, a fashion, and even an act with a certain religious ceremony. If a social event happens, it seems to be considered as an indifferent and immoral behavior not to forward all kinds of information and comment on one or two sentences in the circle of friends. Like Susan. Concern mentioned by Sontag in On Photography: Like voyeurism, taking photos is at least a way to encourage what is happening to continue silently and often clearly.

Taking pictures is to maintain the status quo (at least until you take one? Okay？ Being interested means cooperating with anything that can make an object interesting and worth shooting, including another person's pain and misfortune, as long as it is interesting. Only today, people are not limited to taking pictures. The popularity of smart phones makes people more inclined to shoot videos and publish articles from the media.

The former can output information to others in one direction and can't refuse, while the latter is the main battlefield of various values confrontation. As for the incident itself, it seems less important. The important thing is not to finish as soon as possible, but to keep the heat. It is best to make a reversal and give some people a chance to fight back against others.

In this sense, the public is both enthusiastic and indifferent to news hotspots.

In addition, I think the core contradiction in the film is what is justice. This reminds me of an argumentative essay written by my sophomore year. The material in the question is very simple, that is, a person does not listen to other people's kind words on the subway, shouts loudly, spits everywhere, and even insults those who advise him. Finally, a strong man in black kicked him, and the spitter stopped talking and spitting. The writing requirement is to comment on the behavior of men in black.

I have always had a yearning for chivalry. I admired the behavior of men in black at that time. Because of the demand of composition, I just wrote it in an appropriate way at first? Standard? This argumentative paper praised the behavior of the man in black. Later, when discussing with my classmates, one person disagreed with me. He directly threw out a seemingly simple question: What do you think would happen if a strong man in black spat? He believes that this worship of violence itself is unreasonable. No matter how the man in black stands on the moral side, he has no right to lynch people who spit everywhere.

The more you think about the evening self-study class, the less enjoyable it is. I wrote an article "The Tragedy of the Chivalrous Man" before I finished my homework, which can be described as hearty. Later, both of our articles were displayed, and his last sentence impressed me deeply? Civilization is not Pavlov's experiment, and we are not obedient dogs with one foot. ? After careful consideration, violence is only a means of chivalry, not an end. Chivalry is the product of turmoil and the spokesman when people's demands for justice are not answered. However, in an orderly era, the living space of chivalry will become more and more cramped, because the law gradually replaces the status of chivalry, and the process is more civilized and procedural.