A thoughtful discussion of justifiable defense

Although veteran director Zhang Yimou’s “Article 20” plays second fiddle to top-grossing comedy “YOLO” by female filmmaker Jia Ling in box office performance during the Chinese New Year holiday, Zhang’s work may have provided moviegoers with more food for thought.

In the dimly lit corridors of justice and on the vivid cinema screens, the line between right and wrong often blurs, leaving audiences to reflect on the truth of legality and morality.

Moviegoers look at a poster of Zhang Yimou's"Article 20" at a theater. SD-Agencies

Released amidst a backdrop of legal debates and societal introspection, the film takes viewers on a journey through the complexities of justifiable self-defense as outlined in Article 20 of China’s Criminal Law. At the heart of this narrative is Wang Yongqiang (played by Pan Binlong), a man who, in a fit of rage, commits an act that thrusts himself into the murky waters of legal interpretation and moral quandary.

Justifiable self-defense, a principle enshrined in the law, has often puzzled the public and the judiciary alike, due to the difficulty for the self-defender to act with clear-headed judgment and for the law enforcers to define to what extent the defense is justified.

The law stipulates that anyone who defends themselves or others against unlawful attacks could bear no criminal liability even if the attacker is harmed. However, they are under close scrutiny and walk a thin line between being a defender and an offender. This delicate balance raises questions about the fairness and justice of Article 20, especially in cases that verge on mistaken murder.

The ambiguity is vividly illustrated when Han Ming (played by Lei Jiayin), a prosecutor, explains as he plays camera monitor footage that after some point when the defender and the attacking hooligan were entangled in a fierce fight, and the defender picked up a tool to strike the hooligan’s head, he became an offender.

It’s easier to judge in hindsight whether an act is excessive defense; however, it would be almost impossible to ask a person, seeing injustice or harm done to them or others and taking an action to fight, to stop and think if the attacker remains to be a threat in the middle of the fight.

Unlike the rosy outlooks painted by some other films, “Article 20” seems to tell us that nothing comes for free, and even justice has a price to pay in the real world.

Growing up, we are often taught the lesson that “good people do not always get good rewards” and it’s wiser “not to stand up and be the hero without considering the consequences.”

Han’s character exemplifies the disillusionment with the harsh realities of life. As a student, he was a righteous man who stood up against sexual harassment a schoolmate experienced, but over time, he became a morally ambiguous figure who prioritized the pros and cons of a situation over right and wrong.

For the society to be a more just and safer place for everyone, issues must be viewed through the lens of right and wrong, and not just in terms of pros and cons.

Jurisprudence is rooted in human emotions, and the law reflects people’s common and simple emotions.

In fact, laws often distinguish between a crime of passion and premeditated crime; so, it’s plausible to give leniency to defenders if they fail to stop at some point and cause serious harm to the attacker.

While perfect justice may never be achieved, there is still value in striving towards it. This film encourages the idea of working towards a justice system that asks for little or no sacrifice from those who try to do the right thing, and challenges the whole society to prioritize this goal.

Using humor to soften the blow of its heavy themes, albeit a bit cheeky and overdone at times, the film takes the form of a comedy and makes the philosophical reflections on human nature and the law accessible to a wider audience.

(The author is a Features editor of Shenzhen Daily.)