真实故事

一名记者与杀死妻子与3个孩子的人的语言沟通与灵魂对视。这是个真实的事件改编，事件结尾也很富有戏剧性，《纽约时报》的记者在经历这一事件始终后，再也没在时报上发表过一篇文章，而杀人犯倒是在与记者的沟通中学到了写作技巧，反而赢得了关注，发表了几篇文章，其中包括在《纽约时报》上的。 此电影观影感受自然是不好的，这个不好指的是心理上的感受。剧中反复回放妻子与三个可爱的孩子，在一片花海中，多么阳光与健康！可片中妻子被杀后脖子被扭断只为能塞进行李箱（）小女儿因丢进水里时还有呼吸，打开行李箱时面色青紫；儿子在睡梦中被抱着投进零下十多度的河水前，下意识的有个抱紧的动作，看得真让人心痛啊！ 可偏偏杀人犯父亲是个面庞精致、风度翩翩的男人，全剧不停的强调“我爱家人”，在被逮捕前一晚还在一个墨西哥的教堂，与邂逅的同游女人在宾馆开房同居。庭审中刻意使用了从记者那里学来的说词。这不知道是一种什么样的强大的心理！我深深理解这一切会带给记者怎样的困扰和折磨，在书出版的书友会上，记者还被想像中的杀人犯的拷问着（这时他已经被处死了）。什么是真相？一个人怎么理解事实？他所理解的事实是真的吗？

巧合的是，昨天看了这部电影，今天铺天盖地的是对张扣扣被判死刑的争议。在此摘录下张扣扣的辩护律师的辩护词结尾一段：今天我的辩护基调不是铿锵的，而是悲怆的。我要向法庭表达的不是强烈的要求，而是柔软的恳求。今天，我想用最诚恳的态度，恳求法庭能够刀下留人，给张扣扣留下一条生路。我期待法院能体谅人性的软弱，拿出慈悲心和同理心，针对此案做出一个可载入史册的伟大判决。 最后，我想引用黎巴嫩诗人纪伯伦的《罪与罚》作结：在你们身上多数是人性，还有许多非人性，是一个未成形的侏儒，在迷雾中梦游，找寻着自己的清醒。我现在想说说你们身上的人性，因为熟识罪与罚的只有它，不是你们的神性，也不是迷雾中的侏儒。

这2起案件没看关联，关联的是两者都触发了对“一个人在什么情况下会做出杀死另一个（群）人的选择”的深层次思考。

愿所有的逝者都安息，所有的罪与恋都终结在人世。在另一个世界，愿你们安静从容的做自己。

As a generalist, Michael Finkel uses a composite character and thus concentrate the effect of what the report is aiming for. Similary, Christian Longo comprise what Finkel has taught him about writing in his court narration of the story about his murdering of his wife and three children. Two characters exactly the same as regard to the relation to the truth, but one is the generalist to retell the original truth, the other is the criminal to hide his truth.

The book named true story, which is the redemptive book for the generalisit, tell the original true story of murderer, that is, the criminal has murdered his wife and three children. While the court evidence given by the criminal admitted murdering of his wife and one child because his wife has murdered the other two and the left one he murdered later is out of consciousness already. The audience of course can tell which one is true. And the criminal is punished while the generalist is saved by the book.

What makes the story intriguing is at the promotion of the generalist's new book about this murder when the generalist imagin the criminal standing in the fans asking him what he has lost if he himself has lost his freedom. The question left the generalist at a loss of answer.

The generalist regained his sucess through rectifying his professional moral and stick to the truth of the story, but what he has lost? The film is a representation of the whole procession of true and false story, rather than the representation of the murdering scene which is too horrific and traumatic to see. That is to say, the true story is too Real to represent. One thing he has lost is the true story he is expecting that Longo is not guilty.