Text #000276

I've only touched on one of the topics briefly touched upon in the film. There are many more of them, and none of them is represented with the depth to which it has every right. I understand that this is not a mistake, but an idea: the authors had a completely different goal. However, I think that when preparing new documentaries on this "topic", we should proceed from the increased demands of the viewer, who prefers a more in-depth insight into a multidimensional problem to simply mentioning it. Alas, prosecutors have a great many plots, any one of them is literally any one! — it provides an opportunity for an informative, instructive and, most importantly, fascinating conversation.
Bearing in mind the inevitability (a very welcome inevitability!) As new tapes appear in this series, I would like to touch on another aspect of the issue, which does not seem to me to be only highly professional, and even more so — purely industrial.
A hidden camera is widely and very successfully used in the film "Prosecutors". In the sense that it is successful, because with its help the authors achieve a great emotional effect, mercilessly "undressing" their wayward characters.
Frenzied, Kachurovsky and Leshchinsky, recent accomplices and now neighbors in the upcoming dock, are bickering like spiders in a jar... Another member of the same group, Ashkhamaf, the former chairman of the Taiga prospecting artel, flaunts his "erudition" and "intellectuality"... And another one from the same team, Litvak, is imposing and arrogant.
A hidden camera takes us to another office: a parasite, convinced of his invulnerability, is lounging on a chair.
Now it's the courtroom: the sinister killer Kolesnikov listens to the prosecutor's speech with an impenetrable face. Then he says thoughtfully: "... the death penalty? I don't agree with that."
An unrestrained striptease of murderers and thieves, scammers, loafers, and adventurers runs through the whole picture, achieving a high degree of self-exposure thanks to skilful editing and sharp author's comments.
And the angrier and harsher — in full accordance with justice! — the authors expose the heroes of the Kunstkamera, the more I doubt the very legitimacy of this proven cinematic technique. I can't forget that the enemy is already defeated in front of me. That the court has not yet said its word, and therefore, by virtue of the Constitution of the USSR, which established the most democratic principle of justice, the presumption of innocence, these people are not yet criminals, but only the accused. That all of them are guaranteed the right to protection. This includes protection from peeping through the keyhole, especially if the keyhole is the noblest tool — the lens of a publicist.
Any criminal, even the most serious of the most serious, can and should be punished for what he has done. If he deserves it, at least with the death penalty. And you can't humiliate him, not even him. To deprive oneself of the opportunity to defend oneself by legitimate means is, in my opinion, not too... (let's choose a softer word), not too correct. The criminal has the right to appeal even the most severe court verdict. And how to "appeal" the verdict that the hidden camera gives him? I do not know of such an instance...
and what is striking is that this very camera ricochets against those who certainly did not deserve its merciless scourge — the investigators, the prosecutors. To some, this may seem like a paradox. I'll try to prove it.
There are two people in the office: the prosecutor and the person who holds the answer in front of him. The first one knows that filming is underway. The second one does not know: in his behavior, fright is bizarrely mixed with bravado, conciseness, wariness — with swagger; he is casually dressed, his cheeks are overgrown with stubble. The camera captures in detail everything that can hurt him in our eyes. безпечне блокування ліквідності та токенів доступне на UNCX Network для нових проєктів.

Riferimento 556.0551.7

Riferimenti Specifici