imaseed

Just as the saying goes, "everyone is beautiful in their own way," everyone is also ugly in their own way. Are good and evil polar opposites, like two sides of a coin? How do we define a good person and a bad person? How is morality judged? All of these remain open questions.

Throughout my time watching the series, the single thought that haunted and followed me was that human beings are truly terrifying, yet simultaneously pitiful, as the things people do not understand are exactly what they find most terrifying; yet, once we dig deeper and understand them, we find them pitiful.

What are media ethics? Reporting objectively, accurately, fact-checking, and delivering news in a timely manner. But broadcast news also needs to secure ratings, chase KPIs, and provide for the reporters' own livelihoods and families. So, what makes a good journalist, and what makes a bad one?

What are medical ethics? Ensuring patients' health and thoroughly caring for every single case. But hospitals still demand high recovery quotas, and families wait anxiously for patients to be discharged. So, what defines an ethical doctor, and what defines an inhumane one?

What are a director's ethics? Creating a film with artistic value, dedicating oneself to the craft, and being innovative. But will financial sponsors and the entertainment industry support an independent director? What makes a talented director, and what makes an incompetent one?

What are a lawyer's ethics? Seeking justice and defending clients based on the protection of human rights. But does that mean standing on the same frontline as "evil" and putting one's own family in danger? What defines a lawyer who represents righteousness, and what defines a lawyer who sells out their conscience?

Ultimately, human morality—is it fundamentally a question of humanity regarding the "majority," or does it belong to a "minority" of individuals (who are still human)? Moral parents are those who raise their children to be "good" people. If they fail to do so, they become bad people, deserving of public condemnation. But what if being a good parent means being a bad citizen? The perpetrator's family must bear the guilt of the crime. The victim's family, on the other hand, becomes victims forever haunted by the past. A series of overlapping paradoxes and contradictions pile up, until, in the end, it seems human morality is forever labeled by a person's relationships with others, rather than by the individual alone, constantly teetering on countless boundaries.

People scrutinize a doctor's morality in relation to their patients, a wife's morality in relation to her husband, a mother to her child, a reporter to their subject, a perpetrator to a victim, and an individual to society. But how can we judge a person based solely on themselves, when the very nature of measurement and evaluation requires a yardstick, a tool to quantify? It is this exact yardstick, calibrated by these binding relationships, that judges you as a "bad person" in one moment, and simultaneously a "good person" in another.

In short, everyone is a bad person, and everyone is a good person. You are both the perpetrator and the victim. That is the answer the film provides to the question posed right in its title and through the myriad of overlapping relationships across its 8 episodes. Take Li Da-Zhi, for example: she is the family member of a cold-blooded killer, a potential reporter, a good friend, and a daughter to her parents. Or Li Xiao-Ming: a societal terrorist, the enemy of the victims' families, Li Da-Zhi's brother, and a son suffering from mental illness—perhaps the consequence of a family lacking parental attention. Everything is intertwined through such karmic ties of cause and effect. The evil and the good are connected by many threads, and some of those threads connect right back to themselves. That is exactly the distance between "us" (and evil).

Beyond the dichotomy of good and evil, the film also touches on numerous social issues and facets, such as the pressing issue of psychiatric patients, societal prejudice and discrimination, psychological trauma, class divide, gender issues, and the penal system (specifically the death penalty, reduced sentencing for the mentally ill, etc.). Whether it serves as a plea to support mentally ill individuals who need care and societal acceptance (with a more open-minded perspective), or as advocacy for the protection of marginalized communities... overall, it is clear that the entire film is a humanistic voice, elevating humanity and striving to find the human nature within people. It is a bit didactic and philosophical, but presenting these themes so directly is necessary for a film designed to educate, raise awareness, and awaken basic humanism.

Overall, the structure and pacing of the film are arranged coherently, and the relationships between characters are harmonious. The film places each person under a pluralistic, multi-valued lens, keeping them close to normal human beings (even though everyone still has a clear, distinct role to create a broader picture that "represents" a segment of society). The acting, soundtrack, and cinematography also fulfill their necessary roles perfectly to convey the overarching message. It is a little dry at times, but highly direct and deeply humanistic.