OHMIGAWD! I was trying not to think about him. I'm one of the "problems" he has to deal with, since his guy didn't get the presidency.
twelve angry men
*Hey Booman I can understand that
feeling of desiring to be the one person
standing up for what you believe in, as
in Henry Fonda's case, for the sake of
"justice", & within the terms of reasonable
doubt. *Was that "Hoowah!" the same
sound that Al Pacino makes in the film-
Scent Of A Woman??? My brother makes
that sound frequently. I asked him why one
time - he just laughs and says "I love it"
(I guess it must be a "guy" thing.)
*Lightwiz - I had NO idea that this originated
from a television play when I was 4 years
old???? I didn't even know that they made
tv plays back then.
**Who - out of the group of us has actually
had the opportunity to DO JURY DUTY????
AND if so, what was your experience like?
You got that right Babs. I guess it's a restrained version of the primal scream.... The closest I ever came to jury duty was as an alternate, an even then, watching the legal proscess unfold, was fascinating. I can't for the life of me understand why people try to avoid this.
babs, I was unfortunately selected for jury duty in a rape-murder case that lasted three months in Santa Clara County. It was about seven years ago, but I can still remember much of the detail. We almost had a hung jury, but the judge told us to go back and talk things over. We had two people on the jury that questioned the prosecution's claim on the rape, because there was no trace of semen in the dead body. However, we had two witnesses from the midwest who were raped by this same young man for which he served prison time. There were other overwhelming circumstantial evidence of his guilt, and we finally convinced the two jurors by going over them over and over. We found the young man guilty on both counts which is termed "special circumstances," and which carries the possibility of death or life in prison without the possibility of parole. To make a long story short, he is now serving a life term in prison. c.i.
Studio One was one of the first TV shows with original plays along with Playhouse 90. Several of the productions ended up as films or were readapted from the same source. Studio One was the first to produce a version of "1984."
Didn't "Requiem For a Heavyweight", and "Marty", have TV orgins also?
Yep - "Requiem" with Jack Palance on Playhouse 90 and, again, the intimacy of live TV added dramatic punch although Anthony Quinn's performance in the film remake along with Jackie Gleason as the manager are dynamite.
"Marty" is owned by Ernest Borgnine -- don't even remember who played in the TV version which I believe was also Playhouse 90 but it's probably at
www.imdb.com.
It was Rod Steiger and now my memory comes back as there was really only a two year difference between the TV production and the movie. Steiger was just as good as Borgnine as I remember (what else?) There are others -- in reverse, "Fail Safe" as a live teleplay with George Clooney I thought was superior TV fare and it gave it a documentary feel with the immediacy of live TV.
Okay Babs,
...I might as well be the one to go ahead and state the obvious......With realistic casting you would have, "Twelve Angry Persons"! :wink: (I'm sorry, I tried to resist saying that.)
The thing that was so intriguing to me was that Fonda was the only one to say innocent in the beginning and swayed all the other jurors to his side including the audience. I was on a jury trial one time and remembered how tense it was in the jury room. Then when we finally came to a verdict, we had to go back in there and decide a sentence. It too was a murder trial but it wasn't for the death penalty.
I got this information:
[A few of the film's idiosyncracies: Even in the 50s, it would have been unlikely to have an all-male, all-white jury. The introduction of information about the defendant's past juvenile crimes wouldn't have been allowed. Jurors # 3 and # 10 were so prejudiced that their attitudes would have quickly eliminated them from being selected during jury review. And it was improper for Juror # 8 to act as a defense attorney - to re-enact the old man's walk to the front door or to investigate on his own by purchasing a similar knife. The 'angry' interactions between some of the jurors seem overly personal and exaggerated.]
http://www.filmsite.org/twelve.html
I think that in the 50's they would not have wanted to put a women in this situation of intensity more so than you would find and all male jury. This site has much more insight into the movie.
Good observations, Bill W -- you outlined my problems with the script nicely.
A title for a politically correct film?
"Twelve Angry People"
BillW, I am highly impressed with your detailed memory of this show. You would be an excellent witness for either side, even after months have past the event. c.i.
Oh Booman, you are such a dear, but
that would of course, ruin the name
of THAT particular film.
*CI - Wow! you must have gone through
an excruciating process.....rape/murder
trials are unlike any other kind of trial.
I can speak for myself (and no doubt
many many others) when I say that I
am VERY glad that you did not try to get
out of doing jury duty, & avoiding the trial.
A lack of semen could mean that the criminal
is rather intelligent & doesn't leave any
identifiable "traces" of semen/evidence &
therefore he uses condoms OR depending
on how long the body was buried, hidden,
left open to animals & the elements as well
as how long it took for the body to be
discovered, that could be a factor also.
I am glad to hear that you based your
decision in part on the defendant's past
record of similar crimes - rapes. Violent
criminals don't readily alter their MO. They
try, I think, but are not able.
**CI -Do not say "unfortunately" you were
called to jury duty. IF YOU HAD NOT, that
same man could be out here looking for his
next rape/murder victim - as we chat.
I'm sure 3 months must have seemed
interminably long, but you stuck it out - and
unlike many of our peers, you didn't claim
that your job was a pressing circumstance
and get yourself excused.
*I served jury duty only one time, and
the trial only lasted about a week but - the
actual jurors - those who didn't get out of
jury duty - did NOT really represent "a jury
of one's peers". It was an arson case, and
the prosecutor had eyewitness accounts, as
well as the 2 men that the guy had paid to
torch the place. Not very exciting, but, as a
big hint to all - if you aren't a registered voter
you will never be called to jury duty. That
is where they get there prospective jurors
names from.
**We are really getting off the beaten path
here so I think I will begin another discussion
about jury duty, and people's experiences
with jury duty - or the lack of it.
Oh, thanks so much c.i. and lw; but I did leave the url. I did remember that Fonda fought a battle bringing all to his side, (including the audience) eventually.
I did just begin a discussion about jury duty
and I entered it under the category of LEGAL
although, I do think it may better be addressed
under debate & philosophy, where we could
better face off on the issue of the magnitude
& the importance in jury duty, and why it is
treated so much like a "thorn in your foot"
rather than an opportunity to be part of...
- part of the process
- part of the guilty/not guilty verdict
- part of a legal system which does
supposedly guarantee us a trial
with a jury of OUR PEERS
- getting a voter registration card, cause
if you don't- you will never be called to
be on jury duty
- part of a legal system which has many
flaws, as we all know. BUT if it was YOU
who was on trial in court,you would be
PRAYING for a decent jury. As far as
I can tell, jury selection is a very, very
important part of a trial - particularly a
very big, high profile murder trial, etc.
babs, I have never tried to get out of serving jury duty. However, I think any person serving in a trial such as ours should get an exemption from serving in another murder trial. It's a big responsibility that needs to be shared by all. Another good reason is that, personally speaking, the responsibility of deciding the fate of another human being is enormous, and once in a life time is sufficient. Why should one citizen be given the responsibility for more than one murder case when there are many who have never served on one? I believe in 'equal' opportunity and responsibility. c.i.
Who could argue with that, C.I.?
c.i., as I said - I did a murder trial that wasn't for the death penalty, and it was very trying - at most, 1 week. I agree with Booman, can't argue with your logic.
