1
   

12 Angry Men

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2004 08:11 pm
eoe, There's a big difference between what is presented during the trial and what a juror can present during their deliberations. The judge instructs the jurors what is permissable and what is not permissable, and those instructions must be followed. It's really not a matter of one juror standing up just to disagree with the verdict of the majority. When there are disagreements about facts, the jurors are allowed to ask to see the evidence and that portion of the trial's testimony. Outside evidence is never allowed.
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2004 09:28 pm
Not getting your point, c.i. According to joefromchicago, the jury found the defendant not guilty. I'd want a jury to fight it out and find me not guilty also. Especially if I'm not guilty.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2004 11:02 pm
eoe: The jurors in "Twelve Angry Men" broke the rules. They disregarded the judge's instructions, they fabricated evidence, they ignored witness testimony. Sure, they ultimately came up with the right verdict, but would you want to entrust your life to that kind of irresponsible, runaway jury?
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jan, 2004 10:40 pm
My uneducated guess is, that's probably the usual goings on in alot of juries. I think the point of the movie was the fact that several people will hear the same facts yet come away with completely different thoughts and opinions about what they've heard based not on the facts but their own personality and personal experiences.
0 Replies
 
pueo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2004 11:08 pm
i just watched the remake this weekend, i thought is was better in certain ways than the original. mostly the mix of jurors.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2004 11:36 am
Hi pueo, You gotta expand on what you're telling us about the "mix of jurors." Wink
0 Replies
 
Buzzcook
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2004 02:36 pm
I disagree completely. I think the remake was a plodding over wrought almost mastrubatory act of self indulgence.
It seemed to drag on as each line each speach was delivered as if it was a pivital epoch making monologue.
I couldn't help but compare the delivery of Martin Balsam as the coach to that of Danza. (no I don't hate Danza) Balsam in the scene where he talks about being a coach was just passing the time as folks will when stuck together as the men were, he and the director allow the audience see the point of his speach. With the newer version, Danza and the director might as well have used a hammer and flood lights "woo hoo, looky here I'm making a point" they seem to say.
This is true through out the film with each of the scenes and each actor. The remake is way to reverential and self aware.
The fault for this falls directly on the director. Here he has assembled some of the finest actors we have and a script that was successful both on the stage and in film, yet it just doesn't ring true.

Part of what makes the orginal work is the way the tension builds to the finale confrontation between Cobb and Fonda. The pacing is quick as we move from scene to scene even though the actors seem to be taking their time and we note the passage of time through the day.
The remake by focusing so relentlessly on the diologue and the "message" kills the paceing and kills the building tension.

"There are no small parts only small actors" Well maybe that's true, but it doesn't mean that the Third Goth in Titus Andronicus is deserving of a blue spot light and swelling back ground music. "Even as he saith so say we all" I'm sure that's on all our tongues when we reach for a Shakespeare quote. But to the actor playing the part it is the biggest thing going and given the freedom he will milk it like a prize Jersey.
How much more true is it where actors are given lines as juicy as in Twelve Angry Men. Each of the actors in the remake is guilty in one way or the other of scenery chewing of "acting" rather than being. Once again it is the directors job to herd those cats and he failed.

So in other words i didn't like the remake.

Buzz
0 Replies
 
Roberta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2004 05:07 pm
Hiya Buzz, I'm inclined to agree with much of what you said. Things were too important in the remake. Actors were noticeably acting.
0 Replies
 
Buzzcook
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2004 05:56 pm
Roberta I think I feel so passionate about this is that all the ingrediants were there for a brilliant production and it was wasted.

Buzz
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2004 08:14 pm
I just saw the original last weekend. I thought it very interesting and quite good, if a (only) little dated. Haven't seen the remake.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » 12 Angry Men
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/16/2021 at 06:46:43