Reply
Fri 6 Dec, 2002 11:18 pm
Just this evening was watching an old classic with
Henry Fonda as a young man, full cast of well known
actors, 12 Angry Men, a terrific movie!!
**My question about it is this? What ONE THING
stands out, the most, to you as you watch this
great oldie???
The great acting, considering they are confined to one room for around two hours! It almost becomes a battle of who can upstage who but the director keeps it in line. With the movement to put cameras in jury rooms, isn't this film as relevant today as it was when it was released? An American classic, for sure.
The conflict that arises between these men basically due to the blinders each one is wearing is what I remember the most from this film.
An absolute classic, and actually the remake is fabulous as well.
Thank you both for your reply. You are right - it is a
classic, and no doubt a tough one to do, it all takes
place in one little room, with not much to rely on other
than great character acting. Reminds me of Tom Hanks
and "Wilson" in "whatever the name of that movie is"
(God! Where is my mind going off to?)
where the entire movie is Tom Hanks and a ball???
Who else but Tom Hanks could pull off a movie that is
essentially him, all alone, with a ball he names Wilson???
I think I will give it a few more days before I speak
about what is most fascinating feature of this movie for me
The thing that has always amazed me is how such a preposperous premise, is made believable.
Lumet's genius was keeping us interested in these guys for over ninety minutes.
I agree with Booman that this was theatrics and unlikely documents what actually happens in a jury room. What could be simply melodramatics, however, comes off as real. I feel like I'm in that room and one of the jurors being pushed and pulled one way and another. Really brilliant filmmaking.
As a matter of fact, while other people try to dodge jury duty, I've always had this dream of doing the "Henry Fonda thing" in a real setting.... A common man rising to the occasion...Hoowah!
Although that could happen in a jury and probably does, how many
not-too-swift jurors with a poor leader may be deliverying some pretty scary verdicts. I mean, like I've said before, would you want to be judged by twelve people who are so dumb, they don't know how to avoid jury duty?
Hey Fella'....It's my dream, and we're all duty-bound, intelligent citizens. So there.
You're right, of course, Babs -- it does seriously date the film but it doesn't dilute the dramatic acting which is the driving force of the film. The script is actually not extraordinarily well written and has shown up in a variety of films and TV shows with almost the same situation but curiously not that often. Nobody has depicted the claustrophobic intensity of being in a juror's room debating innocence or guilt in such an intense dramatic way.
The cast was extraordinary. Henry Fonda, Jack Klugman, Martin Balsam, Lee J. Cobb, Ed Begley, Robert Webber, E. G. Marshall. Two scenes not in the jury room: the young defendant in court and the old man saying goodbye on the court steps. I'm glad it was shot in b&w to give it a more somber mood.
The gradual shift with each captured vote was admirably done.
The script was rather awkwardly contrived and if you read the script without the actors, it doesn't read that well. This is a case where superior acting made the day.
You are ALL absolutely correct, not meant
to make the movie look not good-
just seemed so eerie, not a single woman
Of course, the cast is all star the acting is
wonderful. Not downing that at all!
Remember that scene where Henry Fonda produces an identical knife? I thought that was too convenient as a movie plot, and do not believe that kind of theatrics happens in real life. c.i.
Yes, CI, the story/script has several plot devices that are not particularly credible but it's a movie and from a television play by Reginald Rose produced by Studio One in 1954. I saw that but I missed the 1997 cable remake with Jack Lemmon and which include four black jurors but, hey Babs (!), still no women! I have to say that I saw the original TV production when it was replayed in the 60's and the intimacy of a live taping was very effective although I don't remember the actors in the original TV production.
Okay, a few few points in the writing can be tweaked, but nevertheless, it was still an outrageous concept to be dealt with. It can only be pulled off with exceptional acting and direction, working harmonically (or harmoneously?) with the structure and concept of the original work of art. It is such a delicate example of artistic interdependence, that black, and/or female jurors, in the original movie, MAY have distracted, and disrupted the delicate balance.
Well now, if Trent Lott had written the script. I'm sure he was too busy, however, ironing his white sheet.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace