EARLY ACCESS - 12 Angry Men (1957) | Audience Cut 003
Added 2023-11-10 01:04:49 +0000 UTC
Comments
I remember first seeing 12 Angry Men as a high school play that the entire school was required to attend. I remember being annoyed having to go see a play but as soon as it started I was just entranced by the whole thing and have loved it since.
Andrew Dubbel
2023-11-12 16:22:49 +0000 UTCIt's called 12 Angry Men, why would there be women?
Ken R
2023-11-11 09:13:01 +0000 UTCThat's a great comment about the stockbroker juror. E.G. Marshall was a fine actor. I suppose he's a bit too clinical and logical and can overlook human frailty (in the witness testimony and the defense lawyer), because he himself is so composed and competent.
Numinous2019
2023-11-10 21:13:37 +0000 UTCDon’t forget Butterfield 8
Collin Freeman
2023-11-10 18:29:06 +0000 UTCI understand that both the Russian and Chinese remakes have stupid twists of the kind Alex and Josh were happy not to see in the original. For example, because China doesn't have a jury system, the Chinese version features people taking a law class participating in a mock jury trial. One might think that the discussion wouldn't reach the same levels of passion when they're not talking about a real case, but presumably the characters' differing viewpoints and personalities make up for it. That's not the twist, though -- it's revealed at the end that Juror #8 is actually a government prosecutor. In other words, the story is turned into overt propaganda for the Chinese Communist government, suggesting that their system of justice is best and that its functionaries always have the interests of justice at heart.
Anthony Bernacchi
2023-11-10 16:17:04 +0000 UTCAlso, Robert Cummings' performance as #8 is very different from Henry Fonda's. He has a bland all-Americanness that allows the audience to project a broader array of possible interpretations onto the character -- for instance, he might be the real villain, trying to set free a man he believes to be guilty. (He might even be Satan!)
Anthony Bernacchi
2023-11-10 16:04:47 +0000 UTCBut, in a sense, that's saying that it's timeless because it's not timeless -- which I actually think is a valid argument, but not everyone would. Also, how do we know they're all straight?
Anthony Bernacchi
2023-11-10 16:01:39 +0000 UTCIt’s timeless in that it’s accurate. You do realize that, for the most part, “straight white men” are who served on juries in the 50s.
Glenn Johnson Barnes
2023-11-10 14:41:42 +0000 UTCTimeless? Well I saw no women. Or African-Americans. Or anybody else who isn't a straight white man. Except maybe the juror who also was raised in a "difficult neighboorhood". Of course because it is 1957. The 1997 remake for television had an ethnic more diverse cast. But also no women. Don't get me wrong. I consider the orignal also as one of my favorite movies of all time. But it is NOT timeless.
Sam Langanke
2023-11-10 11:46:57 +0000 UTCGreat commentary, guys. I could've listened to you both talk about this film for another 20 minutes. So much that can be discussed. I'm glad you enjoyed it as much as we patrons do.
Collin Freeman
2023-11-10 04:18:20 +0000 UTCThe 1954 Studio One broadcast is very well done, especially for the fact that it was LIVE television, but what always stuck with me is just how very close #3 gets to actually stabbing #8 in that performance. The moment is here: https://youtu.be/HlaXebUi72A?si=s9GxDCCQaky6xmo-&t=2631
JD Nevesytrof
2023-11-10 03:51:01 +0000 UTCAlex, the people cheering at the beginning are actually attending a courthouse wedding, the camera pans to another door where our actual trial is taking place.
JD Nevesytrof
2023-11-10 03:41:19 +0000 UTCFollowed by Ten Cloverfield Lane, Nine to Five, 8 Mile, The Seven Samurai, The Sixth Sense, Five Easy Pieces, Four Weddings and a Funeral, Three Amigos, 2 Days in the Valley and finally The One.
JD Nevesytrof
2023-11-10 03:08:13 +0000 UTCWith the first two Patron picks being "Apollo 13" and "12 Angry Men", the next poll has to include "Ocean's 11". I particularly like Juror #4. The last three jurors who think he's guilty are 3, 4, and 10. #3 is mostly driven by bias, seeing his own broken relationship with his son mirrored in the defendant and his father, and #10 is driven by straight-up bigotry and is basically just shamed into changing his vote. But #4 was just a calm rational guy who needed to hear a better argument for why he shouldn't trust the eye witness testimony. In a sense, he was the real 'antagonist', since he was the last one who needed actual convincing, and once he flipped it was just a matter of waiting for #3 to emotionally implode with no backup. I also like his response to #10's bigoted rant. He's not the kind of guy to join in on a symbolic act like literally turning his back to him, but he just waits until the rant is over and then tells him to shut up for the rest of the movie.
Jeff Cornell
2023-11-10 03:02:17 +0000 UTCHave you guys seen the original 1982 George Romero” Creepshow”? You should watch the segment about the cockroaches again you’ll get a big laugh. That’s EG Marshall who plays the asshole millionaire who gets eaten by bugs. You won’t be relieved that it’s the same guy who played the stockbroker in 12 angry men. He has the most hilariously filthy mouth.
Rich Cirivilleri
2023-11-10 01:31:37 +0000 UTC
