MOVIECLUB #11 - Due Monday 8/17: 12 Angry Men

12 Angry Men (1957)
Directed by: Sidney Lumet
Due August 17th



Recommended Double-Feature: The Pawnbroker (1964) Directed by: Sidney Lumet


More Suggestions:

Long Day's Journey Into Night (1962)
Equus (1977)



#8 on the IMDB Top 250

dammit.. instead of writing a novel about why i didn't love this movie, maybe i can sum it up:

it wasn't difficult to watch.

obviously, this isn't a common criticism of film (or any other type of "entertainment").. but i feel that, in this particular case, things were too cut-and-dry.. things unraveled too simply.. heck, the "good guy" wore white and the "bad guy" wore black.. morality and ethics are a topic that i literally enjoy spending time thinking about--but it's never this easy.. i wanted to struggle with this movie.. and, honestly, i didn't.. at all... i'd love to hear a counter-argument if anyone feels strongly about this

I don't. I felt underwhelmed by the movie. It reminds me of an Arthur Miller play, the kind of cut-and-dry drama you'd get in high-school oriented plays.

Although partly my reason for not being a fan of the movie is that the film seems to be saying how the jury system is the best in that it believes in people. But in fact if you look at the case it's pretty much that the kid DID do it, so for me the film unintentionally displays the flaws of the jury system. It's kind of like why I find Fight Club flawed, because it's a homoerotic film that doesn't know it's homoerotic (Fincher has denied it publicly).

I like it, very much. I like that it doesn't go through a lot of hooey trying to explain this and that. The point is that the kid may not have done it, not whether he did it or not. The only evidence they had were two people that said they saw exactly what happened, even though they couldn't have plus a little bit (not much) circumstantial evidence.

It seems cut and dry, but it works on many levels. Like "To Kill a Mockingbird," its got a level of racism in it where they were going to convict a kid partly because he was of a different race/upbringing. That was overcame.

Its got a little bit of good vs. bad in it, though I wouldn't Juror #3 "bad," just quick to judge.

It shows that one person can make a difference. It shows how our system is based on a "Its better to let 10 guilty men go free than let 1 innocent man go to jail" theory.

It does all of these things in a way that is simple and to the point, but is still extremely dramatic and thought provoking. Plus, it's got Piglet in it.

Ha, Piglet... I actually found that pretty distracting (though to no fault of the film itself).

W wrote:The point is that the kid may not have done it, not whether he did it or not. The only evidence they had were two people that said they saw exactly what happened, even though they couldn't have plus a little bit (not much) circumstantial evidence.

by the end of the movie, i got the feeling that the kid probably didn't do it.. and the guys who insisted on a guilty verdict were self-loathing bigots--and not interesting ones either.. they came off more like stock-characters..

it would've been far more interesting to me if a relatable and reasonable character had been given cause to hold out longer.. i was hoping that the movie would end on a more unsettled note.. even if they unanimously vote Not Guilty, there's still a chance that they just let a murderer go free.. they address this in the middle of the film, but it's kinda forgotten by the conclusion...

i understand that the message is focused more on the prospect of sending an innocent man to death (particularly one that was damned from the start by society itself)--but the music that played as the man in white emerged from the cramped building into the bright big world (with the rain subsiding and sunshine poking through the clouds) made it quite CLEAR that the Good Guys had won the day--with no doubts about it..

i wanted it to be more difficult.. i wanted it to be a struggle from start to finish.. i wanted every character leaving that room being unsure of their own decision.. the way it was done, however, only a monster (blinded by prejudice) could've voted guilty..


maybe i'm just wishing it were a different movie altogether.. nonetheless, i wasn't blown away by the way it was done


i think Paths of Glory deserves the credit and praise that 12 Angry Men receives

It's been a while since I watched it, but form what I remember the 2nd time I watched it, the logic used to argue innocence (or doubt of guilt) is as circumstantial as the arguments for his guilt. Indeed, the film feels more of a testament to the infection of self-belief and faith rather than anything else.

Whatever levels the film works on are entirely obvious, if not forced down our throats, such as the bigotry blinding the juror's judgement. It all felt a bit like wishful thinking to me, and because of that it lacks resonance. To Kill A Mockingbird at least rang truer for me.

Like NSpan, I much prefer Paths of Glory