12 Angry Men
|
Our Price: $23.99 Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $6.48 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of 12 Angry Men
Movie Review: Exellent drama, excellent civics lesson, excellent for kids.
Summary: 5 Stars
Twelve Angry Men succeeds on a number of levels. First, it serves as an excellent lesson in civics. In particular, it illustrates the application of the Seventh Amendment, a component of the Bill of Rights (see below).
Seventh Amendment. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Twelve Angry Men also can be used to illustrate an application of Right number nine, in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, the document that served as the basis for the French Revolution (see below).
Right Number Nine. As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been declared guilty, if arrest shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the securing of the prisoner's person shall be severely repressed by law.
During the story, Henry Fonda repeatedly emphasizes that the correct standard of guilt, for use in a criminal trial, is the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. In fact, the main focus of Twelve Angry Men is on Henry Fonda's burden of persuading the other jurors that they should be applying this standard, and not, for example, the less stringent standard of guilt that us used during civil court cases. Again, the film provides an excellent civics lesson, for those interested in how to apply the "burden of proof."
Furthermore, the story is good for children (ten and up) in that the plot follows a predictable path. One by one by one, each of the jurors explains why he believes that the suspect, a boy, should be found guilty of murder. And one by one by one, each of the jurors is persuaded, by a parade of evidence, that the boy is innocent. The parade of evidence includes the character of the switchblade thrust, the elevated train that drowns out the scream, the slow velocity of an elderly walking witness, and the pinched nose that demonstrated that a key witness needed glasses and couldn't see well, especially when rising from bed in the middle of the night. The plot is easy to follow for most kids who are ten or older. The story plods along with great delibration, just like the little engine that could, who cried out, "I think I can, I think I can." The story is also good for kids in that there are no bad words. Despite the fact that the story is about "anger," especially Lee J. Cobb's anger and Ed Begley's anger, the dreaded "F word" does not even make a cameo appearance.
The story also succeeds on a dramatic level. This is an ensemble piece, similar to John Hughes' The Breakfast Club. We are introduced to twelve different personalities. Lee J. Cobb's personality is ferocious, while Jack Warden's personality is goofy. Jack Warden wears a striped hat and coat, and his mind is not much on the trial, but more on the baseball ticket that is "burning a hole in his pocket." Robert Webber, an advertising man, also provides provides goofy comic relief. Ed Begley is the archetypical bigot, shamelessly spouting stereotypic rantings typical of any bigoted fanatic. John Fiedler also provides variety, as he has a whispy high voice, similar to that of Sterling Holloway. John Fiedler served as the voice of Piglet in Winnie the Pooh cartoon movies. (Sterling Holloway played the voice of the bear, Winnie the Pooh.) The thunderstorm, which makes its appearance at the halfway point, also contributes to the drama. Viewers will also be glad to see Jack Klugman, a familiar face from several Twilight Zone episodes. Jack Klugman, a former child of the urban ghetto, provides the insight that the alleged murder weapon, a switchblade, could not have been used by the accused, because of the fact that the wound was from a downwards thrust, whereas switchblades were designed to be used mainly for upward-moving thrusts.
The story also serves as a good illustration of theater techniques. For example, we see the technique of symbolism, where Henry Fonda is dressed in white. We also see another theatrical technique, in a scene where most of the jurors stand up in unison and turn their backs to a juror who harbors an unpopular view. Certainly, this strange mannerism would never appear in real life. It is a theatrical technique that symbolizes the fact that most of the jurors disagree with the one man.
The story has a surprise ending, wherein Lee J. Cobb's motivation for cherishing his guilty finding is revealed, and when Lee J. Cobb comes to terms with his own motivation, and where he changes his mind to not guilty. FIVE STARS.
If you truly admire TWELVE ANGRY MEN (which I do), then I might recommend seeking the corresponding episode in the television series of THE DEAD ZONE. TWELVE ANGRY MEN was re-scripted, somewhat, for this sci-fi television program. Anthony Michael Hall plays the Henry Fonda role. One might remember Anthony Michael Hall for his role of the geek, in SIXTEEN CANDLES. Before seeking the episode of DEAD ZONE, it might help first, to see the original movie, THE DEAD ZONE, starring Christopher Walken.
Movie Review: 'no one wears eyeglasses to bed'
Summary: 5 Stars
I first saw this movie years ago on the late late when I was around [...] years old. It impressed me and gave me a lot to think about. Today, and over the years, it still does.
It achieves something which the best writing does-but it achieves it in a way that is fully cinematic. A book could not substitute for it. What makes it stand the test of time--and have appeal to many personal ages and stages--is its multiple layers. This is not just one story. It is actually several stories overlapping-and interpenetrating.
Having watched it many times, it seems that every frame counts for something. Virtually the whole story takes place in one small jury room, of which we are given the benefit of seeing from virtually every perspective. The same for the characters, which are themselves anything but two dimensional. The film does not have a dull moment--not even when the characters themselves are doodling and bored!
When I first saw the movie, I thought that it had something to do with human perfection always being within reach even in an imperfect situation. An imperfectly conducted trial with a selection of angry and biased jurors working within an imperfect system of law is brought to perfection as the jurors gradually realize that doubt is always possible and so the law itself forbids the death penalty-it merely leaves the decision in the hands of the jurors. That was my understanding when I was nine. I have since seen many other ways of looking at it and, though I still think that in some way the theme of perfection under imperfect circumstances is part of it, I also think there are many other layers.
Though I all but have the dialogue memorized, I still notice new things when I watch it again. This was a very studied production, from the exact wording of the script, to the body language of the characters and direction and camera angles--again from the smallest details, beginning with simply the jurors trying to get comfortable and make their "space" as they are locked in the jury room-along with the small interpersonal exchanges--right up to the involved discussions and passionate confrontations.
An important story layer lies in the theme of how conformity shapes human opinion, and what an individual can and cannot do to effectively awaken the use of reason in a group of people-not simply establishing another conformity or fashion. This is perhaps the predominant layer, insofar as it coincides with what the film is most famous for: one lone juror, voting not guilty, holding out against and eventually persuading the other 11 who were voting guilty. Here it is an exceptionally good character study, showing how different possible psychological motives and dispositions may result in more or less flawed perceptions of, even concern for, truth. The film has been called optimistic, and it is in the sense that it suggests that under the right circumstances, this concern can be rekindled in everyone-that it is universal.
Another story layer lies in the theme of how leadership works and what it means. There are several characters who, for different reasons, represent "natural leaders," and several others who, for different reasons, represent "natural followers." But things never quite naturally fall into place, and the struggles between the characters as they vie for position never quite works out as they, or even the audience, expects. But what happens is very believable, and there is not a cheap shot taken in the whole plot. Ultimately there is a showdown between the hero and his chief nemesis, but the nemesis winds up performing what is perhaps the most morally heroic act in the whole film.
It is also an excellent detective story, an excellent whodunit. The guilty verdict which seems cut and dried at the beginning is gradually and effectively analyzed as it is supplemented with details so that it does become questionable-and not in a cheap way; it still leaves you thinking.
Acting is very good. I'd rank Henry Fonda's low key performance his masterpiece. Also the masterpiece of a number of masterful character actors.
In my most recent viewing, I decided that the defendant is, in fact, innocent...
Movie Review: Less is More
Summary: 5 Stars
No film ever ever made has told a more in depth story with so little attention to anything beyond the bare necessities and managed to pull off anything of this caliber. This little film easily ranks up there with the best of all of them, including Casablanca -- and this comes from somebody who really loves the film Casablanca. And yet, the entire film, save for a few short seconds of the very beginning and end, takes place in a small stuffy little room filled with 12 people -- 11 of which don't want to be there. And there lies our movie.
When there are less components in a given whole, it is more important for each component to do its job well. This film really only has three components, the script, the cast, and the direction. The reason this is such a good film is because all three are superb, with the cast arguably being the strongest. Most of the people in this movie are people you have seen before and will recognize -- Lee J. Cobb, Jack Warden, E.G. Marshall, and Jack Klugman are some of the more familiars faces. Most notably however is Henry Fonda in the leading role. He is the one man willing to stand against the tide. While he played many good roles in his life, this one has to rank near the top. Its hard to believe that this is the same guy who played the grumpy old codger in "On Golden Pond", or even the frustrated Tom Joad in "Grapes of Wrath". Fonda's performance is as cool as his character -- whose every argument is a case study in logic and reason.
The rest of the cast, along with the claustrophobic setting, bring to mind Hitchcock. Each member has a distinct personality and offers a different perspective on society -- A businessman, a salesman, an immigrant, an elderly gentleman, a man from a poor background, a bigot, and a few men from various working class jobs. As different as each one is however, they all agree for one reason or another that the kid on trial is guilty and they all want to go home. When Fonda's character, a remarkably stoic and clear thinking architect, starts engaging the other jurors, both collectively and individually, things get tight.
As the title states, this movie is about twelve men who get angry. And over the course of the film all of them do, some frequently. Even the cool headed Fonda has a few short but dignified outbursts. This movie clearly illustrates the fact that nothing can blow another person's stack like a compelling argument. And this is where direction gets showcased. There are no wasted scened or lines in this film. Every camera angle is perfect. I particularly like the shot of Henry Fonda sticking the knife into the table. It personifies the entire film in a single shot -- very simple but effective. It is moments like these that crescendo as jurors start defecting one by one offer to Fonda's side.
There is sort of an equilibrium that seems to take place. As there become fewer jurors holding onto their guilty votes their anger increases, particularly Lee J Cobb's. Although personally of all the jurors that hold on the longest to their guilty vote I like E.G. Marshall the best. He is almost the alter ego to Fonda. He is a cool calculating person who will not let go of his reasons until he has a compelling argument to force him to do so. He also holds no loyalty to other jurors because their votes happen to agree with his. One is the best lines in the movie comes just after Lee J Cobb complains about Fonda baited him into an argument. Marshall doesn't even look at him. He simply turns away and remarks, "he did an excellent job."
As far as the DVD itself is concerned, this is an excellent representation of a classic B&W film that has been nicely restored. This film probably did not look this good when it was first released. There are no extras to speak of on this disc -- just a clean transfer of the movie. Ordinarily this would warrant the loss of a star. In this case however, is seems to fit very nicely with the "Less is More" theme. Like the movie itself, it is all that this disk requires.
Movie Review: A rare find!
Summary: 5 Stars
The word "classic" is thrown around a lot these days; we're expected to like something simply because some jamoke with a film degree tells us it's a classic, whether the film itself is actually any good or not. So it's rare indeed to find a movie like 12 Angry Men that actually deserves to be called a classic.
Chances are good that you already know the plot, even if you've never seen the movie: Murder trial, 11 jurors think the kid's guilty, one thinks there's room for doubt, and he proceeds to spend the next couple of hours convincing the rest to see things his way. He wins out in the end against overwhelming odds, everyone goes home secure in the knowledge that justice has been served to the best of their ability, and the credits roll. I'm massively oversimplifying things, I admit, but that's the gist of it. So why does this movie deserve to be called a classic?
For one thing, it's one of the few films of the 1950's to address the issue of racism, and although it's addressed somewhat obliquely (the characters never actually come out and say the word "racism," relying instead on somewhat less volatile terms such as "their kind"), the fact that it's addressed at all is noteworthy, to say the least. Several of the jurors are convinced of the kid's guilt not because they seriously have reason to believe he did it, but because of their preconceived notions about his background: "He's a poor Puerto Rican kid from the wrong side of town, so he must be guilty. QED." Of course, other jurors reveal that they themselves came from exactly that sort of background, which forces the others--and, by extension, the viewing audience--to reexamine their world view. The message may seem a little heavy-handed by today's standards, but for the time it was a revolutionary notion. (It's also a message that bears repeating today; I'm reminded of the man--I use the term loosely--who was convicted of murder not long after 9/11, and his only defense was that "it's what every real American wants to do anyway." The victim was a gas station owner from India whose faith required him to wear a turban.)
More than any of that, though, the film succeeds because of the absolutely unpretentious performances of the actors, particularly Henry Fonda as the sole dissenting vote. He plays his character not as a man who is convinced that he's right and will fight to the death if he has to, but as a man who knows full well that "reasonable doubt" doesn't automatically mean the kid is innocent. He's always aware that the kid may indeed be guilty, and even says as much at one point; but his conscience will not let him condemn another human being to die simply because he's been bullied into it. The cause he's fighting for isn't just to protect the innocent, but to protect the sanctity of the process itself. On the other hand, his foil throughout much of the film, played by Lee J. Cobb, is his polar opposite, his moral compass colored as much or more by his emotions as his sense of logic and reason. He reveals early on that he's been estranged from his son for a number of years, and that estrangement (the defendant is around the same age his son was when they parted ways) drives his desire to find the defendant guilty even when he's presented with evidence that the kid might be innocent. When he finally breaks down at the film's end, the result is a performance that will leave even the most jaded viewer with a tear in their eye; in an era when boys were taught from an early age that men don't cry, such a performance would have been almost unheard of, but it's delivered with absolute candor and sincerity.
The DVD release doesn't include much in the way of extras, just the original trailer, but that doesn't matter. The film itself stands up so well on its own that anything else would just seem superfluous.
Movie Review: Human nature on trial in the jury room.
Summary: 5 Stars
Most thrillers focus on the drama that happens in the course of a murder, or the drama that happens in the courtroom afterwards. In 12 Angry Men, all the action occurs in the closed doors of the jury room after the murder and after the court-room theatrics. It might be hard to imagine how a black and white movie shot virtually entirely in one jury room might be dramatic, but "12 Angry Men" certainly achieves a level of drama achieved by few other movies. There are no special effects, no elaborate settings, and yet it's a movie with more power and passion than most contemporary multi-million dollar productions.Much of the initial drama revolves around the murder case that the twelve jurors have to decide on. Is the accused young man guilty or not-guilty of murdering his father with a knife? Eleven of the twelve men are firmly convinced that he is guilty, and only one has doubts. It is here that the real drama begins, as the jurors discuss the case, breeding personal conflicts as the lone juror (acted by Henry Fonda) pleads his case. This is the movie's real strength, as it portrays vivid and brilliant characterization of the jurors. They become frustrated and angry, with varying emotions and temperaments. But one by one they begin to break under the burden of "reasonable doubt." As the evidence is weighed in increasing tension, the jurors begin to change their guilty verdict to not-guilty. The tension is shared by the viewers, because we don't know whether or not the accused is guilty, and like the jurors need to weigh the evidence as it is presented.
Is the accused guilty or not-guilty? In the end, what happens in the jury room isn't so much about murder mystery, but about personalities, personal pride and egos. The sweltering heat and enclosed jury room proves to kindle emotions of anger and rage. In fact, in the end we still don't know the final answer about the accused's guilt, who really did it and how. Nor does Fonda's character argue that the defendant is innocent, but merely that there is not enough proof to determine his guilt. But the fact that the question about guilt remains an open question at the end of the movie really doesn't matter. It is the conflict of personalities that makes the movie so powerful: the 12 angry men in many ways represent ourselves. Just as in the real world, these 12 men are composed of an assortment of personalities and people: such as the sports fan, the slum dweller, the mathematical thinker, the business man, the logician, the prejudiced emotional thinker, and the nerd. The emotions and personal interaction are brilliantly portrayed, and amongst these 12 angry men many viewers will recognize themselves. Not only is this movie a portrayal of logic in action, but ultimately it is a portrayal of aspects of our own human nature, including our own prejudices and personality flaws. This is especially evidenced in the concluding scenes, where two jurors shake hands and introduce themselves by name. It is only then that we realize that although the individual personalities of these 12 men are now so well-known to us, we don't even know their names.
If you are getting the idea that I was wowed by this movie, you're absolutely right. Even though it is nearly fifty years old, it has to be one of the best movies I have ever seen. If there is a weakness, it would be that it seems rather remarkable that the jurors uncover things not found in six days of trial. But it is completely free of profanity and indecency, and is tremendously powerful in its portrayal of human emotions, personalities and conflicts. The acting is superb. It's a masterpiece. Very highly recommended! Go watch it. And again. And again...