Were there no women allowed in jury's in the '50s? And no blacks or other minorities?
That's like asking for a biased judicial system.
Wow, it's almost as if there was racism and sexism in 1957.
_______ Woozle wuzzle?
@OP: This has to be one of the most idiotic complaints I've ever come across on a classic film's IMDb board. I mean, seriously?!
shareIts not really a dumb comment. He/she is just looking at it from the perspective of a person living in 2013 and not 1957. Today it would be nearly impossible to get an all white male jury. And even if you did there would be all sorts of appeals filed0 justly or unjustly.
Back then I am guessing it was rather common.
idiotic? why? it's a fair question and not phrased as a complaint. sure 12 angry men is a drama, and it's called 12 angry men, the emphasis on men, but it (supposedly) has a foothold and basis in reality, in the period in which it was set. so the op's question is valid, and it still stands.
op, i don't know the answer, but my guess, and it's a guess, is that the writer/director wanted to reduce any distracting interplay to just the trial, the accused, and the 12's own personal circumstances.
if so, it seems to have worked
[deleted]
It was mostly the time in which it was made. Pretty much all films in the 50s used a caucasian cast with very few female leads. The screwball comedy ("Bringing Up Baby" being a good example) was one of the best genres a woman could land a role in because the woman was almost always the lead with an interesting personality. And even then, woman were shown as a bit ditzy and reliant on a man.
Also, this script was actually written originally for a TV show (1954) and then adapted into a play (1955) and then a movie. To me, 1950s TV show instantly screams "no women".
The big point of the film was to highlight interactions among people. Heck, we didn't even get names for the 12 guys until the very end (and even then, it was only two of them). I think the idea was not to get attached to people and to put yourself in their shoes. Which person would you be? Would you go with the flow? Would you side with anger? Would you take the shot in the dark and voice your opinion? Would you stop caring? The incredible thing is the ending and the fact that one guy gave it his all to give the unbiased judgment in a clearly biased judicial system.
The film was about the interactions of people, so blacks, women, disabled etc weren't included because they weren't people back then. Incidentally, that's not as ridiculous as it sounds. Person-hood has been re-defined since those days and will continue to be re-defined.
"Pretty much all films in the 50s used a caucasian cast with very few female leads."
"To me, 1950s TV show instantly screams 'no women'."
With those two lines, you have proved that you have seen very few movies or television shows from the 1950s.
They use voter registry to pick juries. The vast majority of voters then were white men.
I don't think the OP's question is at all unfair or inappropriate. It is a legitimate question and the answer reflects how the attitudes of movie producers and the population in general has changed over time.
Sure there were juries of mixed races and genders in reality. But there was a different mind-set about movie making in the 1950's. Movies were more - elemental - if you will. They took a nugget of life and explored it. The films of the time were much more encapsulated. They didn't attempt to represent the whole of the universe - just a tiny little segment. They didn't feel that they had to be "fair". They just had to be engaging.
Actually this trend was evident from the beginnings of the movies and continuing up to perhaps the '60's and '70's, when everything was changing and there was a cultural revolution in Western society. The revolution was caused by a number of factors - certain very important and groundbreaking movies, musical groups, groups, comedians (yes!), politicians, and technology. At that point, "fairness" became paramount - and perhaps at the expense of the the movie-makers main goal - which as I said, was being engaging.
I realize I'm generalizing. There are old movies that were more expansive, and new movies that are more focused. I'm just speaking in general terms.
If they made 12 Angry Men today, EVERYBODY would be asking - or even demanding - where are the non-whites and the women? In those days, people didn't question this. Mainly, the roles in movies (and the actors that played these roles), were middle aged, Caucasian males.
Take your PC crap elsewhere.
'Then' and 'than' are completely different words and have completely different meanings.
by Soodinum » Sun Mar 9 2014 12:06:47
IMDb member since July 2006
Take your PC crap elsewhere.
"Why do some people always jump to calling something "PC" whenever anybody mentions something that deals with race or gender or sexuality?"
I don't automatically do that, but it's pretty evident when someone is attempting to go back and revisit movies that were made as a product of their time and forced to bear way more weight than they deserve. COULD a jury be all white men as in this film? Back then, yes. But having been made, it doesn't need to have all its choices revisited and criticized for not taking into account all possible configurations in terms of character (and in this case, jury) selection.
" ... most people who scream about things being "PC" don't even seem to comprehend what it actually means in the first place."
That's true - like all catchphrases it can tend to be bandied about a bit too much and with little true comprehension. But that doesn't mean I am using it ignorantly or in a knee-jerk way.
"The truth is many of you start screaming that someone is "PC" just because a topic makes you uncomfortable."
I'm not sure exactly what you mean there, but just to fill in some background, my dad is from Samoa and my mum was born in America but came to my country of birth when she was a baby. She's pasty-white, of Dutch extraction lol. So I am the product of a mixed-race family, and over here, it's not too big a thing. Having said that, most of the TV and movies we've had in my country have been predominantly American, with a lot of British stuff in terms of TV. So we grew up on the same kinds of movies as people in the States did.
" Instead of always becoming defensive and ranting about political correctness, why don't you try to educate yourself and gain a better perspective on why discussions about race and gender are relevant and important."
I fully believe those things are important, but I don't think picking holes in films in the past as they stand, and casting films now and in the future to have a broad mix JUST BECAUSE is the right way to do it. In a similar way, I hate people trawling through childhood stuff and trying to remake it as part of the discussion of gay rights. It was really common a while back to discuss whether or not Ernie and Bert were gay because of their lifestyle, and the same with Noddy and Big Ears.
I get ticked off when EVERYTHING - past, present and future - has to be shoe-horned into a particular mode before passing the litmus test for acceptability. I like some films that have an almost entirely black cast. I liked this old film as it was with its white male cast. I like the odd Korean horror flick with nary a Tongan character, or Native American character, or Italian character, too.
In my country, there was a Government-enforced music quota a while back to FORCE radio and TV to play a certain percentage of our own country's music. I found this offensive (as many here do) because most of the music people liked came from the States (Britain took itself out of the running with the Spice Girls), and our own stuff is often sub-par. The stuff that IS competitively good already got played. This 'rule' managed to mess with music as an art form, to artificially change the soundscape so as to please the bleaters. I fear the art form that I consider film to be ever completely giving in to the standard cheapie horror film habit of having one black guy (or girl), a white blond chick, a nerdy Ginger, etc in an ENFORCED way, just to please the bleaters.
I think gay rights can be discussed without bringing Ernie into it, and I believe the race issue can be discussed without second-guessing this film.
I realize typing words can make it hard to convey tone and attitude, and I am sorry if I came off like a troll or a petulant and bored, can-kicking teenager.
I also apologize for so many words and stuff ^
And mistakes. I wrote this in a mad dash.
'Then' and 'than' are completely different words and have completely different meanings.
The OP posed a fair question in 2013 about a movie made in 1957 during different times. Many of the posters are young so those times are their grandparents times. The "PC" card is used by people who want to retain their right to be exclusionary, close minded and ignorant - they use it as permission to be boorish. Look to every instance someone says they're not going to be "PC" and the next words out of their mouth are offensive. Your apology should be less about the words you used and more about the content of your post.
shareLook to every instance someone says they're not going to be "PC" and the next words out of their mouth are offensive.
the movie doesn't have to get a man from every race and type in the world to satisfy every group of people !! and the no women part is not because they were not allowed (since there was a ladies' room) it just happened that they weren't any women on that case. however, I agree with you on the Blacks thing but what can we say, all Americans were racists someday.
shareNo it's not that "it just happened" there were no women on the jury - the play is about the interaction between 12 angry men of the time - as another poster said changing the mix to have women or non-white would change the entire dynamic - the intent was to allow all the 12 to show their characters and to show why they were like that - why they held those opinions - it's a total character study.
I think this same play/movie could be made with another 12 angry homogenous bunch (women, black people, gay people, immigrant people, etc etc) with very different dialog of course to explore individual stories and how they result in the juror in that room.
So you didn't notice the women's restroom right next to the men's?
share