https://filmsdeconstructed.wordpress.com/2019/06/25/why-i-no-longer-like-12-angry-men-1957/
Was the user in any way correct? And to anyone who has seen the film and is a fan and disagrees, then can I ask, do you want to DEBUNK some of this user's err statements as such, about misdirection, mischaracterization, character swapping etc.
Thanks. (And no offense to the reviewer in the link.)
I haven’t had time yet to read and absorb the entire analysis yet. I had two immediate thoughts though:
1. Are current day jury/legal processes and rules being applied to a 1957 film? I suspect much has changed in 60+ years. Think of other films that depict trials from that era and later. Mississippi Burning. Ghosts of Mississippi. etc. Things were depicted in those trials that hopefully don’t happen today.
2. It is just a film after all and not a documentary.
Maybe I will alter my opinion after more analysis of what was written. For now, even with the flaws pointed out, I still enjoy the film.
"...although 12 Angry Men is superbly acted, the writing itself is a very cynical and manipulative work that ironically does the opposite of what it’s pretending to do."
Ironically, I feel like the author is doing what they are accusing the film to do: cynical and manipulative.
I'm loath to break it down because it's too emotional; there are so many disingenuous arguments made, and the author feels this way cause they JUST did jury duty? It's obvious that the film is stylized, and if a person truly enjoyed and was interested, spending a few minutes of research would reveal that it's full of mistrial-worthy happenings.
Was the author embarrassed to realize that what they mistakenly thought to be an authentic jury proceeding was not?
Like quick thought:
"What you realize is that Reginald Rose is using a real life murder case to play out a smug intellectual exercise, with Juror 8 as his alter ego."
This is irrelevant. Juror 8 does not establish himself as being anti-death penalty. He makes it very clear what he is doing in the movie. Maybe he IS anti-death penalty. It doesn't matter; that's not presented. I'm also not even sure if this is confirmed. I've read quotes where Rose mentions the real life jury he was on, but he says nothing about this alleged smug intellectual exercise and whether Rose actually felt the "problem is that you’re anti-death penalty, so handing in a guilty verdict would be going against your principles." I don't see a source. So I have to assume the author made this up. He's manipulating the reader against Rose by acting like their biased guess about the Rose's intentions should be used to judge the film. The movie isn't about
"the defendant was undeniably guilty but then decide to vote not guilty because it would be against your principle".
The movie isn't about this either:
"If the defendant is clearly guilty, then you vote guilty. If he’s clearly innocent, you vote innocent."
The movie is about, what if it's NOT clear?
The article is spot on.
share