12 Angry Men (1957)

YouTube ^ | 1957 | Sidney Lument

[Vince Ferrer]

"The plot of 12 Angry Men revolves around the murder trail of a Latino boy who is accused of killing his father. The conviction of the boy would mean a death sentence and the destiny of the boy's life is in the hands of twelve male jurors of ranging personalities. The case seems open and shut with a murder weapon and several witnesses to place the boy at the scene of the crime. For eleven of the jurors the decision is apparent that the boy is guilty but for one juror, Mr. Davis (Henry Fonda), the boy's life should entail some discussion to eliminate any reasonable doubt the jurors may have. As the film progresses the personalities of the jurors become apparent and many underlying issues influence the guilty decision chosen by the majority of the jurors. "

- IMDb

[Vince Ferrer]

I thought this would be a good entertainment break if anyone wants one, from the media spin of the Fluke/Martin/??? election year media circus.

While the movie is about a criminal trial, it can also apply to the media. The movie is a good reminder that while the media does not care at all about who it destroys, there are real lives at stake in who it chooses to put on trial, and the rest of us should care.

I find it fortunate that we live in a time where bloggers and the internet can pick apart an offical pre-packaged story and get closer to the truth, like these jurors.

The whole film is available at the link.

[HerrBlucher]

It seemed to me, watching 12 angry men, that Fonda raised the level of proof from beyond a reasonable doubt to beyond a possibility. I thought the kid was guilty using the reasonable doubt standard.

[Revolting cat!]

Yes, indeed. I count 12 Angry Men as an early politically correct propaganda piece.

I thought it would be a good idea to update it using direct quotes from the Martin-Zimmerman threads here.

[Romulus]

Yes, it was propaganda. Fonda was always typecast as the enlightened voice of liberal reason. Where would we have been without him to teach us correct thought?

[jeltz25]

that’s why it was so amazing when he played the bad guy in Once Upon a Time in the West. That first shot when the camera reveals him.

i can’t think of any atcor today who’s so known as the good guy like Fonda was.

[Captain Jack Aubrey]

A terrible movie. So many stereotypes and caricatures; it is enough to make you sick or make you laugh, depending on your mood. Its not propaganda, it is Hollywood ultra left bias.

[Captain Jack Aubrey]

“i can’t think of any atcor today who’s so known as the good guy like Fonda was.”

How about James Stewart?

[rlmorel]

Yep. A man who could be looked up to. A gem of a man.

[rlmorel]

For wrestling with issues of justice, I have always preferred “Judgment at Nuremburg”.

[jeltz25]

i said someone today. Stewart was even more of a good guy than Fonda. But he was 50-70 years ago.

I meant someone today who was so well known as a good guy that if you saw them as the bad guy everyone would flip out.

Maybe a George Clooney. Or a Tom Hanks. Hanks playing a bad buy would probably come closest.

[SaraJohnson]

I am all for jury nullification when appropriate - either way.

Protect the public and sound western ethics will guide any American-American jurist. Our elitists (those making too many laws and unconstitutional laws, at that) are corrupt and insane. I trust me more than them and I can talk and try to persuade a jury of my peers. I’ve done it.

[garjog]

Some here don’t like it, but I think that it is really a good film. True it is liberal propaganda, but still it shows how one man can make a difference by persuasion.

The ending is fantastic. The jurors don’t know each others names. In the last scene the Fonda character and another introduce themselves.

Then, the Fonda character walks out into the crowded side walk and become one with the people again.

This shows that we all have a civic duty.

I am pretty sure that the image of Fonda walking out into the street after fulfilling his duty was alluded to by Reagan in the Farewell speech:

“And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was 8 years ago. But more than that: After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she’s still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.

We’ve done our part. And as I walk off into the city streets, a final word to the men and women of the Reagan revolution, the men and women across America who for 8 years did the work that brought America back. My friends: We did it. We weren’t just marking time. We made a difference. We made the city stronger, we made the city freer, and we left her in good hands. All in all, not bad, not bad at all.

And so, goodbye, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.”

[mckenzie7]

How about Tom Selleck?

Love him in Blue Bloods!

[Krankor]

During the 50’s, in those Anthony Mann westerns, Stewart came pretty close to playing a bad guy. He was a guy who did something bad in his past, but wasn’t quite reformed yet.

[eclecticEel]

There’s a pretty good Russian remake of the movie a few years back, simply titled “12”. In that case the innocent teen was “Caucasian” (i.e. Muslim from the Caucasus region).

[wideminded]

One of the great things about this movie, that I don’t think is so common nowadays is the class of actors involved. There was an excellent remake done in 1997, with Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott, and the rest of the cast also top quality. In some ways it is better than the 1957 version. Apparently there was an even earlier version done for television, although I don’t know if this was preserved.

[boop]

I think it’s a GREAT film. Even though it takes place in one room, the interplay of the characters is fascinating. From the racist Lee J. Cobb, who’s REAL issue is his relationship with his son, to the lonely old man who just wants his voice heard, to the guy who just wants “the truth” (Henry Fonda), to the poor guy (Jack Klugman) who’s seen anti-poor prejudice.
Still watchable 55 years later.
And only ONE actor in the movie is still alive. Klugman.

[boop]

The saddest character is Jack Warden. He’s “squishy” and will vote which ever way will get him to the ballgame faster. Sad commentary on jurors.

[fortheDeclaration]

Typical liberal movie (Henry Fonda) where all the white men (except Fonda) are racists.

[fortheDeclaration]

Don’t forget John Wayne!