(Sun Ra & His Arkestra - El Viktor)

what strikes me is how much quality dialogue is in this film and thinking about it that's probably what drew me in when I first saw it. I enjoy language and words very much and crave dialogue and communication. themusicologist provides and delivers a great opportunity for me to connect using the universal language that speaks to us all, (if we listen), and is a manifestation of this desire to communicate.

back to the '12 Angry' selection...the dialogue paints it's own picture and introduces the Henry Fonda character in Socriatic style.

the music is courtesy of Maverick Pianist Sun Ra, (and Arkestra), a cosmic cat of the highest order whose life seems as rich a tapestry as could be woven. Born around 1914, he grew up with Jazz and played the piano/organ/keyboard consistently for his whole life, (recording over a thousand songs). His first recording in 1946 was as Pianist for Rhythm & Blues legend Wynonie Harris. I'm not going to lay out his life story as it's well documented so I'll just leave it to Ra and Arkestra to 'speak'.

(Frankie Lymon & The Teenagers - I'm Not A Juvenile Delinquent)

day two of the 12 Angry Men selection and the 'action' begins. 12 jurors, 1 Room, Hottest day of the year...No Air-Con. The jockying has already started as Lee J. Cobb, (Juror #3), lets his feelings known on what he thinks the verdict should be.

themusicologist wasn't even born in 1957 but from what I have read and heard the 'Teenager' had most definately arrived. Music, (Rock and Roll), being an example of this. The way I have understood it, before World War II music was made predominantly by and for 'grown ups'.  Swing had begun to change that but by the time Rock and Roll emerged the writing was well and truly on the wall for who to target...Teenagers.

the slice of, (1956), musicology, (released in early '57), is courtesy of 13 year old !! Frankie Lymon and The Teenagers, (Herman Santiago, Joe Negroni, Jimmy Merchant, Sherman Garnes), who epitomised the change as well as anyone. Of note is that the majority of the group members were of Puerto Rican descent, as was the kid charged with murder in the film, and half of the subjects of the original 1957 Broadway production of West Side Story.

(Bo Diddley - Before You Accuse Me, (Take A Look At Yourself)

I have enjoyed laying down the alternativesoundtracks so much that it will be a regular feature on themusicologist. this third instalment is another one of my favourite films, the classic 1957 film 12 Angry Men, directed by Sidney Lumet. I first saw this one back in the early 80's and have loved it ever since.

the opening slice of the musicology pie was released in the same year, (1957), as the film and is courtesy of the legendary Ellas Otha Bates, (McDaniel), better known as Bo Diddley, who passed away at the ripe old age of 80 on June 2nd of this year. I am proud to say that I had the honour of sharing a stage with the man about 25 years ago in deepest, darkest South East London where my cousin and I were invited on stage to 'throw some shapes'. A treasured memory.

Bo...this ones yours...thanks for the music and the memories...priceless.

I’m guessing that each of us who professes to be a classic movie buff has (at one time or another) been asked to provide a similar list of recommendations. Most of the movies discussions in which I partake are with other TCM junkies – like many of you who read this blog and/or frequent message boards like the Silver Screen Oasis, or the channel’s own boards – so I wasn’t really prepared to answer his question as succinctly as I ought to be. While I can take for granted the fact that ‘you’ know about Fredric March, Douglas Sirk, Anthony Mann and Ida Lupino etc., the average person – if you asked them to name any one of their films – might try (and fail miserably), plead ignorance, say “who cares?” or just glaze over into a blank stare. However, those same persons may be able to identify Humphrey Bogart, Alfred Hitchcock, Bette Davis and Katharine Hepburn, even if they can’t name more than a couple of their films. Perhaps, therefore, it’s incumbent on those of us with at least some depth to our classic film knowledge to be able to list at least 10 classics – that have wide appeal, as a starting point – for anyone that wants to begin or expand their classic movie education.

I typically ‘hate’ top 10 lists, especially movie top 10 lists, because I’ve found that it’s nearly impossible to narrow down almost any large category to such a finite number. However, I have recommended AFI’s original top 100 list as a good place to begin. Even though I don’t agree with all the choices on the AFI’s list(s), and certainly not the rankings therein, there are a lot of quality titles to chose from and most are available on DVD. That being said, I’m frequently frustrated by their demonstrable myopia with regards to Academy Award winning movies (or nominees), a malady from which I also frequently suffer. Still, while there seems to be a near cottage industry of Oscar bashing, one can’t ignore the quality of many (most?) of Oscar’s choices. But to limit one’s selections to only those films which received an Academy Award (or a nomination) would be to ignore movies like those on the list I compiled earlier this year.

So I started with my list of 440 essential films, and began paring it. For my first cut, I tried to eliminate the most dated ones, biographies (not just because most are inaccurate, but because there are usually other competing materials with the same information), and movies with limited appeal: silents, any that were too focused (e.g. with a political agenda) or from genres with specific audiences. My second try, which pared the list to 57, eliminated even more ‘message’ movies as well as those which were too long – I didn’t want to lose anyone with a short attention span – too sophisticated (requiring one to ‘think’ too much), or have been remade recently (in case the person has seen the remake). I decided that it was important not to ‘show off’, with selections like Dodsworth (1936) or Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949), and also to avoid obvious choices like The Wizard of Oz (1939) and Casablanca (1942). Sticking to mainstream and readily available titles (I was able to pare my list to 53 by excluding 4 which aren’t yet on DVD), I wanted all to be good stories first, but if they highlighted a particular classic movie actor or actress, so much the better (if the requestor wants to see more, then I’d have their filmographies available). I should mention that I’d already cut out everything newer than 1969 – remembering the purpose of the list – and, though I didn’t intend to end up with a final listing that included only black-and-white movies, it just worked out that way. With 53 remaining (and needing to get to 10), I forced myself to be brutal and found that I had to impose artificial limits once I got down to 37: to get to 5 from 1930s, 10 from the 40s, 10 from the 50s, and 5 from the 60s – a top 30 list! At this point, I decided to categorize the remaining titles by genres and even eliminated some of my favorites if the actors or directors were already featured elsewhere within the list. Finally, even by forcing myself to include all but the sci-fi and horror genres, I still ended up with selections that are predominately comedies and dramas (oh well).

Here are twelve (I just couldn't do ten;-)

The Thin Man (1934) is not just a terrific comedy; it also introduces the viewer to one of classic movies’ most enduring series (and endearing onscreen couples – William Powell and Myrna Loy)

Top Hat (1935) – in lieu of Singin’ in the Rain (1952), I thought this Fred Astaire-Ginger Rogers classic was one of the best choices to represent the musical/dance genre. Next on TCM's schedule - Oct. 8

The Little Foxes (1941) – so many Bette Davis classics, any starter kit that doesn’t include at least one of her films from 1938 through 1945 is a sham.

The Maltese Falcon (1941) – my second selection from writer Dashiell Hammett (he wrote The Thin Man also) is also one of Humphrey Bogart’s best; John Huston’s directorial debut led to five more collaborations with the actor. Plus, the supporting cast in this early noir detective drama is one of the great assembles ever. Sept. 27

Double Indemnity (1944) – One of the best film-noirs stars Fred MacMurray? That’s right! Directed by Billy Wilder, it features one of the most insidious femme fatales in Barbara Stanwyck and an Oscar worthy supporting performance by the Academy’s most overlooked actor: Edward G. Robinson.

Notorious (1946) – I know many of you have probably been wondering when I was going to include one from the Master of Suspense – Alfred Hitchcock. Well, here it is. Finally, come mid-October, this one will be available on DVD. Cary Grant in one of his many underappreciated, as well as dramatic, roles (he made it look too easy) opposite a thirty year old Ingrid Bergman, and the immortal Claude Rains. Aug. 25

Adam’s Rib (1949) – much like The Thin Man (1934), it’s a classic comedy that features one of the screen’s most legendary couples – Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn – in their prime while at the same time it introduces arguably its best not-so-‘dumb blonde’: Judy Holliday. Aug. 31

A Place in the Sun (1951) – although I was tempted to use Random Harvest (1942), one of my favorites, in this romance drama category, I thought that this beautifully shot classic (one of Robert Osborne’s favorites) would have wider appeal. It features both Montgomery Clift and Elizabeth Taylor in their most alluring and iconic years, and exhibits the talents of Shelley Winters and director George Stevens.

High Noon (1952) – the best Western? Perhaps not, but it’s certainly worthy of this list. Gary Cooper stars as the man who must decide whether to face up to evil, or run. Actually, he never had to decide because he knew what he must do despite the odds and the lack of support he received from everyone else. That’s my kind of role model! Sept. 30

Roman Holiday (1953) – My second William Wyler directed selection is not The Heiress (1949), which sadly means that I’ve left Olivia de Havilland off my list, but this one, in order for me to fill the romantic comedy slot. Of course, the fact that it stars “Mr. Reliable” – the trustworthy and dependable Gregory Peck – and features the incredible lead acting debut of Audrey Hepburn had nothing to do with it. Oct. 27

12 Angry Men (1957) – so many great courtroom dramas to choose from, but this one features actors that are more familiar to people today than Tyrone Power, Marlene Dietrich, Charles Laughton and Elsa Lancaster from the Billy Wilder directed classic that same year (Witness for the Prosecution (1957)). Aug. 24

Dr. Strangelove (1963) – it kills me to have the sole representative from the 1960’s not be one from that great year of 1962, especially because this hilarious black comedy is about as political as they come (at least it’s from an era gone by, for now), but I can’t think of anyone who wouldn’t enjoy its caricatures. Sept. 8

I realize that I’ve neglected to include performances from some of my favorite actors – Cagney, Stewart, Holden, Douglas and Lancaster – and actresses – Garbo, Colbert, Dunne, Garson and MacLaine – and haven’t included a single film from some of my favorite directors – Capra, Ford, Lubitsch and (Preston) Sturges – but I know that I’ll have a plenty of additional selections for anyone that this list entices.

What classic movies do you recommend to people you know who aren’t aficionados?

Click on the respective names GC Smith  & Jack Warden (12 Angry Men (1957)) for more information.

IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT
215 mins, 1934; Director: Frank Capra

This film is a true classic. It withstands the test of time and does one better - defies it fully. Both Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert are in top form in this charming and memorable comedy. It’s a romantic comedy that all others draw from, few imitate effectively, and none have been able to replicate. It is the story of a runaway heiress falling in with a devilish, wise-cracking reporter on a cross-country road trip. Only minorly dated, this film would play well for modern audiences despite being more than 70 years old. And who can forget a movie where the girl's father provides his daughter with a getaway car from her own wedding? Not even the jury at the Oscar – it became the first movie ever to sweep five major Oscar categories. Recommended viewing.

TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD
149 mins, 1962; Director: Robert Mulligan

It is easy to enjoy this movie and hard to forget. Imbibing the best of courtroom drama traditions, this Oscar-winner is poignant as a classic coming-of-age tale and expose of the American legal system. The film is all about a noble gentleman, who is both an upstanding attorney and a single father to two young children. All that is past. Now, he must stand up and do what's right when an innocent black man is accused of assaulting a white woman. It's a story about honour and bravery, memory and regret, decency and determination. The ‘surface drama’ is effortlessly engaging. But the social commentary and the sobering subtext gives the film a heart and soul that most filmmakers would kill to replicate. Plus, if nothing else, you're getting Gregory Peck at the very top of his game ... and that's saying something. No wonder, it won four Oscars, including Best Screenplay (written by Horton Foote), and Best Actor (Gregory Peck).

12 ANGRY MEN
96 mins, 1957; Director: Sidney Lumet

12 Angry Men is every bit the classic it's been made out to be for all these years. One-room dramas don't get much better than this. The film generates dramatic tension simply by having jury members argue over the fate of a teenager accused of killing his father, a simple premise brilliantly crafted and exploited by director Sidney Lumet and screenwriter Reginald Rose. Almost every jury member wants to vote guilty despite lack of concrete evidence but one person stands up for the accused. And that’s when, the real argument begins and continues till the last reels when firm opinions weaken and even reverse. It is a masterful work of debate and dialogue; of shifting momentum and the ideal of sticking to your scruples in the face of antagonistic groupthink. Watch it for Lumet's direction and camerawork. And what a collection of actors, from Fonda to Warden to Balsam to Cobb to EG Marshall and Begley.

GONE WITH THE WIND
239 mins, 1939; Director: Victor Fleming

The film glows in its well developed ensemble. There's self-centered ‘heroine’ Scarlett O'Hara (Vivien Leigh); her suave suitor, Rhett Butler (Clark Gable); Scarlett's unattainable true love, Ashley Wilkes (Leslie Howard); and Ashley's much put-upon wife, the saintly Melanie Hamilton (Olivia DeHavilland)--and that's just for a start. It is a film that perhaps defines Hollywood. It's so full of iconic moments of plotting and dialogue that a feature film could be edited just out of the most quotable moments. Even if it is essentially four hours about a selfish, silly cow, it's impeccably well made, and should be seen by anyone with even a passing interest in romance or movies. It personifies a lost Hollywood art: the epic melodrama. Hugely expensive for its time, it has every dollar evident on screen, and it is easy to be seduced by its sumptuous visuals, to feel the heat of Atlanta burning.

El Miércoles pasado en Querétaro se presentó la obra 12 Hombres en Pugna y mi querida hermanita me invitó. Bueno en realidad decidió que quería ir y yo era su contacto más fácil. La verdad me gusta mucho el teatro lástima que ya no vivo en México d.f. y que a veces sale caro, pero en verdad me gusta y no me había dado la oportunidad de ir a casi ninguna obra desde que me mudé a Querétaro.

Lo que se me hizo más curioso es que un 80% de la audiencia eran personas mayores a 30 años fácil. Nosotras nos veíamos bien chamacas, ya poco a poco fue llegando más gente jóven pero no mucha. Fue único día y sólo se dieron dos presentaciones. Después de 2 horas y estar paleándome con la señora de enfrente que estaba emocionadísima con sus binoculares viendo a los actores, moviéndose de un lado a otro y riéndose de cosas que no eran graciosas.. puedo decir que la obra me pareció bastante interesante y entretenida. La verdad todos los actores son muy buenos y algunos de los personajes no hubieran sido los mismos si hubieran sido otros actores los que los representaban.

Esta obra fue escrita por Reginald Rose (EUA) y fue estrenada en 1954. En resumen no spoileador trata sobre un jurado de 12 hombres que están decidiendo la culpabilidad de un muchacho de 16 años que mató a su padre. Al principio no sabemos exactamente qué fue lo que pasó pero poco a poco te explican los hechos y las pruebas. Al ser 12 hombres elegidos al azar de la sociedad de ese tiempo, encuentras todo tipo de historias, pasados y opiniones. La obra muestra como algunos pueden influir sobre otros , por qué sucede y cómo. Uno de los jurados es el más importante y el que tiene más presencia en el escenario, en este caso Ignacio López Tarso fue el elegido y la verdad lo hace extremadamente bien!

Espero que sigan trayendo buenas obras a Querétaro por que cada vez se me hace más difícil ir al D.F. Para la próxima vuelvo a escribir mi reseña.

1. Once

Steven Spielberg was quoted as saying "A little movie called Once gave me enough inspiration to last the rest of the year." I saw this film five times at the movies, that is a record for me.

2. The Lion King

I know all the words off by heart, no other disney movie compares. Gotta love it.

3. 12 Angry Men

This is about a jury member who tries to persuade the other 11 members to acquit the suspect on trial on the basis of reasonable doubt. Almost the entire film taks place in one setting, the Jury room. Great acting!

4. Braveheart

FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMM! LOVE IT! Love it.

5. The Dark Knight

This movie was more than a blockbuster, superhero movie; it was a thrilling, dark, crime drama, with amazing acting and tremendous action scenes.

Highly Commended: Once Were Warriors, Donnie Darko, Zoolander, The Great Debators, To Kill A Mockingbird, Monsters Inc, Fight Club, Casino Royale, Batman Begins, Snatch

What are your top 5?

I came across the name of 12 Angry Men several times from the list of "good" movies by various sources. However, I didn't have a chance to watch the film until one of my professors mentioned and recommended this film during one of my graduate study class regarding communication and team-building. The film, as my professors made his point, reflected how the team dynamics would play and change in specific condition. After I watched the film, I apprecited the film's message and understood why it was recommended by many sources. I couldn't agree more. The film was a brilliant drama with clever script and sublime performances.

The film explores the jury system in the U.S. where 12 members of the jury have to reach unanimous verdict of a murder case. At the begining of the film, there is only one jury member who has a reasonably doubt and thinks that the defendant of the case is not guilty. During the course of the film, we see the arguments and the switch of the vote from guilty to not guilty of the rest of the jury members. The film takes place in the jury room with 12 members of the jury's exchange of conversation and argument. It is a classic one-room and one-situation film with a fantastic message.

All in all, this 1957 black-and-white drama film is a wonderful movie. It shows that a good movie does not have to have a cool special effect or complicated plot as long as the script is carefully crafted and the performance is solid. This film is definitely one of my 5-star movies list.

First este 12 Angry Men

Nu-mi place nimic mai mult dimineata decat sa ma trezesc cu un film bun. (Desigur, daca e vorba de sambata cand ma trezesc, ar fi rezonabil sa ne referim la momentul zilei ca pranz). La fel si seara/noaptea. Un film de exceptie ma relaxeaza si pe potriva ma incita, deci adorm mai bine de la el, visand frumos, sau urat, sau foarte urat, dupa caz, dar oricum ma simt bine.

Cand e vorba de "12 Angry Men", imi aduc aminte de 2 asemenea momente. Bine, acum sunt si eu eliptica. Sambata dimineata m-am trezit cu el - cel vechi - pe MGM (desi nu l-am prins de la inceput :( ) si in alta seara, anul trecut, l-am vazut pe la 4 dimineata, pe National.

De fapt 12 Angry Men este doua filme (daca acesta o fi acordul potrivit). Unul din 1957, cu Henry Fonda, si unul de televiziune, din 1997, cu Jack Lemmon (in rolul de l-a interpretat Henry Fonda), James Gandolfini, Armin Mueller Stahl, Tony Danza, George C.Scott si na! altii. Destul de multi incat adunati sa fie 12.

Pentru ca cei 12 oameni furiosi  sunt 12 jurati, implicati mai mult sau mai putin profund in procesul de deliberare a unui verdict. Pe langa cei 12 barbati furiosi mai exista si - pret de cateva secunde cate un aprod, o judecatoare sau un gardian.

Cele doua filme, original si remake, nu au parte nici de amenintari fata de jurati (vezi filmul ala cu Demi Moore si Alec Baldwin, nu tin minte cum il cheama pentru ca mi l-am sters din memorie :D, sau cel identic cu Armand Assante si William Hurt), nici efecte speciale, nici impuscaturi sau macar doua decoruri. Totul este filmat pe aceeasi "scena", in acelasi decor, ca o piesa de teatru compusa din muuulte-muuulte acte mici. 

Cei 12 barbati (si in versiunea veche si in versiunea noua, toti protagonistii sunt de gen masculin) trebuie sa judece o crima, sa cantareasca dovezile si marturiile referitoare la moartea unui batran. Pe scaunul acuzatului sta un "pusti de carter" care este fiul batranului.

STOP!

Daca te plictiseste genul de film  care se bazeaza pe dialog, atunci nici nu mai citi acest review. E total inutil. Asta pentru ca tot filmul este o mare discutie, o analizare a situatiei, de catre 12 oameni care nu au fost acolo cand s-a infaptuit crima, dar care raporteaza cazul la experientele lor personale.

Totul e construit pe un dialog inteligent, pe reliefare de personaje extrem de vii, pe o axa care nu merge de la bine la rau, ci de la vinovat la nevinovat.

Juratul nr 8, care nu poarta alt nume este cel care, interpretat pe rand de Henry Fonda si apoi de Jack Lemmon, este singurul care porneste de pe o pozitie neutra, singurul care este dispus sa ii dea pustiului o sansa, conform principiului de "reasonable doubt". In discutarea dovezilor si intoarcerea lor pe toate partile, el gaseste destule brese si reuseste sa transforme situatia din "hai sa il declaram vinovat si sa ne caram de aici" in "hai sa vedem daca pustiul e vinovat dincolo de orice indoiala".

Juratul numarul 8 are un singur adversar inversunat si anume numarul 3, singurul care nu se unduieste intre cele doua verdicte posibile, in functie de dovada care pare cea mai puternica sau cea mai gaunoasa.

Pentru ca una din marile teme ale filmului este "american justice", sa trecem putin prin procedurile judiciare. In sistemul american, pentru ca o persoana  sa fie condamnata, ea trebuie sa fie judecata de un juriu format din egalii sai (jury of his peers), acestia prin discutii sa analizeze probele si cat de circumstantiale sau nu sunt ele si ca juriul sa creada in vinovatia lui beyond reasonable doubt/dincolo de orice indoiala. Pentru ca, cel putin in teorie, esti nevinovat pana la proba contrara. Si nu invers. 

Verdictul se da in unanimitate sau deloc. 

Unul din personajele pe care il gasesc cel mai interesant este juratul numarul 11 (in v.1957 este de origine sovietica, in v.1997 este hispanic), despre care intuim ca provine dintr-o tara cu regim represiv si care este captivat de izul de democratie pe care il simte in tribunalele americane. Fata de americanii get-beget, el poate aprecia mai bine ideea de "judecata" corecta.

Personajul superficial este cel cu numarul 7, care abia asteapta sa se termine "bairamul", pentru ca are bilete la un meci de ... (completati punctele cu baseball, fotbal, baschet, sau ce mai joaca americanii).

Dintre cele doua filme, atat de asemanatoare, chiar si pentru ca numerele juratilor sunt pastrate in conexiune cu personalitatile lor, cel mai mult mi-a placut varianta cu Jack Lemmon, din motive stupide.

1.pentru ca l-am vazut cap-coada.

2.pentru ca poti ghici personajele mai devreme, din cauza unor circumstante ca pelicua colorata, faptul ca sunt multirasiali (na! in 1957 afro-americanii nu prea erau jurati), faptul ca sunt imbracati diferit (varianta alb-negru ti-i prezinta pe toti la fel: costum negru, cravata neagra, camasa alba, toti bruneti si cu frizuri egale).

"12 Angry Men" are doua ore, dar care nu te plictisesc in niciun moment. Dovezile sunt analizate si apoi discreditate, chiar si opiniile contra sunt constructive, iar cei 12 barbati  isi creaza propria pledoarie, distincta de cea a apararii sau acuzarii, care ii duce spre deznodamant.

Inspiratii

Serialul "The Jury" (2004).10 episoade. Fiecare episod prezenta un caz cu cate un juriu nou. Actorii care jucau constant erau fie procurorul fie avocatul apararii. Pentru ca serialul este loaded cu flaskback-uri din timpul procesului (exact ce imi placea la film e suprimat -  ca nu il vedem pe acuzat sau pe martori la fata), iar la sfarsit vedea si daca acuzatul era vinovat sau nevinovat, implicit, daca juratii au gresit sau nu.

Jury Duty (1995). Un soi de parodie cu Pauly Shore si Tia Carrere. El, un pierde-vara si sarac lipit ajunge jurat si e cazat intr-un hotel. Practic traieste mai bine acolo decat acasa, si ii place si de gagica, asa ca incearca sa prelungeasca deliberarea pentru a-si cumpara timp. Incearca sa-i convinga pe ceilalti din juriu (oameni seriosi si nu prea), ca acuzatul cu mutra de psycho e nevinovat.  

Distributie: Henry Fonda, etc

Premii: Nominalizat la Oscar, castigator al Ursului de aur

Nota: 9

Pe scurt: Actiunea filmului este simpla: 12 jurati trebuie sa decida daca un tanar este vinovat de moartea tatalui sau. In schimb filmul straluceste la capitolul dialoguri si jocul actorilor. Timp de 90 de minute suntem martori la incercarea unui singur om de a invinge prejudecatile si apatia celorlalti 11 si de a-i forta sa analizeze cu atentie dovezile si marturiile inainte de a decide soarta unei persoane.

FIlmul reprezinta mai mult decat analiza unui caz sau a unui sistem judiciar. Este o foarte buna analiza a naturii umane.

Verdict: Un film fascinant.

Pentru alte elucubratii cititi mai jos

Sunt cateva lucruri care mi-au placut in mod deosebit la acest film.

• Personajele. Fiecare este diferit dar pana la sfarsitul filmului ajungem sa-i cunoastem pe toti in cele mai mici detalii. Iar interactiunea  si dialogurile lor sunt superb realizate.
• Nu stim nimic despre proces, nu ne este aratata nici o parte a lui si toate informatiile pe care le aflam sunt ca urmare a discutiei intre personaje. Dar volumul de informatii oferit in aceasta forma este considerabil. La sfarsit stim la fel de mult ca si fiecare jurat dar pana la urma nimeni nu stie daca tanarul este vinovat sau nu.
• Desi filmul nu are actiune este plin de energie. O mare parte din intensitatea lui este data de jocul actorilor dar un factor subtil este si camera de filmat. Pe masura ce actiunea progreseaza sunt folosite mici siretlicuri care dau senzatia privitorului ca intreaga incapere pare sa se micsoreze si sa se inchida in jurul actorilor.
• E interensant de vazut cum oamenii se impart in 2 categorii ( cei care doresc sa voteze vinovat si ceilalti) si pe masura ce timpul trece unii isi schimba incet opinia fiind convinsi de fapte si de logica sa renunte la propiile prejudecati.
• Scena in care unul dintre jurati se lanseaza intr-o tirada rasista este geniala. Pe rand, fiecare dintre ceilalti 11 se ridica de la masa si ii intoarce spatele. Nici unul dintre ei nu poate suporta un asemenea discurs.

I love these old black and white movies. In a world of HD there is something endearing and sweet about these old films. Some of my favorite movies are in black and white. I adore 12 Angry Men, Sabrina, Anatomy of Murder, just to name a few. It is nice to watch older movies made back when they actually had to act to make a movie, rather than just relying special effects to get them through.

Not to say there aren't a few worthwhile movies out there that are modern and include special effects, but some days it is nice to just get back to the basics.

the exposition is great. i mean if you're going to praise this film, that's really the only thing you could praise because that's pretty much all there is. exposition. or words or talking or discourse or discussion or chat or conversation or the exchange of ideas or dialogue or whatever (clearly i am a master of it as well). 11 men think the defendant is guilty, 1 does not. he then spends an hour and a half to try and convince all of them that they're wrong.

the film runs then risk of becoming preachy because of that. one man trying to blind our preconceived notions about who this kid is or why we believe he is guilty, but we as an audience don't really know who the defendant is (which i think is to the films advantage). we don't have the same knowledge about the trial as the jurors do, so it's not henry fonda trying to change our minds. we can be silent observers.

i love the way the film reveals information. the way we slowly go through each of the different jurors and see how their minds are being changed, and learn about their previous prejudices. the pacing is perfect as it feels like we spend an entire afternoon with these jurors when in fact it's just over 90 minutes

all of the performances are great, and even though it's 2008 i actually felt like i was living in the 50's. the film does a great job of creating setting and tone without ever leaving the room.

lumet has definitely moved up my own personal ranks of best directors.

twelve angry men by sidney lumet

i've had numerous people tell me i need to see it, and this was one that wasn't even really on my radar.

week of april 7:

cléo from 5 to 7 by agnés varda

a little classic new wave

week of april 14:

the 400 blows by francois truffaut

continuing the new wave for another week

week of april 21:

the 39 steps by alfred hitchcock

one of those few hitchcock films i've left to see

week of april 28:

2001: a space odyssey

i'm not really looking forward to it. it seems like too much to undertake

Was excited to watch the same on 13th march at Sivagami Petachi. I guess the rain gods decided to play some hide n seek that day and there was a heavy downpour while the play started and more so when the play ended.

I'm becoming a fan of  Sarvesh Sridar (hope i'm right, the Jury No.8) after this performance and the earlier oneas Alok Gupta in 5 point someone ...... i presume the play was part of some Management schools for team effort, team building and leadership (quote their handout at the venue unquote), no guesses why it should be.

Should commend the loyola team for bringing the 1954 body language, american accents etc. (as if i'm the authority of those times, just guesing and sounded right to me .. period).

psst ... they didn't allow cameras in ... so no pics ....

P.s : my entire family enjoyed the play ... which incl. my wife, son & sis.

Incredible to see a young Sidney Lumet already so accomplished. The extreme bare setting of almost only a jury room is never boring throughout the entire length of the movie. Although the story is a bit too perfectly constructed for my taste, this movie is involving until the last minute. Never mind that all I got to see for ninety minutes were 12 sweaty middle aged men discussing a murder case!

Watching two movies over two days, one a copy of the other, could provide enough matter to reflect upon. If 12 Angry Men was brilliant, Ek Ruka Hua Faisla was no less appealing.

Watching the Hindi copy on Youtube was not particularly inviting. But having watched it, I can't really say that it was that bad an experience. A suitable star cast, seasoned direction, intelligent translation and minimal settings equip this movie with all that it needs to be appreciated. The dingy room, the oppressive heat, the lashing rain, the rusty fan, the alert doorman and 12 angry men provide the perfect setting for such a story as depicted in these movies.

It can be watched in 12 parts at the following links - Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11 and Part 12. If only Doordarshan screened such movies as these as often!

Basu Chatterjee and K. K. Raina provide the perfect answer to the pair of  Sidney Lumet and Henry Fonda. One needs to look out for Annu Kapoor and Pankaj Kapur who are in their usual elements, except perhaps the exaggerated tone and paunch of their characters.

I am supposed to phone in on Sunday night to find out if and when I should mosey on down to the court house.   I have visions of 12 Angry Men dancing through my head--excitement! courtroom drama!

Additionally, I will have a mini-vacation from school which will, of course cause more work than it will save.  I didn't mention the JD to the students because it would be cause for an all-out ticker tape celebration.  I'm NEVER absent and they not-so-secretly wish I would take a trip or contract some long-term illness.  I'm going to leave them guessing, but I'll keep you guys posted.

Кратко свои мысли.

Жалею, что не посмотрел сначала этот фильм, а затем
Михалковский римейк. Фильм Михалкова "частично понравился" мне при первом просмотре. Сейчас же я
склоняюсь к мнению, что всё хорошее в фильме Михалкова
тупо скопировано отсюда, а всё плохое (лишние флэшбэки, ужасный конец и эпиграфы, дешёвые мелодрамы и дебильное морализаторство, Горбачёв с Ельциным и иконки с птичками) - добавлено от себя.

Да и тоньше этот фильм, гораздо тоньше, чем способны воспринять мозги Михалкова.

Просто если бы я начинал с этого фильма, он бы на меня сильнее подействовал (я бы не знал сюжета).

А фильм практически безупречен и смотреть его стоит всем, если уж не понравится это, то ничего не понравится.