12 Angry Men(1957, Sidney Lumet) Implications: (Non-Spoiler 2 sentence plot synopsis:)
Henry Fonda plays the lone dissenting voice on a jury trying an 'open and shut' murder case. Since a jury's decision must be unanimous, the 12 men just talk through the case until consensus is reached. The entire film takes place in the jury room, leaving the details of the case to the audience's imagination
Health Benefits (what I liked):
Films like this make me realize I have to go watch more plays. I love the respect this film has for it's audience. It's basically 96 minutes of people talking, yet it is gripping, tense and thought-provoking. How did this work so well? First and foremost - attention to character. We learn a little about each juror, his prejudices and motivations and how those might contribute to the tendency of mob rule. Second, everything is left to the imagination. Going into this I was dreading my expectation of a whole ton of flashbacks and shadowy imagery...nope! Everything is told through the dialog - which, for the most part, flows naturally in delivering exposition.
Side Effects: (what I didn't like)
Actually, not too much to nit-pick here, but I suppose they did make Henry Fonda a bit precious. A lot of close up shots of his dreamy eyes. For a minute I thought I was watching Passion of Joan of Arc again. There were a few moments that the dialog felt a bit unnatural in its delivery of exposition, but honestly...I think you have to give 'em that.
Active Ingredients(favorite scenes and characters)
In a film with an ensemble cast that takes place almost exclusively in a single room, it's hard to pick out specific performances and scenes, but I would like to highlight the flaws this film brings out about our jury-system. There is much optimism with this system that allows "your peers" to be the ones that decide your fate, but with the problem of money and good lawyers, an extremely complex legal code, and the complete lack of training given to jurors, this film calls into question the very notion. In the end I'm not sure if it's arguing that it can work, or arguing just how thin a line it can be sometimes. Either way, it does a brilliant job calling this into question.
This medicine is like: (who should watch this?)
a) Castor Oil: To be shown only to Film students... as punishment[/b]
b) St John's Wart: Works really well for some people, but I still have this rash...
c) Fish Oil: Good for you but it's a bit of a pill to swallow!
d) One-A-Day Vitamins: Recommended for anyonee) Flinstone Chewables: Good for you and easily ingestible (and fruity flavors!)
I can see anyone watching this and liking this. Very easy to consume, interesting story and asks questions that anyone could relate toHow soon before your next dosage?(Chances I'll watch it again)
a) Measles Inoculation: Once should do it
b) Advil: may need a dose again from time to time
c) Viagara: Keep handy, because you never know when the mood will strike you!d) Crack: You need it again as soon as the effects wear off...
I can see watching this straight through everytime time I catch it playing on televisionSo...Do I feel better now?(other thoughts)
Yeah! I had a feeling I'd like this. Seems like the type of film I'd like.
Conclusion:For a film that is 96 minutes of a bunch of white middle aged guys talking in a room, it sure is pretty great!
Grade: AFilm Rankings so far
1. Fitzcaraldo
2. Reds
3. 12 Angry Men
4. Chinatown
5. Goodbye Mr Chips
6. The Bicyle Thief
7. Double Indemnity
8. The Passion of Joan of Arc
Remaining films:
- Seven Samarai
- Paris Texas
- The 400 Blows
- Days of Heaven
- The Third Man
- Do The Right Thing
- Blue Velvet
- Three Colors: Blue
- The Sting
- The Apartment
- Sunrise: Song of Two Humans
- North by Northwest