Friday, November 22, 2019
12 Angry Men
 12 Angry Men Essay  Many movies start with promising premises that end up only partially fulfilled,  but 12 Angry Men Essay never disappoints. The rich drama with minimalist sets occurs  almost completely within the confines of a jury room. The incredibly strong  ensemble cast for the jury includes: Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Ed Begley, E.G.  Marshall, Jack Warden, Jack Klugman, Edward Binns, Joseph Sweeney, Martin  Balsam, George Voskovec, John Fiedler and Robert Webber. To further minimize  distractions, we never learn most of the jurors names. We know them by their  opinions, backgrounds and weaknesses. They have their juror numbers, and that is  considered sufficient labeling. As the story opens, a bored judge in a capital  murder case is reading his charge to the jury. When he comes to the part about a  reasonable doubt, he repeats it with such an emphasis that he seems to be  suggesting that any doubt they may have in their minds about the defendants  guilt is probably not reasonable.         Indeed everyone, including the defendant,  seems to think the case is hopeless. The accused, played with big, soulful eyes  by John Savoca, never speaks, but his sunken, despondent demeanor says it all.  The evidence in the case is clear, and as we find out later, his attorney  apparently was pretty inept. Before the jurors start their deliberation, they  idle away their time arguing over whether the case was dull or not and over how  well the attorneys performed. If you didnt know better, you could assume they  were reviewing some movie they had seen. None of them seems to be concerned in  the least that the defendants life is at stake.   Into this sure and certain  world comes a voice of caution, someone who is willing to demand that the jurors  put a halt to their headlong rush to judgment. This voice of reason comes from a  juror played by Henry Fonda, giving a resolute and perfect performance that  should have at least gotten him an Academy Award nomination for best actor, but  didnt. Fondas character votes not guilty on the first ballot, not because hes  sure the defendant is innocent, but because he wants to get his fellow jurors to  stop and reconsider the merits of the case. The other jurors are aghast that he  seems to have forgotten the sure and certain facts of the case that  prove the defendants guilt. Now these are facts, barks an angry  juror played by Lee J. Cobb.   You cant refute facts. Everyone brings  their differing lifestyles into the jury room. E.G. Marshall plays a prim and  proper Wall Street stockbroker. He ticks off the facts in the case as if he were  reading closing stock prices from the newspaper.   His studious and ever-stern  glare cuts down those who disagree with him. And he is the only one who keeps  his coat on the entire time-he claims he never sweats, even in the stiflingly  hot jury room. His bankers glasses, one of the films few props, turn out to be  key to the cases solution. With superciliousness, he bemoans slum dwellers such  as the defendant, only to find out that another juror, played by Jack Klugman,  grew up in the slums and resents the brokers remarks. Although most jurors are  known by the intensity of their convictions, Robert Webber plays someone who  works in advertising and views serving on a jury no more seriously than he would  concocting a laundry soap jingle. He tries using advertising lingo such as  run this idea up the flagpole and see if anybody salutes it.   After  ridicule and scorn by his fellow jurors, Henry Fondas character suggests a  startling compromise. He will abstain from the second ballot, and if they all  vote guilty, so will he. But if he has garnered any support for the defendant,  then the rest of the jurors have to agree to stay awhile and discuss the case  with him. After he wins that round, one by one, the other jurors begin to fall  in line behind him, but even if the conclusion is obvious, the way they get  there constantly surprises and fascinates. The beauty of Roses script is that  we come to know each of the jurors by the end of the deliberations. Most writers  would gloss over some of them to concentrate on a few, but Rose gives each a  unique personality and background.    extroverted marmalade salesman, who made $27,000 last year and has tickets to  tonights ball game burning in his pocket. He wants to vote .    
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
 
 
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.