Pages

▼

Friday, October 9, 2015

Mock Squid Soup: 12 Angry Men

MOCK! and The Armchair Squid are proud to welcome you to Mock Squid Soup: A Film Society, meetings on the second Friday of each month.  Last week, society members posted three clues as to their chosen film for the month.  Today is the big reveal.  A reminder on my clues:

- The movie is 96 minutes long.  All but about three of those minutes are filmed in the same room.

- Sonia Sotomayor claims the film as an important influence on her life.

- The movie was recently parodied by Amy Schumer.

Drum roll, please...

Title: 12 Angry Men
Director: Sidney Lumet
Original Release: 1957
My Overall Rating: 5 stars out of 5
via Wikipedia
When my daughter asked me what my Family Movie Night choice was about, I was hesitant to tell her too much.   "It's about a murder trial" was all I could manage.  12 Angry Men is, in terms of basic concept and structure, a fairly straightforward film.  The members of a jury deliberate over a murder case.  All but one (played by Henry Fonda) are certain the accused is guilty.  The holdout does his best to convince the others.  Simple, right?

But 12 Angry Men is so much more.   It's about challenging assumptions and prejudices.  It's about standing by your principles and staring down the forces of conventional wisdom.  It's about burden of proof and reasonable doubt.  It's about twelve men with different and frequently competing motivations, charged with the legal and moral obligation to either agree on a man's fate or admit they failed in the effort. 

12 Angry Men is also one of the most brilliantly written movies you'll ever see.  Screenwriter Reginald Rose originally wrote the story as a 1954 television episode for the series Studio One.  A stage adaptation followed in 1955.  The movie is a triumph of the medium, taking the eye where a theater audience could never go.  While most of the film is indeed shot in the jury room, the camera is all over the place.  The shots in the beginning are wide angle, at eye level.  But as the story progresses, the perspective moves lower and closer to the faces of the jurors, affecting an uncomfortable intimacy and heightening the tension.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor does, indeed, claim the film as an important influence on her life.  Juror #11 (most characters are never named beyond their juror numbers), an immigrant, gives a speech on his reverence for the American justice system that Sotomayor has said helped convince her to pursue a career in law.  Interestingly, as a judge, she would caution juries against following the example of 12 Angry Men, urging them to base their decision on facts rather than speculation. 

It's not easy to explain all of that to a twelve-year-old.  Best just to let her watch and discover for herself.

Next meeting is Friday, November 13th.  I'll post November's blog list tomorrow.  For November, pick another society member's choice from our ever increasing library to review.  Today, please visit my fellow cinephiles, listed below:


at

18 comments:

  1. Janie JunebugOctober 9, 2015 at 2:30 AM

    That's a great movie. Henry Fonda was one of our best actors.

    Love,
    Janie

    ReplyDelete
  2. Alex J. CavanaughOctober 9, 2015 at 10:06 AM

    I vaguely remember the original. I thought they did a good job with the remake. It had quite a cast - Edward James Olmos, William Petersen, George C. Scott, Jack Lemmon...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Armchair SquidOctober 9, 2015 at 4:17 PM

      I've never seen the remake. I've always figured I could only be disappointed by it. The cast is certainly impressive.

      Delete
  3. sageOctober 9, 2015 at 11:21 AM

    I was writing a piece about 1957 and thought about that movie...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Armchair SquidOctober 9, 2015 at 4:18 PM

      Bridge on the River Kwai was that year, too, thus preventing 12AM from winning any Oscars.

      Delete
  4. Andrew LeonOctober 9, 2015 at 11:52 AM

    It's been a (long) while since I've seen that. I should watch it again.

    ReplyDelete
  5. BirgitOctober 9, 2015 at 1:52 PM

    I love this film! I think I first saw it when I was around 12 and found it compelling. I felt, from the moment the camera shows to kid's face and it fades to the jury room, you know he is innocent. One has a perfect place for character development from the Juror who is missing his ball game(all the rage here in Toronto and the Niagara region today-some offices have actually closed down) to the elderly man that the other men, at first, take no notice of. It's one of my favourites

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Armchair SquidOctober 9, 2015 at 4:19 PM

      I think I first saw it around that age, too.

      Jays and Rangers, tied in the bottom of the 11th...

      Delete
  6. angryparsnipOctober 9, 2015 at 5:02 PM

    Great choice.
    I saw this such a long time ago, I should put it on my list to watch.

    cheers, parsnip

    ReplyDelete
  7. Musings of a Creative WriterOctober 9, 2015 at 5:37 PM

    I saw the remake with James Gandolfini and LOVED it. I will have to watch the original. :)

    ReplyDelete
  8. AnonymousOctober 9, 2015 at 7:39 PM

    I've heard of this movie, but have never seen it! It makes sense with the 'all in one room' clue now though haha .. Another movie added to my 'watch' list! :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Toi ThomasOctober 10, 2015 at 9:03 AM

    This is a good film, original and remake. The concept is one I wish more people would consider. It takes the idea of "not judging a book by its cover" to a whole new level. Great review... I'm sure your daughter will get it if she hasn't already; the seed has been planted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Armchair SquidOctober 11, 2015 at 9:30 AM

      She enjoyed it. There was even a satisfying aha moment when the last piece of evidence fell into place.

      Delete