Sign in to follow this  
Jillian13

12 Angry Men

12 posts in this topic

Gee that's a heck of a statistic. I've watched

'12 Angry Men' 100 times and I'll probably watch 100 more times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the movie being almost 50 years old and Klugman's health history it's a wonder he's still here.

 

It's a great movie. So much drama with nothing more than a good script and 12 very gifted actors.

 

Just curious, did anyone see the Jack Lemmon/George C. Scott remake for Showtime? For me it probably would have been better if I wasn't familiar with the original. I kept wanting to compare the two. I guess that is the danger with any remake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> With the movie being almost 50 years old and

> Klugman's health history it's a wonder he's still

> here.

>

> It's a great movie. So much drama with nothing more

> than a good script and 12 very gifted actors.

>

> Just curious, did anyone see the Jack Lemmon/George

> C. Scott remake for Showtime? For me it probably

> would have been better if I wasn't familiar with the

> original. I kept wanting to compare the two. I guess

> that is the danger with any remake.

 

I felt the remake was not up to the standard of the original. In fact, I didn't like it at all. But that is the way that I generally feel about remakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I saw the remake, and I, too tend to make comparisons. I do prefer the original but with Jack Lemmon and G.C Scott, you woud expect it to be better. I believe Tony Danza was the guy with the baseball tickets, and Hume Cronyn was the oldest man, but I don't remember the rest of the cast. I imagine the feminists in our ranks would find fault with both versions, but if women had been included, the men couldn't have made their feelings made as easily as with all men in the room.

 

Does anyone remember the rest of the cast?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw that when it aired. I thought it was a very good made-for-Showtime movie. Therein lies the rub. It was a very good made-for-Showtime film. It's competitor was an all time classic that will live forever.

 

The 1997 cast was actually excellent. It included Ossie Davis, George C. Scott, Armin Mueller-Stahl, James Gandolfini, Tony Danza, Hume Cronyn, Edward James Olmos, William L. Petersen and, of course, Jack Lemmon in the lead. In the case of some of them (Ossie Davis, George C. Scott, Hume Cronyn and Lemmon) it gave us the opportunity to enjoy one more strong performance from them before they left the stage forever.

 

The film was very good. Sadly for them they've invited comparison to a movie that's eye-poppingly, jaw droppingly superb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine the feminists in our ranks would find fault with both versions, but if women had been included, the men couldn't have made their feelings made as easily as with all men in the room.

 

I disagree; the presence of women would've forced the male jurors to confront the paternalism and hypocrisy at the heart of Western notions of deference to women.

 

Because the producers of the 1997 version wanted to retain the title, women were excluded (though Mary McDonnell played the Judge), making the situation rather unbelievable for a modern jury. I'm sure that that was debated extensively before they cast the parts and the cameras rolled. The jury did become multi-ethnic, and that helped deepen the debate and captive animosities at the core of the drama.

 

Frankly, I'd have gone one step further and made the defendant whose fate was being debated a young woman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual, I am going to find myself some middle ground, between the two ideas of whether or not women should have been included in the jury.

 

As individuals, I would venture to say each juror would have felt the influence of women in the room, and acted i.e. made decisions re: guilt or innocence according to their deeper nature.

 

Group dynamics being what they are, we would have a situation in which the resulting decisions might have brought a totally different, and maybe unexpected, result.

 

The idea of making the defendant a woman would throw yet another variable into the mix.

 

All this would lead me to speculate that you would have a substantially different film, with women included, than what the creators intended.

 

Not worse, perhaps better, but different. A film that should be made and seen, I would say. Whether it should be retitled - 12 Angry People/Jurors - is a subject not of much interest to me.

 

A parting thought that just came to me - could any of the male jurors' roles have been played by a woman or women, with no substantial revisions to the script? Could all of the roles had been played by women? Would the film have been believable?

 

Food for thought...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About five years ago a South Suburban (Chicago ) High School did a production that was call " 12 Angry People", a redo of the TV original.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>

> I disagree; the presence of women would've forced the

> male jurors to confront the paternalism and hypocrisy

> at the heart of Western notions of deference to

> women.

>

The jury did become multi-ethnic, and that helped deepen the

> debate and captive animosities at the core of the

> drama.

>

The movie already was multi-ethnic, with Ossie Davis, it becme milti-racial.

 

I'm pretty sure th 'paternalism' and 'hypocrisy' of the 50/60's is basiclly a thing of the past. Young men today do not expect dinner to be ready when they get home, nor do they open doors or pull out chairs etc. When they do these things, the girls generally say "it's o.k., I can do it". Women don't expet to be taken care of, they believe its a 50-50 proposition, as do men. This knowledge comes from my sons who were taught to be the gentlemen, and kidded out of it.

 

However, consideing the male mind-set of the 50's, I meant they couldn't have talked about the witness who dressed and made up too young. There could be a juror looking the same way.

 

As for a young woman defendant - no matter what century we're in, a young face will always turn a head or two.

 

Finally, Lifetime made a movie of this with mixed jurors, and you're right, whoever said it, it was a totally different story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, anyone who reads my previous post, I am Not Drinking, my neighbor came in while I was proofreading, and I missed some typos. It's multi-racial, and a bit further down, it's considering, not consideing. REMEMBER, NOBODY'S PRFECT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us