Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
GregoryPeckfan

12 ANGRY MEN? Movies/Performances That Are So Compelling You Become Angry Too

Recommended Posts

Hello,  I own the DVD of the Henry Fonda version of 12 Angry Men

 

 I have found that when I am watching 12 Angry Men, the anger of the characters as portrayed by actors such a s Lee J. Cobb, and Ed Begley Jr. are so compelling that I find myself getting angry even if I disagree with them.  The portrayals are that compelling.

 

 

What movies and performances of people who have lost their temper do you find so compelling that that you find yourself carried away, even when you disagree with their viewpoint?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well GPF, I have to admit BEFORE all my Anger Management training, a certain News anchor role done by Peter Finch USED to make me SO mad that I TOO would stick my head out the window and yell at the top of my lungs, and vent all of my frustrations with the world!

 

(...but I'm all better now)

 

;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,  I own the DVD of the Henry Fonda version of 12 Angry Men

 

 I have found that when I am watching 12 Angry Men, the anger of the characters as portrayed by actors such a s Lee J. Cobb, and Ed Begley Jr. are so compelling that I find myself getting angry even if I disagree with them.  The portrayals are that compelling.

 

 

What movies and performances of people who have lost their temper do you find so compelling that that you find yourself carried away, even when you disagree with their viewpoint?

I was so angry after the last time that I saw this film that I went outside and picked a fight with the first guy who crossed my path. Unfortunately he was about 6'5" and 270.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got so angry about Jack Warden talking about the Yanks

that I went over to Ebbets Field. I'm still waiting for the

opening pitch. This is wonderful film about certain NYC

types of the 1950s, even if that's not its main point. They

should have put Marty into a sequel. I don't know Ang,

what you want to do after the trial is over?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:)

 

Lee J. Cobb was so obsessed in many of the speeches he gave.

 

It is partly the confines of the set that helps make me get carried away.

 

 

 

Somehow, I see this becoming a thread about silly performances of people loosing their tempers instead, but oh, well, that is okay too. 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how anyone can watch Network (1976) and not be angry afterwards. 

 

I recently watched Guess Who's Coming To Dinner (1967) and got angry afterwards because it is not dated material, and white people still have a problem with interracial marriages( it is being contended in the KY legislature and KY Supreme Court to reverse the ban of the ban of interracial marriage). 

 

I recently watched Gone With The Wind (1939) and got angry because people believe the film is non-fiction, when it's actually complete fiction. 

 

I guess it depends on what is happening today and how classic film still speaks to us- even if it's a downside to being a classic film lover. At least I think so. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how anyone can watch Network (1976) and not be angry afterwards. 

 

I recently watched Guess Who's Coming To Dinner (1967) and got angry afterwards because it is not dated material, and white people still have a problem with interracial marriages( it is being contended in the KY legislature and KY Supreme Court to reverse the ban of the ban of interracial marriage). 

 

I recently watched Gone With The Wind (1939) and got angry because people believe the film is non-fiction, when it's actually complete fiction. 

 

I guess it depends on what is happening today and how classic film still speaks to us- even if it's a downside to being a classic film lover. At least I think so. 

 

 

I used to be able to watch Network and see it as satire, but now I see it as all too  real, and yes, it does make me angry.

 

The reference I made about silly reactions was the post Vautrin made about Warden and the Yankees.

 

Thanks for mentioning Guess Who's Coming to Dinner.  Yes, you would think that we would be past interracial marriage racism, but we aren't.

 

In general, I love the movie To Sir With love.  But I cannot stand the gym teacher who deliberately sets the pole vault exercise up so that the student who isn't athletic will injure himself.  And I am angry that the teacher is not fired right away and instead we see Poitier telling the student who stood up for the injured student that he has to apologize instead.

 

As a person who had to have remedial grading in gym class or I would not have graduated because I am slightly disabled, I identify with the student who cannot pole vault.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to be able to watch Network and see it as satire, but now I see it as all too  real, and yes, it does make me angry.

 

The reference I made about silly reactions was the post Vautrin made about Warden and the Yankees.

 

Thanks for mentioning Guess Who's Coming to Dinner.  Yes, you would think that we would be past interracial marriage racism, but we aren't.

 

In general, I love the movie To Sir With love.  But I cannot stand the gym teacher who deliberately sets the pole vault exercise up so that the student who isn't athletic will injure himself.  And I am angry that the teacher is not fired right away and instead we see Poitier telling the student who stood up for the injured student that he has to apologize instead.

 

As a person who had to have remedial grading in gym class or I would not have graduated because I am slightly disabled, I identify with the student who cannot pole vault.

I'm glad you mention that character arc in To Sir, With Love (1967) because I can't watch Forrest Gump (1994) anymore because of the arc. It makes me angry to see Forrest being seen by others and not how he sees others. Tom Hanks does an amazing job and deserved his Oscar, but the perspective of the film is how he is a pain in the butt to everyone else, and he has one sentient moment! 

 

"I know what love is." 

 

No one wants fictional films to come true, and I think that's why so many still alive who saw it in the theatres in late 1976 and early 1977 have a right to be angry that what is funny is now true. 

 

The last socio-political film that made me angry not because of the performances or the presentation was Fruitvale Station (2012) but because of the subject matter of police brutality and how, even though there have been crumbs of changes, there are MANY more than need to happen that need to end the violence and prevent innocent lives being murdered by vigilante cops. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...I recently watched Guess Who's Coming To Dinner (1967) and got angry afterwards because it is not dated material, and white people still have a problem with interracial marriages( it is being contended in the KY legislature and KY Supreme Court to reverse the ban of the ban of interracial marriage). 

 

 

 

For some reason here hep, and probably because they both feature Spencer Tracy, this comment of yours here has reminded me of another film which while at first might seem dated to some, I believe is as timeless and current in tone and message as any movie ever made...INHERIT THE WIND.

 

The courtroom scene in which Spencer Tracy verbally spars with Fredric March while the latter is on the witness stand will usually raise my "anger level" a bit.

 

(...and my anger primarily stemming from the thought that even in this day and age there are still actually millions upon millions of people in this world whose beliefs tell them they somehow have some "God given right" to tell others what to think and how to act, and to incorporate them into secular law)

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely love Splendor in the Grass (1960), but it does make me angry as well. I know back in the early 1900s, women were seen as inferior, and there were different standards for men and women. But the fact that he can do whatever he wants with no repercussion to his morals or his namesake is ridiculous. Yet she would get a bad reputation around town. This also goes for the hundreds of other movies where women are seen as inferior beings.

 

I am a masculine feminist! Equal means equal.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely love Splendor in the Grass (1960), but it does make me angry as well. I know back in the early 1900s, women were seen as inferior, and there were different standards for men and women. But the fact that he can do whatever he wants with no repercussion to his morals or his namesake is ridiculous. Yet she would get a bad reputation around town. This also goes for the hundreds of other movies where women are seen as inferior beings.

 

I am a masculine feminist! Equal means equal.

I have always had a problem with this movie for much the same reason, Paul.

 

There are so many reasons why this is not an easy film to watch.

 

I prefer other Natalie Wood movies.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely love Splendor in the Grass (1960), but it does make me angry as well. I know back in the early 1900s, women were seen as inferior, and there were different standards for men and women. But the fact that he can do whatever he wants with no repercussion to his morals or his namesake is ridiculous. Yet she would get a bad reputation around town. This also goes for the hundreds of other movies where women are seen as inferior beings.

 

I am a masculine feminist! Equal means equal.

The technical term is "male feminist" for your wonderful consideration.  :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dargo:

 

INHERIT THE WIND  is a perfect example of what I meat by this the title of this thread.

 

The movie airs quite frequently -not as frequently as some TCM titles do- on a Canadian channel called Silver Screen Classics.

 

I have to be very careful what time of day I watch this.

 

It is a great example of why Gene Kelly could have been a great non-musical actor and why MGM was not sure what to do with him until he danced with his reflection in Cover Girl when he was loaned out to Columbia.

 

He was a dramatic actor who held his own opposite Tracy and March.

 

I get very angry with March.

 

But then I understand Tracy respecting March in a way that he can never respect Kelly.

 

Excuse me using the actors names as if they are the characters as I know they are real life people.  I am TALKING ABOUT THE CHARACTERS, NOT THE ACTORS.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The technical term is "male feminist" for your wonderful consideration.  :)

 

 

Haha I was playing on words from a Married with Children episode (with Jerry Springer, who is the 'masculine feminist'). But thank you! :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason here hep, and probably because they both feature Spencer Tracy, this comment of yours here has reminded me of another film which while at first might seem dated to some, I believe is as timeless and current in tone and message as any movie ever made...INHERIT THE WIND.

 

The courtroom scene in which Spencer Tracy verbally spars with Fredric March while the latter is on the witness stand will usually raise my "anger level" a bit.

 

(...and my anger primarily stemming from the thought that even in this day and age there are still actually millions upon millions of people in this world whose beliefs tell them they somehow have some "God given right" to tell others what to think and how to act, and to incorporate them into secular law)

Thanks Dargo. Inherit The Wind (1963) is very relevant too considering thumpers think that "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" was everywhere since 1776 when actually it's 60+ years old. And don't get me started on the Christian terrorists in our country that we turn a blind eye to whenever a doctor that performs abortions gets murdered and whom are running for the office of the Presidency. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly my feelings about Kelly in INHERIT too, GPF.

 

While I've always felt Stanley Kramer's direction of this film was fairly unimaginative, the acting in it, Kelly included, raises it to a higher level.

 

I love the scene near the end where Tracy dresses down cynical Kelly with "Who will mourn for you?" after March's Brady character dies.

 

(...and also of course Kelly's snappy comeback of "You will") 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rarely get angry when movie characters get angry. After all,

it's only a movie, not that watching people get angry can't

be entertaining and Lee J. Cobb and Ed Begley are two

masters of the movie meltdown. I'm more a a calm Henry

Fonda type, though Hank got a little upset at the end of

the film. I got a laugh out of the Robert Webber character

who wanted to run things up the flagpole to see who would

salute, as if a murder trial was some kind of ad campaign.

 

I couldn't be angry at March in Inherit. I felt too sorry for

him having to wear that awful baldy cap.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It must the type of people I've been around, Vautrin.

 

 

I'd love to be the calm Henry Fonda type.  Life is difficult enough as it is, but I somehow I am affected by such films.

 

These films have to be well made of course for that to happen.

 

Movies that are meant to be serious but acted badly end up being unintentionally funny.

 

That was the problem I had with SHE (1935) which I saw recently for the first time.

 

It was so bad it was good.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely love Splendor in the Grass (1960), but it does make me angry as well. I know back in the early 1900s, women were seen as inferior, and there were different standards for men and women. But the fact that he can do whatever he wants with no repercussion to his morals or his namesake is ridiculous. Yet she would get a bad reputation around town. This also goes for the hundreds of other movies where women are seen as inferior beings.

 

I am a masculine feminist! Equal means equal.

 

I love Splendor in the Grass.  The film takes place in the 1920s, as Warren Beatty's family loses everything during the crash in 1929.  While women hadn't nearly made as many strides as they had by the 1970s, the 1920s were when women were starting to break away from the rigid Victorian ideals.  This is part of the reason that Warren Beatty's sister, Ginny, was such an embarrassment to the family.  She drank, smoked, had sex and may or may not have had an abortion while in Chicago.  Ginny's behavior goes against everything that women raised during the Victorian era were taught as being "proper" behavior for ladies.  The young adults who came of age during the 1920s were the ones who were bobbing their hair, raising their hemlines, drinking and smoking in speakeasys, everything that the men were doing.  This is also the time when women had just won the right to vote thanks to the 19th amendment.  

 

Splendor in the Grass takes place in 1920s Kansas. Typically the midwest is more conservative than other areas of the country--especially in comparison to the West Coast and the New England states.  Natalie Wood's character is also feeling pressured by Warren Beatty's character to have sex, but she is conflicted.  She wants to do it, but knows that premarital sex goes against the "rules" in her family and community.  Her mother is from the prior, more traditional generation.  She's the one who tells her daughter something to the effect of "women aren't supposed to enjoy sex.  They should just lie on their backs, looking at the ceiling and grin and bear it." Much of the film deals with Natalie Wood's character's conflicting feelings.  She wants to have sex with her boyfriend and feels that she'll lose him.  However, she doesn't want to go against her parents and the community.  She ends up having a nervous breakdown due to the stress of this situation.  

 

While there are definitely some anti-feminist sentiments expressed in the film, I never felt offended or upset by the ideas presented in the film.  The attitudes expressed toward sex and women's behaviors are more indicative of the 1920s mentality.  Natalie Wood's character's trauma and stress over sex (and other behaviors) I think is an indication of how the attitudes toward women had started shifting by the early 1960s.  The pill had debuted in 1960 and that was truly the turning point in women's liberation.  

 

If the film had removed the 1920s setting and had it be a contemporary film, I think the attitudes toward the "correct" attitudes toward women would have been more upsetting to me, but with the 1920s slant, I really enjoy the film and find it very interesting to watch.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how anyone can watch Network (1976) and not be angry afterwards. 

 

I can.  I more felt sorry for Peter Finch's character because of how Faye Dunaway and Robert Duvall exploit Finch's mind state and anger and use him to boost the ratings for their station.  I also found Finch's "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" to be funny, especially when everyone in the city started yelling it out the window.  I liked William Holden's character as he seemed to be the only humane person in the film, until he becomes romantically entangled with Dunaway.  I thought this was a great film and very timely.  I've never felt angry after watching the film however.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason here hep, and probably because they both feature Spencer Tracy, this comment of yours here has reminded me of another film which while at first might seem dated to some, I believe is as timeless and current in tone and message as any movie ever made...INHERIT THE WIND.

 

The courtroom scene in which Spencer Tracy verbally spars with Fredric March while the latter is on the witness stand will usually raise my "anger level" a bit.

 

(...and my anger primarily stemming from the thought that even in this day and age there are still actually millions upon millions of people in this world whose beliefs tell them they somehow have some "God given right" to tell others what to think and how to act, and to incorporate them into secular law)

did you hear that?

 

the nerve!

 

the absolute nerve!...

nfo65z.jpg

 

who does he think he is!

:huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love Splendor in the Grass.  The film takes place in the 1920s, as Warren Beatty's family loses everything during the crash in 1929.  While women hadn't nearly made as many strides as they had by the 1970s, the 1920s were when women were starting to break away from the rigid Victorian ideals.  This is part of the reason that Warren Beatty's sister, Ginny, was such an embarrassment to the family.  She drank, smoked, had sex and may or may not have had an abortion while in Chicago.  Ginny's behavior goes against everything that women raised during the Victorian era were taught as being "proper" behavior for ladies.  The young adults who came of age during the 1920s were the ones who were bobbing their hair, raising their hemlines, drinking and smoking in speakeasys, everything that the men were doing.  This is also the time when women had just won the right to vote thanks to the 19th amendment.  

 

Splendor in the Grass takes place in 1920s Kansas. Typically the midwest is more conservative than other areas of the country--especially in comparison to the West Coast and the New England states.  Natalie Wood's character is also feeling pressured by Warren Beatty's character to have sex, but she is conflicted.  She wants to do it, but knows that premarital sex goes against the "rules" in her family and community.  Her mother is from the prior, more traditional generation.  She's the one who tells her daughter something to the effect of "women aren't supposed to enjoy sex.  They should just lie on their backs, looking at the ceiling and grin and bear it." Much of the film deals with Natalie Wood's character's conflicting feelings.  She wants to have sex with her boyfriend and feels that she'll lose him.  However, she doesn't want to go against her parents and the community.  She ends up having a nervous breakdown due to the stress of this situation.  

 

While there are definitely some anti-feminist sentiments expressed in the film, I never felt offended or upset by the ideas presented in the film.  The attitudes expressed toward sex and women's behaviors are more indicative of the 1920s mentality.  Natalie Wood's character's trauma and stress over sex (and other behaviors) I think is an indication of how the attitudes toward women had started shifting by the early 1960s.  The pill had debuted in 1960 and that was truly the turning point in women's liberation.  

 

If the film had removed the 1920s setting and had it be a contemporary film, I think the attitudes toward the "correct" attitudes toward women would have been more upsetting to me, but with the 1920s slant, I really enjoy the film and find it very interesting to watch.

 

 

You know, this is part of the problem I have with them movie Splendor in the Grass.  See, I think I understand a bit too well that background of when and where the movie takes place and then I think about how things haven't changed.  I wish it had changed more.

 

I remember being in university when I was taking a course in Canadian plays and we had group projects and my group had all women in it and we had a play called LES BELLES SOUERS by Michel Trembley.  That sounds like it should be The Beautiful Sisters.  It actually means the Sisters-in-law.

 

We were assigned scenes to perform and I read the book and became very angry with the way French Canadian women were treated and behaved in response.  One of my group members was originally from Montreal and she loved it.

 

I explained why it upset me and she told me:

 

Don't you understand?  Quebec is decades behind  the rest of Canada in terms of Women's Rights.  We have social status of our fathers.  If we don't get married by a certain age we have no social standing.

 

Living in British Columbia, I had no idea until someone told me that the provinces were so different in terms of women's rights.

 

If I saw the movie as set in the 1920s and just let myself be in the 1920s while I watched it, I would not be as upset about Natalie's situation.  But I still would be ticked off at Beatty's character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did you hear that?

 

the nerve!

 

the absolute nerve!...

nfo65z.jpg

 

who does he think he is!

:huh:

 

Yep, ND. You've got it, alright!

 

(...yep, Lee there WOULD BE just the kind of guy who would object to what I said there)

 

;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...