|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Apr 5, 2020 0:25:14 GMT -5
I just watched 12 Angry Men, from 1957. What an incredible film, and very good. I think I'm getting more cult these days, maybe ... But the film caught me with simplicity, with acting, and with subtle themes about prejudice, and the power of argument. I just imagined Reba watching this movie and vibrating every minute.
|
|
|
Post by Reba on Apr 5, 2020 2:51:33 GMT -5
lol what on earth does that mean jean lucio
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Apr 5, 2020 5:36:55 GMT -5
I became interested in old films because of your comments and posts about old films. I thought you appreciated that
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Apr 5, 2020 6:07:46 GMT -5
Bother, the heading has been changed, so I can't make the joke about films with small budgets that I wanted to make.
|
|
|
Post by Reba on Apr 5, 2020 10:37:42 GMT -5
I became interested in old films because of your comments and posts about old films. I thought you appreciated that oh that's cool. but it doesn't make me vibrate, sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Apr 5, 2020 10:53:16 GMT -5
Did I use the right word? In Portuguese, "Vibrate", in addition to "shaking uncontrollably" means "to like a movie very much".
Anyway ... Since I don't have much to do, I will write because I liked it so much ... The film is a discussion about the extent to which the accounts of witnesses and the defendant himself are reliable or not. This discourse is made by men who have different views of the world, different ages and different personalities. And the argument of jury number 8 is based on theories ... If I were there, among those men, I am sure I would be jury number 8.
|
|
|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on Apr 5, 2020 11:16:18 GMT -5
Ah, 12 Angry Men, one of those "old movies" even someone who doesn't like old movies can enjoy.
and yes, in English vibrating has nothing to do with movies or liking something, lol. Funny, I used to talk a bit of Portuguese as a kid, but had no idea about this word. I also don't know what you mean by "getting more cult".
Hermes, I'd like to hear your joke anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Apr 5, 2020 11:41:07 GMT -5
It is so difficult to translate idioms ... "cult" in Brazilian Portuguese is the characteristic of a person who likes old romances, old films, modern art, classical music, uses elaborate language, and generally believes he is a better person than the common people. "Getting more cult" should mean becoming a person like that little by little.
Note: "vibrate" in Portuguese spells "vibrar"
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Apr 5, 2020 11:59:27 GMT -5
Hermes, I'd like to hear your joke anyway. The thread was originally headed '2 Angry Men', which I took to be a version of '12 Angry Men' made on a low budget.
|
|
|
Post by Reba on Apr 5, 2020 12:20:14 GMT -5
i personally think 12 angry men is quite a mediocre movie. i went into it thinking it would tackle heavy moral questions, especially regarding capital punishment. but none of the jurors once argue that the defendant's guilt is totally irrelevant, and that you should vote not-guilty simply because you have no right to sentence someone to death. instead there's a bunch of absurd theatrics, goofy twists and stupid epiphanies -- the witness had little dimples on her nose, therefore she wears glasses but wasn't wearing them when she claimed to see the murder!!!!!! and after all this wild speculation which in no way proves the defendant's innocence, suddenly it's like it was obvious that he was innocent all along and the only reason anyone originally voted guilty was because of extreme prejudice and deep psychological issues. ultimately the movie has nothing interesting to say about morality, humanity, or law. but the one-room setting is adroitly filmed.
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Apr 5, 2020 12:32:12 GMT -5
I have to agree with everything you said, but still few films have had so much fun using so little resources. These crazy and unthinkable things and theories that move people's minds, and manage to make them observe things from another angle, even if theoretically, make me tick. I am very positively affected by other people's convincing scenes ...As one of Watchmen's final scenes, in which Ozymandias convinces Doctor Manhattan that his plan is the best for world peace.
|
|
|
Post by Reba on Apr 5, 2020 13:02:51 GMT -5
films with such claustrophobic settings are really not uncommon at all, primarily because it's so common in 20th century theater, and these plays have often been adapted to film, including 12 angry men. i would highly recommend two collections in this category. the American Film Theatre is a group of films from 1973-1975 in which great filmmakers and actors adapt great contemporary plays on very low budgets—one room settings include The Homecoming by Harold Pinter, Butley by Simon Gray, and The Maids by Jean Genet. and for the king of one room / one act plays, samuel beckett is definitively adapted in Beckett On Film, which includes such classics as Waiting For Godot (directed by Michael Lindsay-Hogg!), Endgame (starring Michael Gambon & David Thewlis!), Happy Days (directed by Patricia Rozema!), and Krapp's Last Tape (starring John Hurt!)
|
|
|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on Apr 5, 2020 14:04:23 GMT -5
i personally think 12 angry men is quite a mediocre movie. i went into it thinking it would tackle heavy moral questions, especially regarding capital punishment. but none of the jurors once argue that the defendant's guilt is totally irrelevant, and that you should vote not-guilty simply because you have no right to sentence someone to death. instead there's a bunch of absurd theatrics, goofy twists and stupid epiphanies -- the witness had little dimples on her nose, therefore she wears glasses but wasn't wearing them when she claimed to see the murder!!!!!! and after all this wild speculation which in no way proves the defendant's innocence, suddenly it's like it was obvious that he was innocent all along and the only reason anyone originally voted guilty was because of extreme prejudice and deep psychological issues. ultimately the movie has nothing interesting to say about morality, humanity, or law. but the one-room setting is adroitly filmed. You're robbing it of its historical context. Its topic of prejudice, especially inside the law system was novel then (To Kill a Mockingbird, f.ex., was only adapted five years later!), and is actually still relevant today. Furthermore, it's still the gold standard for the court room drama (despite not even being set inside a court room); Even the great Louis Malle failed to live up to this film with his "La Vérité" three years later. That's not to mention the great performances and, as you said, the impeccable direction. The script didn't thematize what you wanted it to thematize (moral philosophical questions) - that's not the movie's fault. Why would 12 randomly selected men suddenly turn out to be rebels and vote not guilty because the capital punishment system is wrong? That wouldn't make the least bit of sense. And the fact that a witness wasn't wearing glasses is not hackneyed, as you imply, to me at all.
But you can always count on bear for not liking things that aren't obscure enough for him, so this is not surprising. Good recommendations on the chamber plays, though. I myself think the BBC produced a larger amount of great theater adaptations for TV (esp. the 1960s to 1980s, like the "Play for Today" series). Off the top of my head, a chamber play I can recommend is "Abigail's Party". As for more dramatic single room-set movies, I can highly recommend Richard Linklater's "Tape" (2001) to you, Jean (it only has 3 actors). Also "Locke" from 2013, which is entirely set inside a car, starring one actor (John Hardy).
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Apr 5, 2020 15:01:05 GMT -5
Thank you Terry. I will see which of these are available to me. And thanks to everyone for participating in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Reba on Apr 5, 2020 15:01:23 GMT -5
i personally think 12 angry men is quite a mediocre movie. i went into it thinking it would tackle heavy moral questions, especially regarding capital punishment. but none of the jurors once argue that the defendant's guilt is totally irrelevant, and that you should vote not-guilty simply because you have no right to sentence someone to death. instead there's a bunch of absurd theatrics, goofy twists and stupid epiphanies -- the witness had little dimples on her nose, therefore she wears glasses but wasn't wearing them when she claimed to see the murder!!!!!! and after all this wild speculation which in no way proves the defendant's innocence, suddenly it's like it was obvious that he was innocent all along and the only reason anyone originally voted guilty was because of extreme prejudice and deep psychological issues. ultimately the movie has nothing interesting to say about morality, humanity, or law. but the one-room setting is adroitly filmed. You're robbing it of its historical context. Its topic of prejudice, especially inside the law system was novel then (To Kill a Mockingbird, f.ex., was only adapted five years later!), and is actually still relevant today. Furthermore, it's still the gold standard for the court room drama (despite not even being set inside a court room); Even the great Louis Malle failed to live up to this film with his "La Vérité" three years later. That's not to mention the great performances and, as you said, the impeccable direction. The script didn't thematize what you wanted it to thematize (moral philosophical questions) - that's not the movie's fault. Why would 12 randomly selected men suddenly turn out to be rebels and vote not guilty because the capital punishment system is wrong? That wouldn't make the least bit of sense. And the fact that a witness wasn't wearing glasses is not hackneyed, as you imply, to me at all.
But you can always count on bear for not liking things that aren't obscure enough for him, so this is not surprising. Good recommendations on the chamber plays, though. I myself think the BBC produced a larger amount of great theater adaptations for TV (esp. the 1960s to 1980s, like the "Play for Today" series). Off the top of my head, a chamber play I can recommend is "Abigail's Party". As for more dramatic single room-set movies, I can highly recommend Richard Linklater's "Tape" (2001) to you, Jean (it only has 3 actors). Also "Locke" from 2013, which is entirely set inside a car, starring one actor (John Hardy).
- the film has the attitude that the poor kid is obviously innocent while the jurors are obviously just prejudiced, but the evidence of the kid's guilt or innocence is extremely tenuous. my point about the glasses lady wasn't that it was hackneyed, just that it was preposterous to assume she wore glasses but wasn't wearing them during the crime, just because she was rubbing her nose or something. and then that this idea would suddenly make the jurors all repent of their prejudiced ways. the conclusions that the group reaches throughout all border on the farcical. they don't contribute anything to a serious analysis of prejudice. - i know you stole that "not set in a courtroom" line from teleram! - la vérité is by the great clouzot, not the moron louis malle. - i didn't expect or want the jurors to all rally against capital punishment. it's true that wouldn't make sense, nor does it make sense that they would all be bigots, then in a couple of hours all vote not guilty. in reality, because of the totally inconclusive evidence plus the fact that henry fonda's character had been investigating the case ahead of time, this would simply be a mistrial. all i wanted was for the film to raise some serious and interesting points; admittedly i have a higher bar for that than apparently most do.
|
|