|
Post by Reba on Apr 5, 2020 15:26:30 GMT -5
But you can always count on bear for not liking things that aren't obscure enough for him, so this is not surprising. this is just demonstrably untrue, but when you've seen as many movies as me, enough to know exactly what you want out of a film, how can you possibly be expected to trust the masses more than yourself?
|
|
|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on Apr 5, 2020 15:26:44 GMT -5
- I'd forgotten where I read that 'not in a courtroom' line, but indeed, I did!
- I meant Clouzot, just mixed up their names.
nor does it make sense that they would all be bigots HAHAHAHA good one then in a couple of hours all vote not guilty. That's what movies do, they protract time to make a point. Also it is not impossible to change eleven people's minds about a court case with the right argumentation within a few hours (doesn't mean they're not bigoted anymore, but at least they realized they're prejudiced). 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. Nah, you're just the kid who likes to point out how unrealistic minor details in a movie are, like that obnoxious "Everything Wrong With (movie)" YouTube guy. I admit that in reality it would probably end in a mistrial, but that doesn't mean you're still making an effort to miss the point of the film. Also, I admit I haven't seen the film in at least a decade, but I don't remember being taken out of the story because anything seemed too far-fetched.
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Apr 5, 2020 15:27:09 GMT -5
- 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. Look ... On a question about glasses, I'll tell you the impression I had ... The jurors who wore glasses, he was convincing himself that he was being rational. He was convincing himself that he was able to take a cold look at the problem by not putting feelings on the issues. He was trying to convince himself that he was not prejudiced. I'm inferring this based on the performances, okay? It was the feeling I had ... So, when the old jury spoke an argument that made him put himself in the witness's situation, he started to see people as they are, or as they can be. The actor's affection has changed from a cold and intellectual man to a man who understands that there is more than data. Seeing only the data may seem like a way to get rid of prejudice, but it is not. The way to get rid of prejudice is to put yourself in people's shoes. I hate allegorical interpretations, but it crossed my mind ... "The glasses that the woman hypothetically wore showed that juror that he was being short-sighted in a figurative sense". I don't know if whoever wrote the script thought about it, and I don't think so. But I'm sure the actor passed this feeling to me while I was watching.
|
|
|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on Apr 5, 2020 15:36:21 GMT -5
But you can always count on bear for not liking things that aren't obscure enough for him, so this is not surprising. this is just demonstrably untrue, but when you've seen as many movies as me, enough to know exactly what you want out of a film, how can you possibly be expected to trust the masses more than yourself? I was only teasing ya there, ya big head. Not saying the masses are always right, either. And I don't wanna make it a competition, but you have only like a 100 more films logged on letterboxd than I do, and I still have some 9 years worth of unlogged films. Just sayin
|
|
|
Post by Reba on Apr 5, 2020 15:45:01 GMT -5
Nah, you're just the kid who likes to point out how unrealistic minor details in a movie are, like that obnoxious "Everything Wrong With (movie)" YouTube guy. I admit that in reality it would probably end in a mistrial, but that doesn't mean you're still making an effort to miss the point of the film. Also, I admit I haven't seen the film in at least a decade, but I don't remember being taken out of the story because anything seemed too far-fetched. the glasses thing wasn't a minor detail, it was one of the big dramatic moments of the film, as i remember it. jean lucio explains why, but its thematic purpose doesn't make its narrative application any less far-fetched, and corny.
|
|
|
Post by Reba on Apr 5, 2020 15:46:26 GMT -5
I was only teasing ya there, ya big head. Not saying the masses are always right, either. And I don't wanna make it a competition, but you have only like a 100 more films logged on letterboxd than I do, and I still have some 9 years worth of unlogged films. Just sayin "don't tease me, bro!"
|
|
|
Post by Reba on Apr 5, 2020 15:56:18 GMT -5
you saw the flick at least a decade ago so it must have been a formative viewing experience for you. i just saw it last year after already developing my preferences ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Apr 5, 2020 16:01:34 GMT -5
Anyway, if there are even better old films than this one Reba, I'm glad I started with this one ... So I can gradually increase the quality of the films as I watch them. It would be terrible to watch one of the best old films that exists, and then to watch this ... I would not enjoy any more that was worse ...
|
|