This will be a short list, mostly because I bought a new computer and lost most of my files during the changeover. They are in no particular order, simply because I don't want to expend the effort necessary to rank them, and especially since I know quite well that, on another day, I might rank them differently!
The Man from Earth: I thought enough of this film to buy my own copy. It's the fascinating tale of a man who tells his friends and coworkers that he's thousands of years old and their response to that revelation. It's one of the best SF films I've viewed in many years. For more information, check out the post I did on it last year.
Doktor Fautus: based on the novel by Thomas Mann about a composer who makes a pact with the devil. I haven't read the novel in some time, so I can't comment on the fidelity of the dramatization. I will say though that it was an enjoyable film, even if much of it seemed strange to me, which might be caused by my failing memory, maybe. . .
1984: finally after many years Netflix found a copy to send me. It's the version with John Hurt as Winston Smith and Richard Burton as O'Brien. It was quite good as far as it went, but there was no way that any film could present the image upon which the tyranny of Oceania rested--"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.
12 Angry Men: starring Henry Fonda as Juror 8, the lone man who, at the beginning of the jury's deliberations, insists that they take time to discuss the case inasmuch as a guilty verdict would result in the death penalty. It's an exploration of the effects of prejudice on our perception of others and the judgements that result. What was equally fascinating was the discovery that there were two foreign versions of this film, both very close to the US version. The Russian version's title is 12, and while it follows closely the US version, there are some differences. The Hindi language version is titled Ek Ruka Hua Faisla, and it is very close to the US version. For more information, see the post I made of the three last year.
A Dance to the Music of Time: based on the novels by Anthony Powell. The film is a condensation of Anthony Powell's series of novels published under the same title as the film: A Dance to the Music of Time. The novels are published in four parts: First Movement, Second Movement, Third Movement, and Fourth Movement, and each of the four parts consists of three novels each. A symphony typically has four movements, so that suggests a lengthy and complex treatment of various themes. The film begins with a disparate group of people who meet while they are in school. The narrative follows one man from that point and down the years through the post WWII era. We see how he grows and develops and the way those people he had met during his academic years drop away and then reappear during this period. I found the film absorbing enough to go out and get the books.
Europa Report: an SF adventure/exploration film. It's somewhat reminiscent of 2001 in that the ship is headed towards Jupiter, or to be more precise, Europa, one of the moons of Jupiter. It's a skillful blending of NASA film clips and fiction. They have obviously studied NASA technology and methodology to create a very believable film of the way a journey to Europa just might take place. It's one of the better SF films I viewed last year.
Appalachian Journey: One night over a decade ago I was driving home from work and was listening to PBS radio KUAT-FM. It happened to be the broadcast from Lincoln Center, a chamber music event. It featured, among others, Edgar Meyer, Yo-Yo Ma, Mark O'Connor with special guests James Taylor and Alison Krauss. I was instantly captivated by the liveliness of the music--country, bluegrass, jazz, blues, and barnyard melodies. During an interview, Edgar Meyer stated that the program tonight was duplicated on a CD they had produced: Appalachian Journey. I immediately went out and purchased the CD. I then went out and searched for other CDs featuring Edgar Meyer, and I think I now have at least 5. A short time ago, I discovered that the concert at Lincoln Center had been filmed, so I immediately added it to my queue. Now I can listen to the CD and see them in my memory on stage. If you're not familiar with Edgar Meyer and his unique musical universe, you should check it out.
Steel Helmet: one of the few war pictures that I enjoyed watching. It is very different from the usual patriotic war films that came my way. It tells of Sgt Zack, a loner whose outfit had been wiped out by the North Koreans, and his encounter with several stragglers, a Korean boy, and an American unit searching for a Buddhist temple to be used as a forward observation post. The film came out in 1951, during the Korean War, and those expecting the typical John Wayne patriotic war film must have been shocked by what they saw. One reviewer called it an anti-American and pro-communist propaganda film. By today's standards, it probably isn't that shocking, but back then it had to be disturbing to many.
If I were told that I had to buy at least one war film, this would probably be the one.
THX 1138: This was one of George Lucas' early efforts. It's based on the film he produced and directed during his studies at the USC School of Cinematic Arts. It's a fascinating picture of a future USA where being unhappy and feeling any emotion but happiness is against the law. It also has one of the riskiest sequences I've ever seen in any film--a long period of time wherein the characters are set against an all-white background, where even the simple furniture is white. The characters' faces and hands provide a startling contrast. Of course, Lucas has to include a car chase scene, something he couldn't do without, even back then when he was producing films that had interesting plots and characters and weren't just excuses for action, action, action.
It is one of the eight DVDs that I have in my personal collection.
Twelve O'clock High: one of the few war pictures I have watched several times, probably mostly due to the fine performance by Gregory Peck, one of my favorite actors. As an HQ staff officer, he finds it necessary to remove a friend from command of a bomber unit based in England during WWII for he feels the commander has gotten too close to his men and can't make the hard decisions necessary. Peck's character then takes command and isolates himself from the unit, thereby triggering resentment from the men who had gotten used to the previous commander's more paternal style.
Zorba the Greek: I had heard much about this film many years ago and eventually watched it. I found the music so infectious that I bought the soundtrack for the film. I also so enjoyed the story that I bought the novel of the same name by Nikos Kazantzakis. I was hooked and over the years have purchased as many of his works as possible. I think my collection of his works exceeds ten books. Zorba is a free spirit, and his behavior and attitude might disturb many. The Englishman he mentors is at the exact other end of the spectrum--uptight and constrained--and this provides the conflict in the film. At the end, the Englishman returns to England, but he isn't the same person who came out here.
This is one of the few DVDs that I may add to my collection someday.
Showing posts with label 12 Angry Men--3 versions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 12 Angry Men--3 versions. Show all posts
Friday, January 24, 2014
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
12 Angry Men: three versions of this film
12 Angry Men, US Film (1957)
This film appeared in the theaters in 1957 and, while a critical success, did not attract an audience and disappeared from the theaters. Since then, however, it has steadily grown in critical estimation and audience appeal.
The plot is simple: a young boy has been tried for killing his abusive father. He claims he did not kill him. The film opens with the judge's instructions to the jury, which then retires to the jury room. The film then never leaves the jury room. Once there, several of the jurors (this is 1957 so the jurors are all white males) are convinced it's an open-and-shut case and call for an immediate vote without having any discussion. Several of the jurors are in a hurry: one has tickets for a baseball game that night and another has to catch a flight for an important business meeting. The vote comes out 11 for guilty and 1 not guilty. The lone dissenting vote is cast by Henry Fonda's character, Juror 8. When pressed for his reasons for voting "not guilty," he says he doesn't know whether the boy is innocent or guilty, but he does feel that, since a guilty verdict mandates execution, there should some discussion about the case.
"Beyond reasonable doubt" is the troublesome criterion facing the jury. A guilty verdict can only be rendered if the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and this is the point that Juror 8 focuses on. Is the evidence strong enough to move a person to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt. If not, then they must render a verdict of not guilty.
The deliberation concentrates on the evidence. Is it strong enough to convict him of murder, thus resulting in his execution? Juror 8 and the other jurors spend considerable time discussing, attacking, defending, interpreting the evidence. Occasionally a juror will say something that involves a personal issue as a way of making a point, but this is rare. The issue is the evidence: is it strong enough to justify his execution?
Juror 8, the Henry Fonda character, is clearly the central character. He is the leader of the gradually increasing group that argues for a "not guilty" verdict. Juror 8 is a familiar character--strong, plain-spoken, confident, calm, measured, determined in behavior-- in other words, Henry Fonda as he has been seen in many roles.
It soon becomes clear that the evidence is only part of what moves many of the jurors to insist on a "guilty" verdict. The other part, which emerges much more strongly as the evidence becomes more and more questionable, is prejudice; however, the target is never really specified. It is always "them." Typical references are "You know what they are like..." I thought that was an interesting tactic as it allows the viewers to plug in whatever group is on the receiving end in their personal experience and doesn't limit the references to prejudice or bigotry aimed at any special group. The optimistic viewpoint of the film seems to be that as the jurors become aware of their prejudices, they are more able to see clearly that the evidence is not strong enough to convict the boy.
In spite of Perry Mason and countless other legal thrillers, finding the "real" murderer does not play a role here. One of the jurors belligerently demands to know who killed the father if the boy didn't. Juror 8 (Fonda) responds that the issue for them is determining the son's guilt and only that, nothing else.
Overall Rating: a superb film, the issues raised back in 1957 are still with us, but not brought out as clearly now as it was then. The attitudes are still here, just more subtly put forward.
--highly recommended.
12, Russian version (2007)
While the basic idea of the film had not been changed, the Russian version contains much more about the back story of the way the boy and the Russian soldier met and how the soldier adopted the him. Some of this was confusing, and I wonder if scenes had been left out. In this version, the boy is a Chechen orphan who was adopted by a Russian soldier and brought to Moscow. Contrary to the US film, there was no suggestion here that the father had been abusive.
While watching the film, I felt that I was missing something. Russians are good at burying unacceptable (to the government, regardless of the type it is) ideas and issues in their poetry, stories, and films that are critical of the official line of thinking in order to get them by the official censors. I suspect that a Russian would have gotten much more out of the film then I did.
Juror 8, as in the US film, is the only one who voted "not guilty" in the first ballot taken shortly after retiring to the jury room. However, he did not appear to play a strong role in what followed. In fact, he was silent much of the time. It was much more of a communal effort with various individuals taking control throughout the deliberations. Again, I may have missed something here--something that suggested he was playing a central role but that in my ignorance of the Russian culture I missed the cues.
Another significant difference was the roles played by individual experience on the one hand and on the other hand the focus on the evidence during the deliberations. Jurors told stories about their experiences and past that did not appear in the US version and sometimes it was hard for me to see the relevance although they appeared to be significant to the other jurors. There was discussion of the evidence, but it seemed to play a lesser role here than it did in the US version.
Another difference between this film and the US version comes up briefly when Juror 8 is asked who else might be the murderer if the boy isn't. Juror 8 responds that determining the boy's guilt is the issue, not the identity of the real killer. However, one of the other jurors offers a theory as to whom the killer might be, but when asked where he got this information, he just smiles and refuses to answer. This comment has an interesting effect at the end of the film, something which does not happen in the US version.
The issue of prejudice and bigotry was also raised in this film but again the treatment differed from the US version in that two groups were brought forward in the Russian film as the targets--Jews and Chechens. Since the defendant was a Chechen, the relevance is obvious. What escaped me though was that the first expression of prejudice was directed at the Jews. Again, perhaps I'm missing something here.
Ek Ruka Hua Faisla, Hindi language version (1986)
In spite of the wretched subtitles, it seems clear that this version is very close to the US version. Some minor changes have been made, but it is a very close remake. I would guess that the US script had been translated into Hindi. Then the subtitles had been created from the Hindi language script as I could frequently recognize dialogue from the US version. The sequence of events was also the same or at least as far as I could tell.
Juror 8, as in the US version, played the central role in the deliberations. Again, while there were some personal issues and stories brought out, the focus for the most part was on the evidence as in the US film. The problem of prejudice also appeared as a significant issue, but its treatment was almost identical to its handling in the US film. No particular group, aside from vague references to the lower social classes--the poor and the destitute--was named.
The question of who the real killer might be comes up also, but again it is handled the same way as in the US version. The jury's concern is the guilt of the boy, not determining the identity of someone else who might be the killer.
I would recommend viewing all three versions; however, if you don't have that much time, then I would suggest seeing at least the US and the Russian versions, since the Hindi version is very close to the US film.
This film appeared in the theaters in 1957 and, while a critical success, did not attract an audience and disappeared from the theaters. Since then, however, it has steadily grown in critical estimation and audience appeal.
The plot is simple: a young boy has been tried for killing his abusive father. He claims he did not kill him. The film opens with the judge's instructions to the jury, which then retires to the jury room. The film then never leaves the jury room. Once there, several of the jurors (this is 1957 so the jurors are all white males) are convinced it's an open-and-shut case and call for an immediate vote without having any discussion. Several of the jurors are in a hurry: one has tickets for a baseball game that night and another has to catch a flight for an important business meeting. The vote comes out 11 for guilty and 1 not guilty. The lone dissenting vote is cast by Henry Fonda's character, Juror 8. When pressed for his reasons for voting "not guilty," he says he doesn't know whether the boy is innocent or guilty, but he does feel that, since a guilty verdict mandates execution, there should some discussion about the case.
"Beyond reasonable doubt" is the troublesome criterion facing the jury. A guilty verdict can only be rendered if the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and this is the point that Juror 8 focuses on. Is the evidence strong enough to move a person to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt. If not, then they must render a verdict of not guilty.
The deliberation concentrates on the evidence. Is it strong enough to convict him of murder, thus resulting in his execution? Juror 8 and the other jurors spend considerable time discussing, attacking, defending, interpreting the evidence. Occasionally a juror will say something that involves a personal issue as a way of making a point, but this is rare. The issue is the evidence: is it strong enough to justify his execution?
Juror 8, the Henry Fonda character, is clearly the central character. He is the leader of the gradually increasing group that argues for a "not guilty" verdict. Juror 8 is a familiar character--strong, plain-spoken, confident, calm, measured, determined in behavior-- in other words, Henry Fonda as he has been seen in many roles.
It soon becomes clear that the evidence is only part of what moves many of the jurors to insist on a "guilty" verdict. The other part, which emerges much more strongly as the evidence becomes more and more questionable, is prejudice; however, the target is never really specified. It is always "them." Typical references are "You know what they are like..." I thought that was an interesting tactic as it allows the viewers to plug in whatever group is on the receiving end in their personal experience and doesn't limit the references to prejudice or bigotry aimed at any special group. The optimistic viewpoint of the film seems to be that as the jurors become aware of their prejudices, they are more able to see clearly that the evidence is not strong enough to convict the boy.
In spite of Perry Mason and countless other legal thrillers, finding the "real" murderer does not play a role here. One of the jurors belligerently demands to know who killed the father if the boy didn't. Juror 8 (Fonda) responds that the issue for them is determining the son's guilt and only that, nothing else.
Overall Rating: a superb film, the issues raised back in 1957 are still with us, but not brought out as clearly now as it was then. The attitudes are still here, just more subtly put forward.
--highly recommended.
12, Russian version (2007)
While the basic idea of the film had not been changed, the Russian version contains much more about the back story of the way the boy and the Russian soldier met and how the soldier adopted the him. Some of this was confusing, and I wonder if scenes had been left out. In this version, the boy is a Chechen orphan who was adopted by a Russian soldier and brought to Moscow. Contrary to the US film, there was no suggestion here that the father had been abusive.
While watching the film, I felt that I was missing something. Russians are good at burying unacceptable (to the government, regardless of the type it is) ideas and issues in their poetry, stories, and films that are critical of the official line of thinking in order to get them by the official censors. I suspect that a Russian would have gotten much more out of the film then I did.
Juror 8, as in the US film, is the only one who voted "not guilty" in the first ballot taken shortly after retiring to the jury room. However, he did not appear to play a strong role in what followed. In fact, he was silent much of the time. It was much more of a communal effort with various individuals taking control throughout the deliberations. Again, I may have missed something here--something that suggested he was playing a central role but that in my ignorance of the Russian culture I missed the cues.
Another significant difference was the roles played by individual experience on the one hand and on the other hand the focus on the evidence during the deliberations. Jurors told stories about their experiences and past that did not appear in the US version and sometimes it was hard for me to see the relevance although they appeared to be significant to the other jurors. There was discussion of the evidence, but it seemed to play a lesser role here than it did in the US version.
Another difference between this film and the US version comes up briefly when Juror 8 is asked who else might be the murderer if the boy isn't. Juror 8 responds that determining the boy's guilt is the issue, not the identity of the real killer. However, one of the other jurors offers a theory as to whom the killer might be, but when asked where he got this information, he just smiles and refuses to answer. This comment has an interesting effect at the end of the film, something which does not happen in the US version.
The issue of prejudice and bigotry was also raised in this film but again the treatment differed from the US version in that two groups were brought forward in the Russian film as the targets--Jews and Chechens. Since the defendant was a Chechen, the relevance is obvious. What escaped me though was that the first expression of prejudice was directed at the Jews. Again, perhaps I'm missing something here.
Ek Ruka Hua Faisla, Hindi language version (1986)
In spite of the wretched subtitles, it seems clear that this version is very close to the US version. Some minor changes have been made, but it is a very close remake. I would guess that the US script had been translated into Hindi. Then the subtitles had been created from the Hindi language script as I could frequently recognize dialogue from the US version. The sequence of events was also the same or at least as far as I could tell.
Juror 8, as in the US version, played the central role in the deliberations. Again, while there were some personal issues and stories brought out, the focus for the most part was on the evidence as in the US film. The problem of prejudice also appeared as a significant issue, but its treatment was almost identical to its handling in the US film. No particular group, aside from vague references to the lower social classes--the poor and the destitute--was named.
The question of who the real killer might be comes up also, but again it is handled the same way as in the US version. The jury's concern is the guilt of the boy, not determining the identity of someone else who might be the killer.
I would recommend viewing all three versions; however, if you don't have that much time, then I would suggest seeing at least the US and the Russian versions, since the Hindi version is very close to the US film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)