So we are free to football coach Martin Balsam (), a shy, insecure bank clerk (John Fiedler), an aggressive call of company directors (Lee J. The size of the film lies in bringing together twelve different people who have never met before, and the interaction of the characters, as well as any person who brings his background and life experience in this case. Can you manage to convince others? The case provides only a framework, however. Eleven people believe that the boy is guilty of only one (Henry Fonda) is suspected. Eighteen-year-old boy from a slum background was accused of stabbing to death his father and facing the electric chair if convicted. This proves that the movie will be great, because it does not require a great set design, costumes, complicated or expensive special effects - but superlatives acting.The twelve angry men twelve jurors in a murder trial. Cobbĭissenting juror in a murder trial slowly manages to convince the others that the case is not as obviously clear as it seemed in court.ġ2 Angry Men is a remarkable film. Legit legendary status.Starring: Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, Lee J.
This is one of those special pieces of fiction that makes the world better simply by existing.
Still, that's no slight against this version. The play is anticlimactic in comparison, it's not implied he's had a personal revelation about his relationship with his own son so much as he's just finally admitted not all kids are the same and he's willing to give somebody else's kid another shot at life because maybe that kid isn't as bad as his own. I like to think after the movie ends he tries to reconnect with him, that he's realized his own faults that led to their falling out. You really get the sense that he's learned something he can apply to his relationship with his own son. Juror number 3's breakdown at the very end was one of the most powerful moments to me, and I think it was slightly more effective in the movie. I like how much farther it goes in the play, it really shows the extent of his overwhelming fear and how it clouds his reasoning. He doesn't say anything about "those people" trying to "breed us out of existence," although the general idea certainly gets across. Juror number 10's breakdown is a bit tamer in the movie. Near as I can tell from memory (I have seen the movie a lot), this is completely identical except for slight differences in the emotional breakdowns of the two least sympathetic jurors. The 1957 film version is one of the greatest pieces of cinema ever created, and one of my favorite movies.
0 kommentar(er)
