I really enjoyed this film! It was interesting to see how the film maker used metaphors in the movie. I especially enjoyed the "Davis" character. I think that most people that watch this film would be drawn to his subtle confidence in himself. One part of the movie that I did not like was the man that yelled about everything, that really irritated me. I think that the film maker put his character in on purpose because everyone can relate to having someone yell at us. I think that the he really stirred the pot of emotions with this character. I really enjoyed this film, I would venture to say that it is my favorite so far.
IT was pretty funny how they called the movie 12 angry men, since the movie involved 12 men and stayed that way for most of the time. I know they weren't always angry but almost throughout the whole movie, there was someone who was mad at someone else and they yelled a lot during the movie. I always like how it started 11-1 which favored guilty but throughout the whole movie it gradually changed until it became 11-1 favoring not guilty. The two characters who were by themselves were complete opposites. The first was really calm and kept an open mind while the last person was being stubborn and was almost yelling the whole time at the end until he was overcome by his memories. It was a good film, I didn't mind seeing it again
I thought this movie was rather entertaining to watch. I liked how even though they could have made the movie it was still in black and white to emphasize the point of the two sides of right and wrong or good and evil. I found myself being drawn to Davis, just like Sara Jade commented in class my eye was drawn to his lack in motion, he maintained his cool throughout the movie and stole the spotlight many times for me. Also the camera was interesting to me, it started out making it look like there was more space between people and they were farther away but by the end it almost felt claustrophobic because the characters were shot up close and right next to each other. It made it feel like the situation was very intense. I wouldn't mind watching this film again.
I agree with Justin about being annoyed by the one man that kept yelling at everyone. I did like the "Davis" character also because of his "cool" attitude I felt kept the movie interesting. He made everyone "re-think" their verdict.
I liked the end of the film where the verdict was 11 to 1 not guilty when the 11 men voting "not guilty" stood up and turned their backs on the one man who was voting guilty. This for me was a very powerful use of metapore. It made the film more intense because you didn't really know what to expect from the one man voting guilty. The very end when the man broke down crying because his son and him had relationship problems made me "re-think" my opinion on him. At first he came across as mean and rude, and unforgiving, even stubborn but behind it all...there was a very good reason for his behavior. He just didn't really know how to address that behavior.
Like many, I have seen this show before. I think it was in a group dynamics psychology class I took one semester many years ago. It is a good show though. I agree with the good guy wearing white thing, but I don't feel the clothing colors of all characters was that literal. I say this because at least half of the people wore black panta and white shirts. I think the real effect was at first, and that the guy in white stood out...but a 'bad guy' was a different story for me This is the first film where I noticed the work put into characters by choices of their 'type' It makes me curious as to whether actors were chosen for their look and the sound of their voice, ect or if it just worked out that way...for example the short bald guy with the 'soft mousy voice'...another type of person would not have fit the character as well. Another clothing example would be the guy with the striped suit and the hat...perhaps to represent a clown??? A good metaphor we did not discuss was a scene in the bathroom where the guy who was smoking left with his cigarette burning, and the white suit guy later putting it out. I know it was not done with light or shading...but it still had a point. I thought the best line in the film was during an argument where the 'predigious guy' said.."You are like everyone else! You think too much and get mixed up" I think that mainly this film was about preconceptions. It also adressed things like sticking to ones convictions, being right, going with a group, and plain old not careing.
Metaphors – black vs. white, good vs. evil. I saw the man always wearing black (Lee Cobb) but it seemed Henry Fonda that wore the white suit was not the good person. I know he was fighting for what is right by defending a person’s right to a fair trial and the beyond reasonable doubt that has to be proved. I think he was fighting for more of a gray area. I did notice the metaphor in the angry men always yelling while the others were calmer. I thought it was a good movie that I could see the catharsis making it a great movie by definition. It was much better than what was a silly similar remake with Paulie Shore named “Jury Duty”. It was easy to see the rising conflicts in each of the votes that were taken. I would have liked to see more about Lee Cobb’s conflict with his son. It was mentioned at the beginning and then it was shown when he threw his wallet on the table. I did like the way a little of each juror’s personal life affected the final outcome. It was interesting how this was shot in one room with what seemed like only two cameras. The acting had to be great because there were no special effects to make up for bad actors. What annoyed me most about this film was the yelling like Justin and Stacey mentioned. I know most people have people yell at them daily but what annoyed me the most was that several men thought and acted like they knew everything. It seems like we have poeple like this in every one of ur classes and jobs. What is irononic is that just like the jurors, the people who thinkthey are right, are usually mistaken about their set opinions.
although this movie was not as good as Rope. I did enjoy it. I really did enjoy it. I like the way they were able to do the hole movie in just a couple rooms. Like Rope for that to happen you have to have great acting, writing has to be brilliant, and the camera (directing, producing) has to be at its best. The character's in the movie were wonderful, the contrast between the good and the "bad" were definitely apparent. The story line of the movie was so well written, I dont know that I can particularly explain why but it hooked me. it was so interesting how the Good juror was able to switch all the votes, we knew it was going to happen but we were still interested. I said before that one of the most noticable things to me is the humor that has slowly creeped its way into the movies over the decades. The movie makers are starting to figure out that for a really good movie people want an aray of emotions.
I really enjoyed this movie. It was very well written and acted, which was a necessity since it took place in one room for the duration of the film. Davis was always cool and collected, never let his emotions get to him, while everyone else around him was short fused and quick to yell. The yelling did get old after awhile, because it seemed like everything that was said, someone would yell about it. I think this movie also showed our American judicial system in a positive light, because although those 11 people were quick to judge the man guilty, that one person (Davis) was enough to give him a chance. Davis was the obvious good guy in this movie, all dressed in white, and the others varied in colors, from gray, to plaid, to black jackets.
I really liked this movie and I wouldn't mind watching it again.
I liked this movie also, the movies that we are wathcing now don't seem to lag on as much. When it was mentioned in the class discussion about how we tend to focus on the people who are staying still rather than moving, I never really noticed it until it was mentioned then I realized how true that was. I thought it was brillant for the film to keep davis still so we focused on him more than the other jury members. I also thought the movie was clever, that at the end they could get the dicredit the witnesses testimonies and come to their final conclusion. I probably would have said guilty right off like the others. None of the camera angles really stood out for me that seemed any different. You could tell where the climax was pretty easy, and it resolved itself at the end. I liked the movie and would watch this movie again.
I’ve seen this film a few times before and every time I notice something new. I’ve watched it before in a class for its content but I never noticed all the metaphors before. It was really neat watching it with a new point of view in mind. I noticed that how a character affects the people around him/her can really add to the point of the movie. Like the way Dave was so calm. The other jurors slowly joined him as they listened. It just made me the audience, want to hear what he had to say all the more and the other men that were yelling to just shut up. I think that the film being shot in black and white was very clever and I never thought about it that way before. I enjoyed seeing this film in a new way and hope every time I see it I continue to see new things.
I've seen this movie many times and liked it each time I've seen it. There were some things I noticed that I had never noticed before. I believe the film is about a lot of preconceived prejudices that throughtout the movie you learn of each mans stories and prejudicesm, which help them create their initial and final decision. I really liked how they slowly in a way introduced each mans story throughout the movie.
I found it interesting when that guy was ranting about everyone know "one of those types of peope" how everyone stood up and turned their backs toward him. I found that iteresting. I also never noticed how Davis wore a completely white suite. Possibly signaling the "good" guy or whatever it may be.
The one thing I've always liked about this movie is how they shot the majority of this movie in one room, but still managed to make it very captivating.
I really enjoyed this film! It was interesting to see how the film maker used metaphors in the movie. I especially enjoyed the "Davis" character. I think that most people that watch this film would be drawn to his subtle confidence in himself. One part of the movie that I did not like was the man that yelled about everything, that really irritated me. I think that the film maker put his character in on purpose because everyone can relate to having someone yell at us. I think that the he really stirred the pot of emotions with this character.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this film, I would venture to say that it is my favorite so far.
IT was pretty funny how they called the movie 12 angry men, since the movie involved 12 men and stayed that way for most of the time. I know they weren't always angry but almost throughout the whole movie, there was someone who was mad at someone else and they yelled a lot during the movie.
ReplyDeleteI always like how it started 11-1 which favored guilty but throughout the whole movie it gradually changed until it became 11-1 favoring not guilty. The two characters who were by themselves were complete opposites. The first was really calm and kept an open mind while the last person was being stubborn and was almost yelling the whole time at the end until he was overcome by his memories.
It was a good film, I didn't mind seeing it again
I thought this movie was rather entertaining to watch. I liked how even though they could have made the movie it was still in black and white to emphasize the point of the two sides of right and wrong or good and evil.
ReplyDeleteI found myself being drawn to Davis, just like Sara Jade commented in class my eye was drawn to his lack in motion, he maintained his cool throughout the movie and stole the spotlight many times for me.
Also the camera was interesting to me, it started out making it look like there was more space between people and they were farther away but by the end it almost felt claustrophobic because the characters were shot up close and right next to each other. It made it feel like the situation was very intense.
I wouldn't mind watching this film again.
I agree with Justin about being annoyed by the one man that kept yelling at everyone. I did like the "Davis" character also because of his "cool" attitude I felt kept the movie interesting. He made everyone "re-think" their verdict.
ReplyDeleteI liked the end of the film where the verdict was 11 to 1 not guilty when the 11 men voting "not guilty" stood up and turned their backs on the one man who was voting guilty. This for me was a very powerful use of metapore. It made the film more intense because you didn't really know what to expect from the one man voting guilty. The very end when the man broke down crying because his son and him had relationship problems made me "re-think" my opinion on him. At first he came across as mean and rude, and unforgiving, even stubborn but behind it all...there was a very good reason for his behavior. He just didn't really know how to address that behavior.
Like many, I have seen this show before. I think it was in a group dynamics psychology class I took one semester many years ago. It is a good show though.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the good guy wearing white thing, but I don't feel the clothing colors of all characters was that literal. I say this because at least half of the people wore black panta and white shirts. I think the real effect was at first, and that the guy in white stood out...but a 'bad guy' was a different story for me
This is the first film where I noticed the work put into characters by choices of their 'type' It makes me curious as to whether actors were chosen for their look and the sound of their voice, ect or if it just worked out that way...for example the short bald guy with the 'soft mousy voice'...another type of person would not have fit the character as well.
Another clothing example would be the guy with the striped suit and the hat...perhaps to represent a clown???
A good metaphor we did not discuss was a scene in the bathroom where the guy who was smoking left with his cigarette burning, and the white suit guy later putting it out. I know it was not done with light or shading...but it still had a point.
I thought the best line in the film was during an argument where the 'predigious guy' said.."You are like everyone else! You think too much and get mixed up"
I think that mainly this film was about preconceptions. It also adressed things like sticking to ones convictions, being right, going with a group, and plain old not careing.
Metaphors – black vs. white, good vs. evil. I saw the man always wearing black (Lee Cobb) but it seemed Henry Fonda that wore the white suit was not the good person. I know he was fighting for what is right by defending a person’s right to a fair trial and the beyond reasonable doubt that has to be proved. I think he was fighting for more of a gray area. I did notice the metaphor in the angry men always yelling while the others were calmer. I thought it was a good movie that I could see the catharsis making it a great movie by definition. It was much better than what was a silly similar remake with Paulie Shore named “Jury Duty”. It was easy to see the rising conflicts in each of the votes that were taken. I would have liked to see more about Lee Cobb’s conflict with his son. It was mentioned at the beginning and then it was shown when he threw his wallet on the table. I did like the way a little of each juror’s personal life affected the final outcome. It was interesting how this was shot in one room with what seemed like only two cameras. The acting had to be great because there were no special effects to make up for bad actors.
ReplyDeleteWhat annoyed me most about this film was the yelling like Justin and Stacey mentioned. I know most people have people yell at them daily but what annoyed me the most was that several men thought and acted like they knew everything. It seems like we have poeple like this in every one of ur classes and jobs. What is irononic is that just like the jurors, the people who thinkthey are right, are usually mistaken about their set opinions.
although this movie was not as good as Rope. I did enjoy it. I really did enjoy it. I like the way they were able to do the hole movie in just a couple rooms. Like Rope for that to happen you have to have great acting, writing has to be brilliant, and the camera (directing, producing) has to be at its best. The character's in the movie were wonderful, the contrast between the good and the "bad" were definitely apparent.
ReplyDeleteThe story line of the movie was so well written, I dont know that I can particularly explain why but it hooked me. it was so interesting how the Good juror was able to switch all the votes, we knew it was going to happen but we were still interested. I said before that one of the most noticable things to me is the humor that has slowly creeped its way into the movies over the decades. The movie makers are starting to figure out that for a really good movie people want an aray of emotions.
I really enjoyed this movie. It was very well written and acted, which was a necessity since it took place in one room for the duration of the film. Davis was always cool and collected, never let his emotions get to him, while everyone else around him was short fused and quick to yell. The yelling did get old after awhile, because it seemed like everything that was said, someone would yell about it. I think this movie also showed our American judicial system in a positive light, because although those 11 people were quick to judge the man guilty, that one person (Davis) was enough to give him a chance. Davis was the obvious good guy in this movie, all dressed in white, and the others varied in colors, from gray, to plaid, to black jackets.
ReplyDeleteI really liked this movie and I wouldn't mind watching it again.
I liked this movie also, the movies that we are wathcing now don't seem to lag on as much. When it was mentioned in the class discussion about how we tend to focus on the people who are staying still rather than moving, I never really noticed it until it was mentioned then I realized how true that was. I thought it was brillant for the film to keep davis still so we focused on him more than the other jury members. I also thought the movie was clever, that at the end they could get the dicredit the witnesses testimonies and come to their final conclusion. I probably would have said guilty right off like the others. None of the camera angles really stood out for me that seemed any different. You could tell where the climax was pretty easy, and it resolved itself at the end. I liked the movie and would watch this movie again.
ReplyDeleteI’ve seen this film a few times before and every time I notice something new. I’ve watched it before in a class for its content but I never noticed all the metaphors before. It was really neat watching it with a new point of view in mind. I noticed that how a character affects the people around him/her can really add to the point of the movie. Like the way Dave was so calm. The other jurors slowly joined him as they listened. It just made me the audience, want to hear what he had to say all the more and the other men that were yelling to just shut up. I think that the film being shot in black and white was very clever and I never thought about it that way before. I enjoyed seeing this film in a new way and hope every time I see it I continue to see new things.
ReplyDeleteI've seen this movie many times and liked it each time I've seen it. There were some things I noticed that I had never noticed before. I believe the film is about a lot of preconceived prejudices that throughtout the movie you learn of each mans stories and prejudicesm, which help them create their initial and final decision. I really liked how they slowly in a way introduced each mans story throughout the movie.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting when that guy was ranting about everyone know "one of those types of peope" how everyone stood up and turned their backs toward him. I found that iteresting. I also never noticed how Davis wore a completely white suite. Possibly signaling the "good" guy or whatever it may be.
The one thing I've always liked about this movie is how they shot the majority of this movie in one room, but still managed to make it very captivating.