Green, a 55-year-old black citizen of Los Angeles, was unjustly imprisoned for 25 years and was acquitted a few days ago. In 1983, a witness accused Green of killing a woman and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Not long ago, this witness admitted that he was under the influence of drugs at the time and identified Green as the person involved with the "assistance" of the police. When the old-fashioned Green was released from prison, he told people that he believed in justice. (Friends who are interested in this story can refer to the sixth edition of "Reference News" on March 22.)
Judicial justice, such a sacred word, sounds more like an irony at this moment. The 25 years of grievances were washed away because of a witness's change of mind. I really don't know whether it is a so-called judicial victory or a sorrow. I started this head because I recently watched the old version of "The Twelve Angry Men". I believe that the friends who have seen it will basically be the same as me. They will have a little understanding of the jury system of American justice. I am fortunate that these twelve angry men have all When he changed his mind, he would sweat for the innocent boy with big eyes.
On the surface, "Twelve Angry Men" seems to show the justice and greatness of the American justice system, especially the jury system, but through a very bright ending, we seem to have seen the film's deep doubts about this system. . This kind of questioning is far more shocking than a touching story of "reversal victory". I believe this is also the real reason why this movie is so famous.
Second
, I won’t say much about legal issues, because basically I’m also a law-blind person. Through "Twelve Angry Men", especially Henry Fonda, the skepticism rooted in human nature is actually more convincing than law and morality. Seeing that the attitudes of these twelve people-completely different temperaments and experiences-can all be reversed in the end. The scheduling of the plot is wonderful, but it is only technical, and the truth in the depths of human nature is the key.
What is more truthful, I think it should refer to the unhesitating appeal to truth (truth). Because I believe that there are no pure bad guys among the twelve angry men with very different personalities. Morality is very unreliable at this time, because the emotional reaction it causes can only put that young man to death.
three
After talking for a long time, I believe that the most favorite thing for friends who like this movie is its story. It is very rare to have a movie that tells the story well, especially such a movie that is supported by dialogue. What is involved here is actually a kind of fun, such as the evolution of the story. Through several new questions about the case, and different modes of internal voting, the audience has a kind of decoded viewing pleasure. To be honest, this model is not new. It seems that angry men are solving the case. In fact, it seems impossible to leave them so many doubts when the case enters this level. However, this trick has been tried repeatedly for the audience, and people are willing to believe that the investigators are fools.
The more enjoyable is the dialogue, which is definitely a hidden machine front. I believe that friends who are good at English should feel this way more. For example, the class critic with glasses argued that children in such slums must commit crimes because they can't even speak English well, and then an angry man from the slums next to him immediately pointed out his grammatical error. There are many similar highlights, especially the angry man who was hurt by his son and was the last to repent. He always let the plot match his language and hit his own mouth. This kind of fun design made us very happy.
Fourth,
some people say that the most successful part of this movie is that the characters of the twelve angry men are very successful. I believe most audiences will recognize this view. The twelve kinds of personalities are not the same, and each one is very brilliant. The height reached by this collective performance makes many films hard to come by. I think this is also a match made in heaven. In a closed space, starting from 1 to 11, gradually changing everyone's attitude until 0 to 12, which in itself has an excellent dramatic effect.
If you have to find a weak personality in it, it must be Henry Fonda. This is not to say that Fonda is not good at acting, but as the first protagonist of the film, he is the only character who insists on his own opinions and has not changed. As the producer of the film, I believe that Fonda, who has invested his wealth in it, may not be unaware of the weakness of this character, but viewers who are used to seeing Fonda as a hero will not agree to spend money to see a flawed idol. At the end of the movie, Fonda was given a character name "overwhelmingly", which made it clear that he was working hard for the Oscar of that year, but the result could only be unsuccessful. Haha, of course this is just my guess.
five
Talking about the law, human nature, stories, and characters indiscriminately, it's time to talk about the movie itself. This film is director Sidney Lumet’s debut, and at this time the producer and actor Fonda is already a big star, so I guess Fonda’s influence on the set is not less than that of the director. Sidney was a TV director, and this play was also copied from a popular TV show at the time. Let a TV director to direct a film that is more suitable for the form of a TV drama, this is where the game is superior.
It is not an exaggeration to say that the film is an in-house play, and other scenes can almost be ignored. But it was precisely in such a limited space that Sidney made an indoor drama lively and not dull through changes in mirrors, light, and scenery. In order to express the sweltering weather and the oppressive feeling of the situation at the beginning, photography often takes a top-down perspective. As the position of the character changes, the lens begins to become flexible, or look up or up to suit the changing situation. The special perspective on special characters is also very interesting, such as the oldest angry man, the lens often gives close-ups to show his weakness and stubbornness; and everyone has left the table to show dissatisfaction with the constant chatter of the fever patient At that time, the wide-angle lens covered everyone to the maximum, pulling the boredom to the extreme.
There are many other wonderful places like these, so I won’t add more proofs, but they all prove the film’s excellent theatrical expressiveness. The more pretentious view is that it is very dramatic. I don’t know what drama tension is, but I know that if a movie just completely mobilizes the audience’s emotions, or just makes people think about it after watching it, it’s not necessarily a good show full of tension. This is why many so-called master classics are so dull, and many tear-gas soap operas make people sigh. And this "Twelve Angry Men" uses eighteen martial arts, which perfectly blends the audience's dual appeals for emotion and thinking. It seems to be obvious and very hidden, and it seems to be diffuse and clear. I think this may be tension. The realm of it.
View more about 12 Angry Men reviews
