The Criterion Collection

[MifuneFan]

Barbara Loden's Wanda (1970) now featured on Janus Film's front page

http://www.janusfilms.com/films/1893

Trailer:

https://vimeo.com/275159804

Poster:

[Show spoiler]

[regeyer]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Just saying the kid is guilty makes it seem like you missed the entire point of the film, but agree to disagree I guess.

Actually, I got the point of the movie. That came through very clearly on my first viewing. But it has become equally clear, and I don't think it was the directors intention, that the jury got it wrong under the facts presented.

With that said, I don't believe, as has been suggested by some writers, that this movie represents a political statement aimed at letting guilty people go free if they're poor and victims themselves. I think it was the intention of the movie to show that a first impression of the evidence might be wrong, and that after careful consideration a different conclusion may be more accurate. Unfortunately, using the facts presented in the movie, there is no reasonable doubt. This kid is guilty.

Again, I'm still a fan of the movie. I watch it several times a year and I'm glad to have it as part of my collection.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by regeyer

I think you just proved my point.

Yes, there is certainly some reasonable doubt in relation to a couple of the facts. But when all of the facts are considered together, there is no reasonable doubt. You can't review each fact in isolation and consider whether "it's possible" that someone made a mistake, as Henry Fonda suggests. No. All of the evidence must be considered together.

You are correct that for immaterial facts (e.g. color of shoes of defendant), reasonable doubt can exist and defendant can still be guilty, but for material facts (e.g. facts that tend to prove that defendant committed one of the elements of the crime = whether witness saw or heard defendant commit murder, etc), if reasonable doubt exists, then he's not guilty. I agree all evidence must be considered, but if reasonable doubt exists as to material fact, then he's not guilty. I need to rewatch this but my recollection on last viewing was Fonda demonstrated reasonable doubt by end of film.

[belcherman]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

I guess I dropped out of law school end of my second year before they showed the film to my class.

Well, I didn't say they showed it in all law schools Actually, in my daughter's first year of law school, she was assigned 12 Angry Men, Anatomy of a Murder, and one or two others (The Verdict, maybe) as "outside reading."

Incidentally, Anatomy of a Murder was cited as a somewhat realistic representation of how a murder trial would be in reality.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by regeyer

BTW, I am an attorney. And I can tell you right now that justice was not served. With that said, I really like this movie.

I feel like people who are insisting that justice can only be served if all guilty people are found guilty don't really understand what justice is. The whole point is that the 11 men who voted guilty gradually examine their own prejudices and then look at the evidence without bias and determine their verdict based solely on the strength or weakness that the evidence has in their opinion. I frankly can't imagine how that could be viewed as unjust.

[peschi]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

I feel like people who are insisting that justice can only be served if all guilty people are found guilty don't really understand what justice is. The whole point is that the 11 men who voted guilty gradually examine their own prejudices and then look at the evidence without bias and determine their verdict based solely on the strength or weakness that the evidence has in their opinion. I frankly can't imagine how that could be viewed as unjust.

this, 12 angry men isnt an detective story, its a story about prejudices, that the boy gets sentenced or not at the end of the movie is completely besides the point of the movie.

[willtopower]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

I feel like people who are insisting that justice can only be served if all guilty people are found guilty don't really understand what justice is. The whole point is that the 11 men who voted guilty gradually examine their own prejudices and then look at the evidence without bias and determine their verdict based solely on the strength or weakness that the evidence has in their opinion. I frankly can't imagine how that could be viewed as unjust.

It's almost like regeyer's understanding of the film keeps decreasing the more he/she watches it if the amount of times they say they watch it is true.

If the poster is an attorney, it only underscores the dubiousness of their certainty for me.

[javy]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Barbara Loden's Wanda (1970) now featured on Janus Film's front page

http://www.janusfilms.com/films/1893

Trailer:

https://vimeo.com/275159804

Poster:

[Show spoiler]

I'll be looking forward to seeing this on blu-ray.

[lemonski]

Originally Posted by willtopower

If the poster is an attorney, it only underscores the dubiousness of their certainty for me.

Good grief. Although if this is supposed to be ironic in a meta reference to the film, well done.

[Doctor Jack]

Ordered Che and Traffic today from the B&N sale. Figured they would go great with my copies of King of the Hill and Sex Lies that are coming. Hopefully Criterion can release Schizopolis at some point or maybe grab The Girlfriend Experience since it’s OOP. I need that in my life.

[regeyer]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

I feel like people who are insisting that justice can only be served if all guilty people are found guilty don't really understand what justice is. The whole point is that the 11 men who voted guilty gradually examine their own prejudices and then look at the evidence without bias and determine their verdict based solely on the strength or weakness that the evidence has in their opinion. I frankly can't imagine how that could be viewed as unjust.

I agree. That was the point of the movie. The movie intended, at least in my mind, to show that the preconceived prejudices of the majority changed because of the willingness of one man to examine the facts. A life was saved. What's not to like?

The problem is that upon closer inspection, based solely upon the facts, there is no reasonable doubt as to this kid's guilt. Admittedly, it took many viewings of this film before I realized this. Believe me. I wanted this kid to be innocent. Unfortunately, the facts show otherwise. I think Reginald Rose and Sydney Lumet intended for the accused to be innocent. Unfortunately, the way the movie and the facts are presented there really is no room for doubt. The kid is guilty.

Feel free to disagree.

[blujazz]

Agnes Varda signed my Eclipse set. Incredibly charming and very thoughtful at her BFI masterclass.

[RCRochester]

I think people are kind of overthinking 12 Angry Men. Most people agree that the point of the movie is that the other jurors rush to judgment based on their own prejudices. A lot of what goes on in that film would never happen in a real deliberation anyway, so I’m willing to suspend my disbelief over certain stretches of logic and accept that the kid is supposed to be innocent.

[GaragePoet]

Originally Posted by regeyer

irregardless of that minor fact, here are a couple of articles that make it clear that justice was not served...

BTW, I am an attorney.

if you were my attorney, i would fire you on the spot for using the word "irregardless"

[regeyer]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

I think people are kind of overthinking 12 Angry Men. Most people agree that the point of the movie is that the other jurors rush to judgment based on their own prejudices. A lot of what goes on in that film would never happen in a real deliberation anyway, so I’m willing to suspend my disbelief over certain stretches of logic and accept that the kid is supposed to be innocent.

I can live with that. Like I said, I really like the film. I watch it several times a year.

[the sordid sentinel]

Just got done watching the always excellent The Friends of Eddie Coyle. You can get whiplash keeping up with the back stabbing and double crossing in this movie.

Great performance by Robert Mitchum, but Peter Boyle damn near steals this one. Really chilling how matter of fact he is when the hit is being set up at the end. Never would have dreamed that guy would wind up sitting in a recliner cracking wise in a mediocre..if that (IMO) Ray Ramono sit com.

Picnic at Hanging Rock and Purple Noon arrived today via the B&N sale. Been wanting to add those forever.

[Hoke Moseley]

Originally Posted by the sordid sentinel

Great performance by Robert Mitchum, but Peter Boyle damn near steals this one. Really chilling how matter of fact he is when the hit is being set up at the end. Never would have dreamed that guy would wind up sitting in a recliner cracking wise in a mediocre..if that (IMO) Ray Ramono sit com.

Peter Boyle was actually pretty fantastic on Everybody Loves Raymond... and he certainly did a lot more than just crack wise.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by the sordid sentinel

Just got done watching the always excellent The Friends of Eddie Coyle. You can get whiplash keeping up with the back stabbing and double crossing in this movie.

Great performance by Robert Mitchum, but Peter Boyle damn near steals this one. Really chilling how matter of fact he is when the hit is being set up at the end. Never would have dreamed that guy would wind up sitting in a recliner cracking wise in a mediocre..if that (IMO) Ray Ramono sit com.

Picnic at Hanging Rock and Purple Noon arrived today via the B&N sale. Been wanting to add those forever.

The whole cast is great in that film. It has several unheralded actors in pretty prominent roles, like Richard Jordan, Steven Keats, and Alex Rocco. Jordan was an amazing actor who a lot of people don't really know now. He was awesome in whatever he was in.

[tisdivine]

So I watched Aki Kaurismaki’s The Other Side of Hope tonight not realizing its a companion piece to Le Havre, which just happens to be one of my Top 25 films if all time.

Im ready for more Kaurismaki. Especially his Proletariat Trilogy.

[the sordid sentinel]

Originally Posted by Hoke Moseley

Peter Boyle was actually pretty fantastic on Everybody Loves Raymond... and he certainly did a lot more than just crack wise.

I'll take your word for it. Honestly never made it through a full ep. Not enough for an informed opinion I guess. If nothing else my opinion about The Friends of Eddie Coyle and yours about the TV show illustrates fantastic range from Boyle.