Reviews: 12 Angry Men (1957 & 1997)
Published September 01, 2005
In 1957, a young television director named Sidney Lumet was given a stage play to adapt for the screen that was to star a cross section of superior actors. This became 12 Angry Men, one of the finest films ever made. It's certainly one of my all time favorites, and is one of the few DVD's in my collection that I'm in danger of wearing out.
Lumet went on to director a number of other classics, including Dog Day Afternoon, Network and The Verdict. Flash forward forty years and we change from a young director whose best is yet to come to an older one whose best is a bit behind him. William Friedkin, famous for The French Connection and The Exorcist, was tapped to direct a new version of 12 Angry Men for the Showtime channel, this time updating the script and adding a lot more color to the cast.
I had fond memories of first watching this back in 1997. Having recently purchased a VHS copy and watched it again, I found that I still liked it, though there are some elements that are less admirable upon second viewing. In detailing these, I'm breaking down the films into the two dozen actors featured and comparing each pair that played the same role. So here we go. (Spoilers abound for those who haven't seen either version)
Juror #1 (Martin Balsam & Courtney B. Vance) - With #1, also known as the Foreman, we have a pair of very steadfast characters. Both are assistant coaches for High School Football and, though never mentioned, seem to be upstanding family men. Their patience is worn thin in both versions by the rudeness exhibited by #10, and they offers up their position as Foreman to him perhaps with the thinking that presiding over intelligent discourse is going to be rough going with some in this group.
Other than this exchange, the biggest moment for this character is a monologue concerning a cancelled football game to #8. The original simply uses this as some slight character development to flesh out #1 a bit more since he does very little arguing in the film. In the 1997 version, the story is lengthened to describe one player who remains on the bench in the rain. Vance strikes an emotional chord of hopelessness in his telling of this story, and perhaps is echoing his position as Foreman over some members of the jury.
Juror #2 (John Fiedler & Ossie Davis) - There was a tonal change with this casting. Though it is perhaps not the original's fault, #2 ended up being more of a comic character in the original. Fiedler, who recently passed away, will forever be known as the voice of Piglet in the "Winnie the Pooh" cartoons. Piglet's voice is not an affectation either, but rather Fiedler's own. So when we hear this voice amongst the chorus of jurors in the midst of deliberations, we cannot help but smile a little. Other than this detail, Fiedler effectively plays the role of the wimpy little guy that nobody listens to.
- Reviews: 12 Angry Men (1957 & 1997)
- Published: September 01, 2005
- Type: Review
- Section: Video
- Writer: Alonzo Mosley (FBI)
- Alonzo Mosley (FBI)'s BC Writer page
- Alonzo Mosley (FBI)'s personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
The difference in the characterizations of the Foreman is significant in that Balsam, the lowly assistant football coach at Andrew McCorkland high school, is finally given a chance to "lead" when handed the reins of the jury. Notice how upset he gets when his authority is challenged ("Boy, I don't care what you do!", "Come on, fella, stay in there and pitch!"). The other important detail of his backstory at the window to Henry Fonda is not the football game, but the language he uses to describe the running back. "Cutting" and "slashing!" The look on Fonda's face is what's important here. He seems to be thinking "Will you listen to what you're saying?" as Balsam winds up his violent football analogy with the kicker line "It was murder."
In the re-make, Courtney Vance's weepy football tale does nothing to enhance the story or character except show that the actor can "do sad."
Jack Klugman and Dorian Harewood's Juror #5 is supposed to be unemployed.
Question: In the remake, if Tony Danza is so intent on making it to the baseball game, why does he keep a notepad with details of the trial?
Ed Begley plays his racist role as the type of man you could easily imagine in the 50's; Mikail T. Williamson plays his character like a psychopath (About the boy, "Here's one we can get anyway").
There never should've been a re-make, but if they had to, they should have done it like the current Broadway play and leave the story in the 1950's where it belongs. You wouldn't update MOBY DICK, would you?
The difference in the characterizations of the Foreman is significant in that Balsam, the lowly assistant football coach at Andrew McCorkland high school, is finally given a chance to "lead" when handed the reins of the jury. Notice how upset he gets when his authority is challenged ("Boy, I don't care what you do!", "Come on, fella, stay in there and pitch!"). The other important detail of his backstory at the window to Henry Fonda is not the football game, but the language he uses to describe the running back. "Cutting" and "slashing!" The look on Fonda's face is what's important here. He seems to be thinking "Will you listen to what you're saying?" as Balsam winds up his violent football analogy with the kicker line "It was murder."
In the re-make, Courtney Vance's weepy football tale does nothing to enhance the story or character except show that the actor can "do sad."
Jack Klugman and Dorian Harewood's Juror #5 is supposed to be unemployed.
Question: In the remake, if Tony Danza is so intent on making it to the baseball game, why does he refer to a notepad with details of the trial?
Ed Begley plays his racist role as the type of man you could easily imagine in the 50's; Mikail T. Williamson plays his character like a psychopath (About the boy, "Here's one we can get anyway").
There never should've been a re-make, but if they had to, they should have done it like the current Broadway play and leave the story in the 1950's where it belongs. You wouldn't update MOBY DICK, would you?
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/35266)
The difference in the characterizations of the Foreman is significant in that Balsam, the lowly assistant football coach at Andrew McCorkland high school, is finally given a chance to "lead" when handed the reins of the jury. Notice how upset he gets when his authority is challenged ("Boy, I don't care what you do!", "Come on, fella, stay in there and pitch!"). The other important detail of his backstory at the window to Henry Fonda is not the football game, but the language he uses to describe the running back. "Cutting" and "slashing!" The look on Fonda's face is what's important here. He seems to be thinking "Will you listen to what you're saying?" as Balsam winds up his violent football analogy with the kicker line "It was murder."
In the re-make, Courtney Vance's weepy football tale does nothing to enhance the story or character except show that the actor can "do sad."
Question: In the remake, if Tony Danza is so intent on making it to the baseball game, why does he keep a notepad with details of the trial?
Ed Begley plays his racist role as the type of man you could easily imagine in the 50's; Mikail T. Williamson plays his character like a psychopath (About the boy, "Here's one we can get anyway").
There never should've been a re-make, but if they had to, they should have done it like the current Broadway play and leave the story in the 1950's where it belongs. You wouldn't update MOBY DICK, would you?