Reviews: 12 Angry Men (1957 & 1997)
Published September 01, 2005
The also recently deceased Davis, on the other hand, plays the role more as the "easily dismissed old man", which is the role ostensibly for #9. Of course, Davis is over forty years older in this film than Fiedler was in 1957, so one cannot help but notice the age difference when comparing the two. It should also be noted that Davis exhibits a timidity that Cronyn does not, so there is that distinction between the old timers. Yet as good as Davis is, I have to wonder how much better it would have been to keep the original character concept by casting, perhaps, "Mr. Cellophane" himself, John C. Reilly.
Juror #3 (Lee J. Cobb & George C. Scott) - It seems that when it came to this pivotal character, the directors and actors had different opinions on how to approach him. In a stroke that seems to be drawn from the modern mentality that audiences need things spelled out for them, Scott's character is very vocal about his estrangement from his son in the beginning. Cobb, on the other hand, reveals this detail quietly in a conversation with #2. Director Lumet lets this information kind of float out and merge with all the other character development that is done in these small preliminary conversations before the first vote. Director Friedkin, on the other hand, emphasizes this moment as Scott bellows louder than Cobb. It is a strong declaration that practically screams at the audience "THIS WILL BE SIGNIFICANT LATER!".
The final moment for #3, and for the film, is handled much in the same way. Scott is a little over the top in his performance. Cobb, even while raging, is understated. So is Lumet, as we get a nice shot of the picture that falls on the table as Cobb empties his pockets of notes. He rips up the picture in anger and then is immediately regretful of his action. Friedkin decides not to emphasize the photograph, perhaps from fear that he would be accused of too closely following the original. I suppose it may be unfair to ask even greats such as Scott and Friedkin to match the power of Lumet and Cobb's work, but one cannot help but see their update as a pale imitation of the original.
Juror #4 (E. G. Marshall & Armin Mueller-Stahl) - The erudite businessman that is #4 has always been a favorite. Though he is one of the last to yield to #8's arguments, it's for all the right reasons. The other "Guilty" diehards such as #3 and #10 respect #4 while simultaneously not quite connecting with him. Mueller-Stahl's heavy accent reminds one of #11 in the original, but this aspect of the reimagined #4 never comes into play story-wise. As it is, Mueller-Stahl is highly effective in this role and easily the match of E.G. Marshall.
- 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?