Reviews: 12 Angry Men (1957 & 1997)
Published September 01, 2005
Juror #5 (Jack Klugman & Dorian Harewood) - Aside from #10, #5 is the only racial change of white to black that makes an impact on the proceedings (Indeed, the only time that #1 and #2's race are ever an issue in the newer version is when #10 prefaces an appeal to their sympathies with an emphatic "Brothers,"). In the original, Jack Klugman plays #5 as a quiet man of a lower economic class than the rest. Harewood, on the other hand, also plays a character of a lower economic class, but also has his race become an issue in terms of his confrontations with #10. Harewood brings a little more intensity to his role than Klugman exhibited, and does a lot for the tension at key moments in the film.
Juror #6 (Ed Binns & James Gandolfini) - A self described "workin' man", #6 is a blue collar stiff who is a decent guy and is willing to reprimand even the fiercest of other jury members when they are rude to #9. #6's defense of the old man immediately marks him as a sympathetic character. Binns and Gandolfini both play him well, though Gandolfini is given an extra scene with #10 which provides a nice humorous touch to the film.
#6 is notable for being given one of the more memorable and haunting lines in the script. The line is given to #8 during a casual conversation in the bathroom and remains the same in both versions:
Juror #6: "Well, I'm not used to supposin'. I'm just a workin' man. My boss does all the supposin' - but I'll try one. Supposin' you talk us all out of this and, uh, the kid really did knife his father?"
In both versions, it's the only argument by any of the other eleven jurors that give #8 pause. Our justice system is a flawed one, but it does work. One of the chief drawbacks is how reasonable doubt could send a killer loose. Though it is often said that it is better to let a killer go free than imprison an innocent man, the choice can be seen as a "lesser of two evils" problem. One can imagine that playwright Reginald Rose thought he would be remiss for not mentioning this fact, and it gets it's the attention it deserves in both versions.
Juror #7 (Jack Warden & Tony Danza) - Ladies and Gentleman, the textbook definition of "Jerk". This was more or less Mrs. Mosley's sentiment when we watched the remake recently and it holds true for both versions. Being at the head of the table directly opposite the Foreman, one could argue they are painted as polar opposites: One who takes his job very seriously and one who endeavors to be serious as little as possible.
- 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?