just heard of this topic on reddit thanks to the BTTF board.
Thought it'd be interesting to have the conversation here...
When i think of one I'll be back
Liar Liar
Because, instead of the movie named
It was telling to not lying
I haven't seen it, but I have heard that The Birth of a Nation (1915) has terrible racist messages in it.
shareI saw it for a history class ages ago
The freed black men go on a rape and crime spree and it's up to the heroic forces of the Ku Klux Klan to put the newly freedmen under the boot to preserve innocent white society...
I'ts pretty insane but apparently President Woodrow Wilson (a segregationist) was a huge fan and it was the first movie shown in the White House
History is almost always weirder than fiction!
12 Angry Men. A manipulating movie about manipulation.
shareYes!!!
The movie says, "If you know your fellow jurors are right but you don't want to respect their vote, just manipulate them into voting your way."
I would add, It's a Wonderful Life. The basic message is that self-sacrifice is a virtue, that if you sacrifice yourself for others, you will experience "good karma."
I would add, It's a Wonderful Life. The basic message is that self-sacrifice is a virtue, that if you sacrifice yourself for others, you will experience "good karma."
I know people are going to think I'm the worst kind of cynic, but if you take notes of IAWL (like, note down key scenes and such), you will see that the movie isn't what it pretends to be.
The movie tries to convince viewers that the reason why George decides to kill himself is that he puts too much emphasis on personal success above family and friends. In other words, rather than being obsessed with being a man of the world, he should've counted his blessings for his family and friends. But the reason why he decides to kill himself has nothing to do with feeling that he is a failure at life. It's because he ended up in the exact same position as his father and never got to fulfill one dream of his, while everyone else got to live theirs at his expense.
To make matters worse, the reason why he ended up in his position is that the "friends" who bailed him out in the end of the movie put him there through their selfishness and self-interest. For example, Harry was supposed to have held down the fort after college so George could go to college himself. Instead, Harry blindsided him, got married instead and never came home. When George had the chance to travel, the townspeople selfishly stormed the bank so he had to cancel his Honeymoon plans. This type of thing happens several times throughout the film, where other people thwart George's dreams so that they could fulfill the dreams he never got to.
All of this is why the movie's message of, "No man is a failure who has friends," rings hollow for me, because given how George "acquired" these friends, it's really saying something more sinister--that if you sacrifice all of your dreams for others, you should be happy because at least those "others" became the type of friends to bail you out in a time of trouble.
For some strange reason the phrase "you are the worst kind of cynic" comes to mind. (haha ;-)
shareI agree with you! It's a Wonderful Life is SOOOOOOOOOOOO goddamn smarmy. If it were made nowadays it would be a Hallmark Channel movie.
shareA movie I used to love - incredible cast. But a few years ago, upon re-watching, I really hated the message. It makes a hero of the lone holdout - whose judgment is superior to 11 other individuals. It it something of an icon, see here
https://www.lawfuel.com/blog/the-now-famous-juror-no-4-in-the-tyco-case-in-new-york-has-made-headlines-for-her-steadfast-refusal-to-convict-on-any-count-bringing-to-mind-the-inspirational-character-of-henry-fonda-in-twelve-ang/
But in 12 Angry Men, they re-try the case, which is not their job. For example, the old woman had marks on her nose! She wore glasses but didn't at trial because of her vanity! She couldn't have possibly ID'd the defendant because she had just gotten up from bed to look out the window!
What rubbish.
Good cast, no problem with that. But like you pointed out, he's not the prosecutor or the defense. They can't make up their own explanations.
If he feels there's reasonable doubt, it's his duty to point it out. But the jurors are not on trial. The system knows humans are flawed, that's why there are 12 jurors instead of 1.
Yes, 12 Angry Men is one of the oiliest, grimiest and shady movies ever committed to celluloid and the more I see it, the more sickening it makes me. Here are some more groaners from that movie:
1. An old man must not have heard the murder and made it all up for the attention, based on how he was dressed.
2. The defense attorney did a bad job because he probably didn't want the case. The prosecutor might have done a bad job because "lawyers can be stupid."
3. Juror 8 recreates a witness's limp, knowing nothing about the size of the apartment or how bad the limp was at the time of the murder (if he even had one at the time).
4. Juror 8 tries to discredit the juror with the glasses (E.G. Marshall) by asking him what movie he'd seen four days before and uses that to blow his argument about the defendant's alibi. Problem is that he actually remembered the movie--only got the details wrong--but the defendant couldn't remember a thing, couldn't even give a name or title or anything.
5. That switchblade! He had no idea why the blade from the murder scene was rare. (It could've looked exactly like the one he brought except for some minor detail.) But he presents it as if it was some smoking gun proving the defendant's innocence.
It is not that bad. It had to do with the McCarthy Era.
shareThe movie is hella manipulative. It's dishonest about the judicial system. And apparently it doesn't allow people to make up their own mind. According to the logic of the movie nobody can be found guilty because we're all prejudiced in some way.
sharethe message I got was we are allowed to question authority.
shareExcept the authority of juror 8, of course!
I'm sorry, Mitch, but you don't send that message by manipulation.
he was logical and polite. juror 10 was obviously a racist.
shareHe wasn't logical at all! He was just speculating and making up explanations. If you don't agree with him, apparently you must be prejudiced or just plain ignorant.
Juror 10 might very well be racist, but that's really none of his business.
Juror 10 might've been a racist, but he was still going by the facts of the case. Bigotry shouldn't matter if the juror is clearly basing his verdict on what was said in the course of the trial.
shareThe burden of proof is on the State. Juror 8 was pointing out reasonable doubt.
shareReasonable doubt is not making up your own explanation. I remember Marcia Clark complaining about the jury doing the same during the Casey Anthony trial.
shareThe movie was allegorical.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc6Yo3A7CC8
Yes, you already said that. Bad idea to be dishonest and manipulate the audience to make that point.
shareHe wasn't polite at all, just very passive-aggressive in his behavior, for example, calling Cobb's character a sadist and public avenger, or talking down to Warden's character when he was laughing or talking about the baseball game.
shareWe might not agree on Beauty and the Beast, but I'm glad there's someone who also sees through this movie!π
shareI disagree. When they voted, they took no time for discussion which is why Juror 8 asked that they at least talked about it. Many didn't even care like Jack Warden's character who just didn't want to miss his baseball game.
shareThat doesn't mean he didn't try to manipulate them. They had the whole trial to make up their minds, not taking the time to discuss doesn't make their opinion less valid. The film spins it like they just don't care, but juror 8 does not know what goes on inside their heads. He just doesn't like the fact that they have a different opinion.
shareJuror 8 never claimed to say whether or not he thought he was guilty. He kept repeating "but it's possible" referring to him possibly being innocent because there was no hard evidence. Jack Warden didn't care. He kept saying "I don't know. I just think he's guilty." He wanted to leave early on something that needed a unanimous vote.
shareHe wanted to acquit the guy and the others didn't. But he didn't want to accept that, so he subsequently began making up his own explanations and putting the jurors on trial.
shareHe was asked early on by one of the jurors: "do you really think he's innocent?" He replies: "I don't know."
shareHe doesn't know so he goes on making up his own explanations and putting the jurors on trial? He clearly wants to acquit the guy and won't accept that the others want to convict.
shareThe entire thing was just a point for discussion. At no point in the film does he say whether he thinks he's innocent or guilty. All he asked was to talk about it for an hour. Some agreed, some just wanted to leave.
shareDid I say that he claimed he was innocent? No, I said that he wanted to acquit and didn't want to accept the others didn't.
But sure, that's the way the manipulation worked. First he says he just doesn't know, then he says he just wants to talk for an hour, then he starts making up his own explanations (which the jury isn't supposed to do) and putting the jurors on trial (none of his business!).
I didn't say that you said that. I said that because he never gave his opinion on whether he was guilty or not at any point of the movie, there's no reason for him to want to be equitted.
shareAnd I'm saying that he may have said he didn't know, but he certainly didn't act that way. The logical thing would be to ask of all the other jurors to convince him of his guilt, since that's the intention of a trial.
shareAll he wanted was an hour worth of discussion.
shareNo, he wanted an hour to change their mind. If he didn't know what to think, he himself would have nothing to talk about.
shareI disagree for the simple fact that he said that they should at least talk about it. Before the vote Martin Balsam said he wanted to change Henry Fond's mind. If anything, it was them trying to do it.
shareWell, like I said, him wanting to "talk about it" was the beginning of his manipulation. He claims he simply doesn't know, but then continues to point out everything he thinks is wrong with their reasoning.
Juror 8 is the only one who didn't vote guilty and was apparently not convinced by the prosecution's case, of course it makes sense for the others to try and change his mind. But that's not what eventually happens.
Listen, I really dislike this movie and its message, there's no way you're going to convince me otherwise like juror 8!π
"there's no way you're going to convince me otherwise like juror 8!π"
π
I disagree. When they voted, they took no time for discussion which is why Juror 8 asked that they at least talked about it.
He was asked by one of the jurors just after the vote if he really thought he was guilty and he said he didn't know. He then says it wasn't easy being the only guy not to vote guilty and said it's not right to send a guy off to death with at least talking about it first. "I'm not trying to change your mind, it's just that we're talking about somebody's life here." A few seconds later he suggests just sitting there talking about it for an hour. But why would it be okay for them to say that he was obviously guilty? As you said: "it's up to them to persuade him into seeing why the defendant was guilty."
shareV for Vendetta
If you think you're righteous enough then it's a good thing to use tyranny to overcome tyranny.
Beauty and the Beast:
"Deep inside every beast of a man (verbal abuser with anger management issues) is a hurt little soul who only needs to be loved."
"You can change him, if you try hard enough."
good one!
shareDon't agree with that. Belle did not put up with his crap. She just gave him another chance when he showed change. Nothing wrong with that message, I think.
shareForrest Gump
that feather in the wind says it all
Grease (1978) - Change yourself for the person you want to be with.
Forrest Gump (1994) - Donβt question the government, conservative politics, or really anything.
Forrest Gump also tried to imply that the only reason why the 60s happened was because all the protesters and other people fighting for change had bad parenting or traumatic childhoods.
share"Grease (1978) - Change yourself for the person you want to be with."
Lol, very true! Annoys the heck out of me!