MovieChat Forums > 12 Angry Men (1997) Discussion > I have a real problem with this remake.....

I have a real problem with this remake...

posted 14 years ago by Bavles
11 replies | jump to latest

I portrayed Juror number 10 in my school's production of 12 Angry Jurors (named so because we had a mixed cast). Now the actor that portrayed #10 in this film said he had a real problem with his character because of his ugly feelings on the world. Now, I had similar feeling but I was alright because originally #10 has his redemption at the end where he is convinced at the end because of the woman with the glasses. In this film, he has no redemption and believes the boy is guilty to the end, only voting not guilty to get out of the room. This to me really ruins the character and ended the film on a sour note to me. Now I am a little biased but I don't believe this should have been changed.

[–] Jetfire59 14 years ago

An interesting input. I submit that it was probably changed to be more realistic. I have no problem at all believing that at least one juror would just surrender because he wanted it to be over. It's been a while since I saw the original version, but I would have to agree with you that the change was unfortunate. It's an honor to be discussing this with one who actually performed in the play. I envy you a bit.

I think Rasputin put it best when he said, "Mmm, those pastries gave me indigestion".

[–] Mister_Anderson 14 years ago

I like how it was changed. They also revised the acting script, which I have. Juror 10 was so bigoted and bitter that it wasn't realistic that he would simply lose his bigoted ways over the course of 90 minutes or so. He simply realized he couldn't win and stopped caring.

This is in contrast to Juror 3, who isn't bigoted, but simply must be shown to separate his own personal drama from the facts of the case.

MOVIES BY THE MINUTE --> http://moviesbytheminute.blogspot.com

[–] Matches-5 14 years ago

But it doesn't make sense that way. If he was truly that bigoted, he would have held out and continued to vote guilty. If it had to be a 12-0 vote and he outright refused to vote not guilty, the result would have been a hung jury, and as a couple characters mentioned, most juries would have convicted. By holding out and hanging the jury, the racist guy would likely get what he wanted eventually.

[–] melissa_bizz 14 years ago

But it doesn't make sense that way. If he was truly that bigoted, he would have held out and continued to vote guilty. If it had to be a 12-0 vote and he outright refused to vote not guilty, the result would have been a hung jury, and as a couple characters mentioned, most juries would have convicted. By holding out and hanging the jury, the racist guy would likely get what he wanted eventually.

That's a good point. But, I wonder if we are supposed to think that he came to a point of being somewhat embarrassed by his views, and rather than say it out loud, he simply "gave up." While not a total redemption, perhaps we are supposed to see him, at least a little bit, reexamining his views.

"So these are brussel sprouts? They sure do smell up the house."

[–] hero-de-celluloid 14 years ago

I have three takes on it. First - not everyone is alike - even bigots. People do change and some change quicker than others. Some bigots would not change for anything - but some might change with the right factors. Second - it's a movie with many time constraints – thus the transformation of this man could have been quicker than usual. Either way – even if staying a bigot would be the usual - it isn’t the only outcome. Thirdly – maybe he is still a bigot but had an epiphany with his son and decided to transfer it to the defendant and give him the break he should have given his son.

You can scream now if you want.

[–] ejioforobi 12 years ago

Nope.

His arguments where completly defeated.

Rather then conceding the point he simply gives up.

If he continues to keep arguing even when all his arguments have been defeated he looks like an idiot so he takes the easy way out by quiting.

[–] Ulex 14 years ago

Some very good points raised here. As one commentator pointed out, Juror #10's surrender on the "guilty" vote is the beginning of a redemption, even tho we have to use our imaginations about whether or not it followed through.

To me, it's mostly about changes in audience expectations. In the 50's and 60's, a melodramatic conversion would have seemed appropriate. But in the 90's, we're a bit more cynical about this stuff. And probably for good reason--people don't abandon long-held beliefs on a single night.

Just another point---while Juror #10 was denied a redemption, Juror #7 was given one, simply out of the way that Tony Danza uttered the line, "I don't think he did it." Interesting.

[–] Barticus88 12 years ago

In the original, when 4 tells 10 to sit down and keep his mouth shut, he sits down at the table, and remains quiet. I would not call it redemption, but he realizes that racist logic won't turn any votes. If he can't argue from racism, he can't argue at all, so he goes along with not guilty.

This 10 sits down away from the table, and later enunciates much of what the original 10 may have been feeling. He's still guilty of being a *beep* but if you insist that's not part of the charge, I'll go along and vote not guilty.

[–] Bavles 12 years ago

Well I believe that 10 was so bigoted that he believed that just because this boy was of another race (in our play the kid was black but I believe in the original film he was puerto rican), then he simply had to be guilty. So in a way, him admitting that the boy could be innocent based on the evidence in at least in some way a small redemption. Like he's thinking more like a rational human being.

[–] Jack-Daniels-Fan 12 years ago

Can't the rest of the jurors ask the Judge to have Juror #10 removed after his little racist rant if he insisted on voting guilty? In the original there were alternate jurors so perhaps there were in this case as well. I think that's standard practise in the US.

[–] sign543-6-320217 11 years ago

Good arguments from everybody. From all I have read from you guys, I think it's just simply possible that jury 10 could have simply given up...or he could have held out, in fierce defense of his own bigotry. He might have done either thing. As one poster wisely stated...people are different, even racist, bigoted people. It is reasonable to conclude, then, that how he behaved in this instance is a distinct possibility and, thus, does not necessarily represent a flaw in either the script or in the character.

In my opinion, this is one of the better remakes of older films. They got this one right and I think that is due, largely, to the phenomenal ensemble cast. I don't see how you can go wrong with George C. Scott, Jack Lemmon, and Hume Cronyn. Not to mention the rest of the fine cast. The actor who played Juror #10 is the same actor who played "Bubba Gump" in Forrest Gump. He is a fine character actor and his was exceedingly believable.