The casting of Jack Lemmon as Juror #8 basically summed up this film; horrendous. The original 1957 film pivoted a relatively young and full-spirited Henry Fonda against Lee J. Cobb, which George C. Scott was able to rekindle beautifully. Lemmon on the other hand, reminds me more of Juror #9 in the original; old and wise. The clashing of these differences against the classic make the new version hard to watch.
shareagreed. further, the fact that the jury in this remake was multi-cultural surely totally misses the point of the movie?
the original had a young, poor latin boy's fate in the hands of 12 white men - the odds of a fair result were supposed to seem impossible.
maybe the jury in the remake was a sign of the times but it seems like little more than misplaced political correctness to me.
ali
The fact that I saw this version first may be the whole point but I found that the fact Lemmon was older and seemed to have to fight for respect like Hume Cronyn ad Abraham Simpson was poignant in it's own right.
The racial/cultural aspect did not seem like PC pandering to me at all... Modern theme yes, but straight to the point of human experience.
The acting I felt did not suffer as we all have had experience with knowing someone for a codensed period of time and cannot pick on anyone but Tony Danza (Sorry Tony... I love you in prime time) for one-dimensional reasons.
If we wish to debate the merits of two versions then that is one thing but we must agree that the screenplay (simplicity/minimalism) is a masterpiece which rivals Glengarry Glen Ross.
[deleted]
[deleted]
No one ever said a remake must precisely replicate the original or it's not good. Isn't the point of remaking a movie putting your own twist on it? If it was just to copy the movie exactly, it wouldn't be interesting. It would just be the same movie with different actors in it.
Maybe I'm biased as a Jack Lemmon fan, but I thought he was great in the role. In fact, I liked the fact that it was an older man defending the hispanic teenager, because he's defending a person he has nothing in common with whatsoever. Yet he shed light on the subject in a very empathetic way.
I also think it would have been unrealistic to repeat the all white jury in 1997. Who would buy that? No one! And making it modern allowed them to delve even deeper into current social issues (for example, the rascism blacks have for hispanics.) It was by all acconts a great movie and I think it's interesting someone mentioned Glengarry Glen Ross...both movies did have the same sort of tension throughout it (nicely emphasized by the rain, heat, and trains roaring by.)
I am from China, I watched 97 version in Chinese, not the subtitle but the voice. We usually do this to foreign movies so most people can understand them very well. But I have to say it is Jack Lemmon's act grasped me so I finished the whole movie(I started watch it in TV in midnight). And I will say almost all actors in this movie are execellent. I love this movie.
--So I am eager to watch it in English completely.
it is kinda of scary how Lemmon's voice sounds like Fonda's voice so much.
share[deleted]
I preferred Fonda, but I can appreciate Lemmon as well. It's ironic that in two of his final performances, George C. Scott acted with Jack Lemmon in TV movie remakes of classics which starred equally big names: Henry Fonda and Lee J. Cobb. The other was Inherit the Wind which starred arguably two of the greatest of all time: Spencer Tracy and Fredric March.
Dr. Cynic Has Spoken
some of u keep saying that in the original it was an all white jury...but there was at least one that wasn't white...i think he was latin american...i can't remember which juror he was but remember he talked about when he came to america he learn such and such....
share[deleted]
yeah thats what i meant hispanic not latin. sorry. lol
shareno, it was jouror #10 that was from another country...the chubby dark haired guy with a moushtash wore saspenders......JAck Klugman was just a poor kid all his life and grew up in slums.
share[deleted]
In the '57 version, Jack Klugman was the slum kid, they never mentioned him being Hispanic or alluded to it really. He just said he'd been raised in the slums, but he looked passably ethnic for the times I suppose, where people would've thought him Hispanic or of another race. And then there was the other juror that spoke with an accent, the one that responds to Ed Begley's question, "Oh why are you so damn polite?" with , "For the same reason you're not, I was raised that way." He was supposed to be of some other ethnicity as well. The TV movie remake is just that, a TV movie remake. Nothing more, nothing less. I mean, I wasn't expecting a heck of a lot out of it, with the original being so perfectly executed. I mean, it had a stellar cast (the very epitome of being in character is represented in the original version) excellent B&W cinematography, among other things. It was just an all around classic film. The remake has the whole age thing missing with Jack Lemmon and the older gentleman, (Hume Cronyn in the remake) Tony Danza can't hold a candle to Jack Warden and the other supporting characters just didn't have that believeability that they do in the original. Call me crazy, but I can't stand this remake.
"Older people take a lot of care." Hal Carter in Picnic
[deleted]
I like both versions, for different reasons.
The 1957 version is definitely more cinematic. It has wonderful moments like when the camera just shows the hands of the jurors voting, then the camera tilts down as one of the hands dip down, revealing that Juror #12 (the Advertiser) has changed his vote. It feels like a film.
The 1997 version feels like a play. It lacks the cinematic touches, but the performances are still great. I try to watch the 1997 version as if I was watching one of the many stage interpretations of 12 Angry Men. In that respect, it works well.
I felt Lemmon's Juror #8 was too sarcastic and smart-alecky. I preferred Henry Fonda's Juror #8, as he was more subtle, using gentle persuasiveness while still being firm in his every word.
In the 1957 version, they all act more like mature adults. The 1997 version they behave more like fuming children.
In the 1997 version most of the actors ham it up a bit too much. That's why I prefer to think of it as a filmed play, because overacting is somewhat expected in plays.
The 1997 versions expands on the script and includes new bits of information, such as who else could have had a motive to kill the boy's father, and they discuss whether a psychiatrist's testimony is truly valid. I liked these added touches, and they don't eat up much screen time. Unfortunately they also remove some bits from the 1957 version, such as the part about the police throwing the boy down the stairs, and the speech given by Juror #11 about how great the justice system is, and Juror #8's speech to the final three about why they are so sure. They probably removed these two speeches because they felt too stagey. Fortunately, much of the original script remains intact with just some minor changes to update it (such as the movie Juror #4 saw, and the sports references Juror #7 makes). I didn't care much for the added lines that make things a bit too obvious to the viewer, such as Juror #10's stating that he "doesn't give a damn about the law", and Juror #3 saying "I can feel the knife going in." And Juror #8 responding with "He's not your boy, he's someone else." These lines take out all the subtley which could have been expressed through the acting instead, and in some ways feel like the writer was talking down to the audience, as if we wouldn't understand these things unless they were spelled out to us.
These complaints aside: The 1957 version is definitely superior, but the 1997 version has some nice touches to make it worth adding to a collection.
Everything you've said about the 97 version is correct, EXCEPT They left out the monologue where the Fonda Charector berates the Begaly charector, for being a racist.
They left this important scene out of the 97 film and it leaves a big empty spot. The Begaly charector has his same racist rant (In 97 he was played by a black fella and had car washs) but because it was delivered by a black man they cut the responce
To much Political Correctness
It spoiled the show for me cause it was a good tempered responce that was the heart of the movie
I'd rather go hunting with Dick Cheney, than driving with Ted Kennedy
No JohnWayne, Juror number 10 was not hispanic. He was europeon.
share[deleted]
I agree.
I love Jack Lemmon but I don't think he was nearly as good in this role as Fonda was. And if it had been a younger Lemmon, it still wouldn't have been as good because Lemmon's forte was always his manic and emotional energy, while Fonda delivered such a well-measured and even keeled delivery that was just perfect for the role.
And George C Scott - one of my all time favorites but this wasn't Scott at his best, vs Lee Cobb who was at his best, so even there, I'd give it to Cobb.
So the two best actors in the remake did not live up to their counterparts in the original in my opinion.
As for the rest of the cast - well, do you want to compare Tony Danza to Jack Warden? LOL
I thought Jack Lemmon did a superb job. As far as remakes go, this is certainly one of the better ones. Hollywood has a talent for recycling old films, because of a lack of imagination to come up with anything new. The Italian Job, Wickerman, Poseiden Adventure.. all these were classics, and massacred by Hollywoods remakes.
At least this stayed faithful to the original. Sure Fonda was better, the original was better overall I felt, but this was a pretty decent to tribute to an amazing film. There are few remakes that deliver as well as this did...
As much as I like Scott and Lemon, I wish they had been in their prime when they did this. I still enjoy it though.
Lemmon, a fine actor, was much too laid back in this version. Fonda was more spirited, younger and had more physical presence than Lemmon, being several inches taller.
share