12 Angry Men
1957 · Film · 97 min
Directed by Sidney Lumet
The defense and the prosecution have rested and the jury is filing into the jury room to decide if a young Spanish-American is guilty or innocent of murdering his father. What begins as an open and shut case soon becomes a mini-drama of each of the jurors' prejudices and preconceptions about the trial, the accused, and each other.
33 positive2 mixed22 neutralfrom 57 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
60 comments on Hacker News
Ever felt like Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and Ever felt like Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and Letterboxd don't seem quite aligned in their scores? Looking for a new way to discover, rank, and discuss movies with friends/family? We have the solution: Montir. It's a new app our team launched to try and offer an innovative approach to the stagnant old formula of seemingly "objective" rankings that lead to you giving a movie a 4.5/5 while some old, dusty, "expert" critic gives it a 3/5. Instead our development team have designed a user friendly experience for casuals and cinephiles utilizing comparative ratings to generate a shareable list decidedly objectively subjective. So if your looking for a new way to enjoy reviewing, finding, and talk about your favorite films from the 12 Angry Men to Obsession make sure to download on App Store or Google Play Store and join the new wave of film enjoyers!
Here’s how it applies to the top 10 movies on IMDb
Shawshank redemption: the well liked male protagonist righteously murders his wife for cheating on him
The Godfather: pretty much encapsulates all of my requirements
12 angry men: no women
Original LOTR: Does women characters incredibly well
Pulp fiction: Mia is in there for a few key scenes, no nonsense
The good, the bad and the ugly: self explanatory. Great male characters
Forest gump: Jenny might be the greatest villain ever for her promiscuity
I can go on and on. All these movies have gravitas. You won’t see any movie post 2015 even crack the top 100 (besides Parasite but that isn’t Hollywood) because that’s about when they lost the plot.
I wonder if the Jury understands how crypto works. What kind of juror would each side want in this scenario?
If anyone has any insight or links on how the jury selection might have ended up in a case like this, I would appreciate it.
P.S. If you haven't seen 12 Angry Men, I would highly recommend it; the entire movie is built on incredible acting, while demonstrating the importance of the jury.
Haha, that was fun. https://i.imgur.com/NBFytY3.png (it has spoilers of which shots the game is using)
I don't have many suggestions besides these:
1. Let the user choose between short, medium and long runs, say 10, 20 and 30 movies.
2. To make this more challenging, ensure the selection includes either exclusively black & white movies, exclusively color movies or a balanced mix of both. 12 Angry Men was easy to identify as it was the only one as such.
3. Perhaps create another ranking for "speedruns" (and differently sized runs).
4. Given that account creation can be a huge barrier for some users, state upfront that you are only requiring username and password.
Also, for some reason I couldn't copy and paste these suggestions in the textarea.
It felt like watching the movie 12 Angry Men but it was enlightening and entertaining.
A notable exception is the 1957 movie 12 Angry Men with Henry Fonda. One of my favorites.
>Edit: perhaps 12 angry men was good enough at the time.
I recently watched it for the first time, and it was one of the best movies I've seen. I can't believe how invested I was, even though the plot was so simple.
Ever seen "12 Angry Men"? If not, you should.
The kid was guilty in that movie though. The only other possible explanation is that he had a brother that no one ever mentions or interrogates with video game-like levels of precognition to know perfectly how to frame his brother.
https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3597&context=cklawreview
This is exactly the plot of 12 Angry Men (1957): https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/
Great movie about what it entails to be the only voice calling for reasonable doubt.
I read that apple case was heard by a judge and Google case by a jury. Apparently a jury tends to be less rigorous at interpretation of laws than a judge?! Not surprising (I saw the movie 8 (or 12) angry men).
> They made a mistake and got too greedy and make a subscription I barely paid attention to something that got too expensive...
That's the thing, in the past I I'd go months without watching anything on Netflix yet still pay them for it, so they were essentially getting a free $8 a month (or whatever) off me during that time.
Now the prices have gone up so much it doesn't make sense to keep subscribed for something I'm barely using, just so I can easily watch a single show that interests me once every three months or so.
The only streaming service that has makes some sense for me to pay for right now is Youtube's, since that's my goto for videos anyway, and it's nice not to have ads for those.
Additionally they also have a bunch of great older movies free to watch movies on Youtube, probably a better selection (of movies I care about) than Netflix right now (saw/rewatched Train to Busan, Little Shop of Horrors, Ghostbusters, It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, Tropic Thunder, Fifth Element, Big Trouble in Little China, Dr. Strangelove, 12 Angry Men, Pee-wee's Big Adventure, The Truman Show, Air Force One, Dirty Work, and Dracula: Dead and Loving It recently).
Reminds me...
One of my personal top 10 movies: 12 angry men.
9/10 imdb score.
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/
I really think it’s just the right frame of mind. I can easily forget why I opened some app on my phone, but yet I thoroughly enjoyed Alien, as well as 12 angry men. But these are not movies you just pop in and half-ass over, they require real concentration — people just often unwilling to commit their attention to one thing, not incapable.
> Juries are pushed to consider only the statutes in question as written and aren't expected or asked to consider for themselves if the crime is something they even think matters.
Doing otherwise is known as nullification and you'll never sit on a jury if you even imply you know such a thing exists. Here's Paul Newman's character in the The Verdict arguing for it though:
https://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechtheverdict.html
(The movie is well worth watching and pairs well with 12 Angry Men, both directed by Sidney Lumet.)
There are quite a few recommendations for the classics, but if someone doesn't enjoy the slow burn of those deep books, maybe they should start with something lot more dopaminergic: animes and movies!
PsychoPass, Akira, Cowboy Bebop, Neon Genesis Evangelion, Attack on Titan.
So, movies. I only saw The Shawshank Redemption a few years ago, and it's really really good. Classic. Human. Touching. I'm not even sure how to characterize it except yes, really go see it, it's really at the top of the power distribution of movies.
12 Angry Men. At this point it's the cliché of old but good movies. At this point it's a satire of a socially interesting movie due to its naivete, yet for someone who seems a bit close minded it might be just the right thing. (Or not? :D)
The Pianist. Again, simple. Brutal. Or the recent Joker.
. . .
But really when it comes to AI and fiction.
Blade Runner. If that's not fiction that's worth investing time into, then what is? Even typing this I've got the chills thinking about Roy Batty.
I have to agree with OP, 12 angry men is a fantastic movie on many levels, but it really feels more like good Shakespeare than 12 real dudes discussing execution and their consience
With cherry picking you can make any point you want. It not only ignores most of the films in that era, it even ignores most of the best picture Oscar nominees, to say nothing of the fact that OP so wildly mischaracterizes 12 Angry Men and Sweet Smell of Success that I wonder if they've seen the films in the first place.
12 Angry Men is pretty stiff and theatrical. Not a criticism since it is a great movie, but it it wolds apart from say Five Easy Pieces.
> The acting/writing was pompous, actors talked like reciting Shakespear. The movies were about heros of impeccable character doing heroic things and there always was a happy ending. Movie shots followed strict guidelines and the creative head of the movie was the producer while the director was akin to a contractor, someone hired to film the scenes.
12 Angry Men and especially Sweet Smell of Success are not good examples of this.
It is hard to overstate how much Godard changed cinema, even in America. If you don’t believe me check for yourself. Open the best picture nominees between 55’-65’ and watch their trailers. Films like Marty/On the waterfront/12 angry men/To kill a mockingbird/The Caine Mutiny/Sweet smell of success is what movies were like in the late 50s.
The acting/writing was pompous, actors talked like reciting Shakespear. The movies were about heros of impeccable character doing heroic things and there always was a happy ending. Movie shots followed strict guidelines and the creative head of the movie was the producer while the director was akin to a contractor, someone hired to film the scenes.
Starting in the mid 60s there was a radical shift, topping the nominations we have films like Five Easy Pieces, The French Connection, The Godfather, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, The Deer Hunter, Dog Day Afternoon, Taxi Driver etc. Actors would act and behave like normal everyday people facing everyday problems. The new Archetype is the Anti-Hero, someone with flaws/vices in their character, someone that viewers can relate to. We see the rise of the director as the auteur, the creative master of a film. Every known filmaking rule is being tested to it’s limits and broken by young experimenting directors.
The catalyst for this change was the French New Wave, a group of young filmmakers tired of the old style of cinema wanting to do films about their own life and experiences. The poster boy for the New Wave was Jean-Luc Godard starting this revolution with his 1960 film Breathless.
>Nobody puts him in jail. Nobody takes away his right to make a living or his children or his home. They just send a clear message: Don't bring that sort of thing around here. Don't bring it around us. There's no point in engaging in a dialogue with that person.
the problem with this allegory is that in the movie the 12 jurors are also trying to associate and cooperate due to their need to re-acquire their own freedom. They must work together in order to create a verdict and avoid being held sequestered indefinitely. They turn their back primarily due to a self-interest in escape, alongside the moral implications.
The other problem with that allegory within this comparison is that the '12 angry men' in this scenario are mega-conglomerates that label themselves as public infrastructure yet have no transparency or public accountability like a government entity might in that position.
The burden of transparency and government oversight is supposed to be bundled atop the premise of being or becoming a public infrastructural entity; if not then whatever conglomerate is making private decisions on behalf of the public's interests will continue to make self-important decisions until they reach a point of total corruption and public disservice.
Did you ever watch 12 Angry Men? There's a scene in that movie where an unabashedly racist man is making his point as loudly and angrily as he can. One by one, all the others in the room turn their backs on him. When only one man is left, that man has a short message for the racist: "Sit down, and don't open your mouth again while I'm here."
Nobody puts him in jail. Nobody takes away his right to make a living or his children or his home. They just send a clear message: Don't bring that sort of thing around here. Don't bring it around us. There's no point in engaging in a dialogue with that person. Sure, you allow them to speak, in that you don't respond to that speech with violence or prosecution. But you don't have to make room for it.
We can't and shouldn't have the government stepping in to say what speech is or is not allowed. And in the United States, we don't. Russia is another matter, but as the post says, the idea that that means every Russian person or company is OK with things this awful is not true.
What that means, though, is that if there are sentiments so odious (and in some cases, literally dangerous, but not illegal) that our free society doesn't think it's appropriate to support a venue for their discussion, it's up to that society writ large, not government, to limit that discussion. There is nothing wrong with fostering a societal sense that there is no room in our world for the kind of shit that Kiwi Farms spewed, even if it is legal. There is nothing wrong with expecting large companies to live up to that standard.
So I don't see this as scary, at all. I see it as a relief. I see it as a free society working the way it's supposed to, with some caveats. (I still don't love how much power large corporate entities have, but not for this reason, exactly.) And I think there are a lot of people out there whose lives are safer because of it.
Edit: For people who haven't seen it, here's the scene I reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXlHKTPfLVA
One thing might interest this community - the amusing amount of common actors between the Columbo and Star Trek series (and Quantum Leap, if you want to extend this).
Obviously Shatner and Nimoy, but also the lovable John Fiedler (of 12 Angry Men fame, as the possessed Mr. Hengist in TOS's "Wolf in the Fold" and a cardiologist in Columbo) and the fantastic Theodore Bikel (as the murderer in Columbo's "Bye-Bye Sky High I.Q. Murder Case", and as Worf's adoptive dad in TNG's "Family"). Ed Begley Jr, whose father was in 12 Angry Men, is in ST:VOY as Henry Starling, and in Columbo's "How to Dial a Murder" as Officer Stein. Laurence Luckinbill is Sybok (STrek V) and the victim in Columbo's "Make Me a Perfect Murder". Michael Strong: Columbo's "are you a witness to what he just did?" scene, and TOS's Dr Korby.
There are metric tons of links with minor characters, for example James Greene in the Columbo classic "Columbo Goes to the Guillotine" is also in TNG and DS9.
Dozens more are discussed here: http://pub10.bravenet.com/forum/static/show.php?usernum=806565873&frmid=6&msgid=1308831&cmd=show
There are other amusing non-Star Trek but sci-fi-related coincidences too, like Robert Culp (IMO the best Columbo villain, a first-rate actor) voicing Dr. Breen in Half-Life 2.
Obviously you could do this with absolutely any TV show, since there aren't that many actors in America, but this is a fun exercise and fans of both shows have a lot to be happy about. And if you're a fan of one, and start watching the other (I started with Columbo, possibly unlike most people here), try spotting common actors as a fun exercise.
They've never watched the 1957 courtroom drama film 12 Angry Men and it's 1997 remake.
Movies: - 12 angry men - Whiplash - Prestige - American Beauty - The Thing - V for Vendetta - The Grand Budapest Hotel - Gone Girl - Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri - Parasite - ... Tarantino or Scorsese movies
Anime: - Howl's Moving Castle - Spirited Away
Not a movie but both great series: - Love, Death & Robots - Black Mirror
I’ve recently had the privilege of watching “12 angry men” for the first time. It’s a masterpiece in showing how a legal “sure thing” can be so wrong.
Legal cases are often constructed with testimony, unreliable evidence, and chance. Its an effort to increase likelihood of certainty using very unreliable data. And human intuition really sucks when it comes to probability calculations.
I think that film as no other really captures how wrong we can be, even if we “feel” certain about it. It might sound like a tangent but I think it narrates how errors like this are possible more eloquently than I would ever be able to do on my own.
12 Angry Men
----
Walkabout
----
Koyaanisqatsi
A profound movie with no words except the chanting of a Hopi word, meaning "life out of balance", or "a way of life that calls for another way of life".
----
My Dinner With Andre
"We're bored. We're all bored now. But has it ever occurred to you, Wally, that the process that creates this boredom that we see in the world now, may very well be a self perpetuating, unconscious form of brainwashing created by a world totalitarian government based on money and that all of this is much more dangerous than one thinks, and its not just a question of individual survival, Wally, but that somebody who's bored is asleep, and somebody who's asleep will not say no?"
----
The Third Man
(Long shot from Martins' eye line of the fairground far below and the people now on it.)
"Would you feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever? If I offered you £20,000 for every dot that stopped - would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money? Or would you calculate how many dots you could afford to spare? Free of income tax, old man......free of income tax. It's the only way to save money nowadays."
I watched the famous movie 12 Angry Men for the first time recently (I think it holds up well today, BTW).
There is a scene where a man goes on a racist tirade. Instead of engaging in argument or ignoring him, they stand up and turn their backs.
Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXlHKTPfLVA
This is much like the disapproving glare mentioned, but what's the online equivalent?
I play a few online games but not much multiplayer. Public voice chat made it a much less enjoyable experience. You can mute people of course. But as far as I know, they don't get told. What if each time it happened it popped up a message "4 people have muted you today", "3 out of 8 teammates have muted you"? It could be a useful feedback mechanism.
12 Angry Men. My Dinner with Andre. Steve Jobs (a stretch, but much more a play than a movie).
There's some play adaptations which have few characters and mostly dialogue: Carnage, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, Glengarry Glen Ross
Linklater's "Before" trilogy is also heavily dialogue-based, but the there are multiple locations.
Well, it's sort of like the Bechdel Test. A single movie can fail it and it means little for its quality (12 Angry Men, for instance) but if the overwhelming number of movies fail it then we know something's up.
> You should be able to watch a movie with no sound and follow the plot.
There are many famous and great movies for which this isn't true. 12 Angry Men, Glengarry Glen Ross, Her, to name a few off the top of my head.
I agree with you that >40 years old dislike China more as they never benefitted from the China's economic take-off that happened after 1990.
But I think for regular Chinese, the younger they are, the more liberal their world views are. This is because the education they received are more westernized each year (You might be surprised). Younger Chinese are generally more proficient in English. And to learn English people have to expose themselves to original English materials. I still remember when I was learning English I got access to things like TED, Open courseware such as Harvard's Justice, shows like the Newsroom, movies like the 12 Angry Men. China's human right records today is not good, but it was much much worse 30 years ago. Back then rural Chinese would kill new born female babies, have no issue buying and selling women (here's a movie about the topic[1]) and toddlers. People from different provinces fought and discriminated each other. And those are not government sponsored, just people being poor and illiterate. Now average Chinese are more literate and many more attended higher education (there's no higher education during the culture revolution)[2]. To this end I need to thank Nixon and people doing business with China. The average Chinese has a better life and can think more rationally thanks to economic and educational improvements.
On the other hand, internet censorship has become more strict after 2010. People do find ways to access VPN, it's just they don't discuss sensitive topics on Chinese internet.
1. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/blind_mountain_2007
2. http://uis.unesco.org/en/country/cn (notice the Tertiary education section)
As an aside, “Fail Safe” (1964), is one of the best movies ever made, IMHO, about the risks of technology and warfare. Once you get past the slow pacing, the black and white... it’s an incredible film. It’s based on the same book as Dr Strangelove — but just takes a completely different, dramatic take on the material. You also get a chance to see why Henry Fonda is considered such a legendary actor. Sidney Lumet, the director, is also a legend: “Dog Day Afternoon”, “12 Angry Men”, “Network”...
There's no such thing as a black and white case.
For a simple counter example, you can look up the Outreau case : 12 people were accused of raping and videotaping children, with multiple testimonies. And 5 years later, the majority of them were found to be actually innocent.
If death penalty was a thing in France, they would have got it for sure, as it was a very emotionnal case at the time.
You can also check the movie 12 Angry Men, which is a work of fiction obviously, but still very relevant on why counting on 'black and white cases with extreme evidence' is simply wishful thinking, and will lead to innocent people being killed
It does seem like one could make a plausible case that Office Space has had the biggest impact on real world life of any movie of all time. Just skimming down the list, it doesn't look like there's anything on the AFI or BFI top 100 even comes close. Maybe 12 angry men has had a real influence on juries in some unseen way, or maybe The Social Network has also had a big influence on what careers people choose, but there's nothing that immediately seems super obvious as surpassing it.
>The prosecutors select for bias.
The prosecutor is no more powerful in this respect than the defense. Defense attorneys also try to get jurors that they think are demographically inclined to acquit their client and then find post hoc causes to dismiss.
>You’re completely ignoring the social pressure of being the one holdout that you would get from the other 11 jurors to go home and the judge to not have a hung juror.
>You’re also ignoring the very real psychology of how many people don’t care about the fate of someone who they can’t relate to - someone who is not of thier same race/economic background/upbringing.
No You're ignoring what I wrote.
"Furthermore in the US everyone is at least somewhat indoctrinated with an understanding of what a jury is and a respect for executing jury duty faithfully. You have a pretty good shot of getting at least one person on the jury that won't vote guilty instantly so they can still make the baseball game latter that day"
I specifically wrote this as an allusion to the movie 12 angry men.
Yes a random group of people, with no training and no one to judge them, will sentence a man to death for the trivial convenience of going home early. But we aren't selecting from a group with no training. We are selecting from a population that embeds the sanctity of a trial into its childhood education and into its national identity. You have a fairly reasonable shot of at least someone on the jury willing to be the one angry man.
Drama can theoretically succeed on an even smaller budget. Consider "12 Angry Men", which is practically a stage play. Single set (with very minor exceptions), minimal props, mostly just talking, and it's a critically acclaimed film. And there are plenty of unknown actors and writers who think they could be great if they got the chance, and they can't all be wrong. Maybe someday we'll get something just as good made on a zero budget with phone cameras and natural lighting.
In Search of the Last Great Video Store – The Black List Blog || https://blog.blcklst.com/in-search-of-the-last-great-video-store-efcc393f2982
I grew up about 2 blocks away from Scarecrow Video in Seattle. I'm happy it's still around. Place was amazing, and... in the late 80s and early 90s they weren't dicks about renting R movies to kids like Blockbuster was. I remember being like 11, and I negotiated a monthly punch card in lieu of allowance. I could rent any 12 movies I wanted! Such power for a kid. And the clerk always had great suggestions.
It's because of Scarecrow that I got introduced to great films early... The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, The Apartment, Giant, 12 Angry Men, Dr. Strangelove... anyway for a kid in a single parent home, I lucked out getting to watch old classics when my friends were all busy watching stupid cartoons and Saved By The Bell re-runs.
You know the saying "if you like sausages never go to the sausage factory"? Well I've got some bad news for you about the justice system.
We like to think of courts and juries in the idealistic view given to us in school. Its just like "12 Angry Men". Everyone gets their fair shake in court. Even if 11 people want to convict and go home the 12th one will stand up right? After all, you're a reasonable person. You can't imagine just convicting a guy without a reasonable discussion. Surely enough of your fellow citizens are the same?
The truth is a shocking amount of people in society just have deference to authority figures. They'll trust whatever expert the prosecution produces. You would think that courts have standards for what counts as experts, but the truth is the standards are horribly lacking. Shows like CSI give the average citizen a cops and robbers view of reality. When is the last time an episode of CSI didn't end with the guy getting caught and convicted? Have they ever made a mistake in CSI? Made an ambiguous decision?
And why wouldn't the DA choose to prosecute as much as possible? You don't want to appear weak on crime. After all, you have an election to win if you want to keep your job.
Trial by jury is only as good as the society within which it exists.
Right, and you played it in your formative years. I can watch a movie like "The Third Man" or "12 Angry Men" or "Scaramouche" in my adult years, made decades before I was born, even though I was reared on more flashy stuff, and find it as much as if not more satisfying than what I had encountered before. Could you get a 7 year old today who's had a couple of years of XBox 360 and Wii under his belt to enjoy SMB on the NES more than just to play it for 3 minutes to examine it as an artifact of another age? Even when he's older and can understand the evolution of video games?
People may spend more time binge watching TV than watching films on Netflix. But they should be concentrating on customer satisfaction, not racking up viewers.
My girlfriend already jokes that if you search for a film on Netflix they realise and immediately remove it. Then you get the dreaded "Films related to X" search result.
It's really really bad if Netflix gets a reputation for having a small catalogue, even if most of it is rarely watched.
It's kind of like Linux vs Windows. Linux has 90% of the apps you need. But when you need Solidworks or Altium or GTA 5 or whatever you think "pff screw this I will use windows". With Netflix it has lots of stuff but when you search for Die Hard or 12 Angry Men or whatever... well let's just say I treat Netflix as a moral way of paying for Bittorrent.
Interesting question, just ran a quick analysis for all movies rated 4.5+ star
Highest Consensus:
1. Whiplash
2. 12 Angry Men
3. Se7en
Most Controversial:
1. Birdman
2. Citizen Kane
3. 2001: A Space Odyssey
I'm very interested in this area, and for me it's a couple of different factors.
From the engineering side:
1. There is a model that is built of what is a valid screenplay, and that can grow and be enhanced over a time. What gets generated is an 'acceptable' output.
2. Lots of extraction of storytelling and adding all the features and constructs to the model (through algorithm or manually).
3. Representing that knowledge in a form that makes sense, in English.
4. You really get to play with the pieces of what makes language and the composition of language work rather than just consuming it, which is sort of the same as authoring under your own power.
5. The act of carrying a tune. Lots of AI's right now are building a model with a look at the next step which is great- but combining that with building a structure with a beginning middle and an end is much harder.
From the output/end result side:
1. Lack of culture preconceptions- an AI doesn't know what the last Marvel movie was, an AI never saw Back to the Future, an AI can't quote Star Trek or Gilmore Girls references off the top of their head (unless they were informed), an AI doesn't know about WWII, the Crusades, or other historical events, lots of things like that.
2. Lack of social norms- developing a morality system for the end output is very difficult so the AI author doesn't know what is appropriate or isn't.
3. The act of serendipity. Just like doing a materials science or engineering optimization through computers you can have a sequence of events that come together in an unexpected way. Instead of getting a interesting new material or alloy, you end up getting something that is a valid output of the model with all of the warts for and against.
4. It fits the form of a 'single room/closed room' movie such as 12 Angry Men. The entire universe as it is known by an AI is considered when it constructs a script.
This ends up forming for me at least the same kind of intrigue as watching sports or a well written mystery. It is a story told within in a certain framework and there is always a chance for something truly special to come from it.
It was a tricky class, a lot of it wasn't about explicit rules or frameworks, but reading chapters of biographies and other books, and identifying the sources of power and how they were used.
We didn't have a specific book, and it was a very unique class, my favorite after competitive strategy (essentially applied game theory).
Some of the readings were on Robert Moses, LB Johnson, the movie 12 Angry Men (Henry Fonda version), etc.
Essentially you can take any good biography of a powerful person and try to proactively identify the sources of power they had, how they harnessed and yielded it, and what impact it had.
It requires some suspension of disbelief, since power is usually seen as negative, so you need to be a bit cynical while doing it (just don't be cynical in real life, nobody likes an asshole).
You can do the same in you job (that was actually the final paper): who holds power (and which type of power) over you? Why? Where do they source their power from? Skill? Reputation? Formal authority?
What power do you have? Over whom? Why? Where do you get it from?
This was one of those classes where it would be hard to replicate the same learning by yourself. The other one was negotiations.
"I imagine what an inverse 12 Angry Men would be like, starting with 11 jurors ready to acquit and Henry Fonda as the only one willing to convict. "
There's a Japanese film, 12 Tender Japaneses, which is exactly that---at the beginning everybody casually votes to acquit except one who insists more discussion. It's of course an homage to Reginald Rose, but it also depicts very well how typical Japanese people behave when they face to make a decision. (And there's a twist in plot so it's not just a reverse of 12 Angry Men, anyway).
If you're shooting nothing but talking with static cameras then 24fps is adequate. There are some great films (eg. 12 Angry Men) that have no major frame rate problems. But this style is not a good demonstration of film, because it would work just as well as a stage play. I mentioned action genre because it's a better demonstration of the potential of film and it suffers tremendously because of the low frame rate.
All this talk about "reasonable doubt" reminded me of "12 Angry Men" (1), a 1957 movie that follows a jury in its deliberation of whether a man committed murder or not. The whole movie takes place in a single room, with the 12 same actors, yet it manages to be captivating throughout. Really a great piece of cinema.
There's even a relevant xkcd (2).
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Angry_Men (2) http://xkcd.com/657/
The movie "12 angry men" sounds like a Bayesian inference, starts with some assumption and then changes over new information.
I disagree that great apps need to be resource intensive. To borrow from another industry, "12 Angry Men" is still a great movie despite a complete lack of whiz bang special effects. A great app is about the story, not the photo-realism.
At least for the upgrade market (of existing iPad owners), Apple does not benefit (much) from great apps that run fine on an iPad 1 or iPad 2.
Yes, good film. Reminded me of 12 Angry Men.
Just a little recomendation if you like 12 Angry Men, The Man from Earth.
The movie is simular in that there are just some people in a room talking and you get really drawn in.
> the trailers for these types of films make them seam very exciting.
The sad truth is that it's what people like (at least, if my friends are a representative sample). I personally wish there were more "12 angry men" type of movies. I'd even be willing to pay a premium to compensate for the fact that there is a smaller market for such movies. Which makes me wonder why price discrimination hasn't been tried on movies (not sure this is the right term). What if every movie was priced differently?
How does the score works? 12 Angry Men has a 9.4 score and 7th place, but when I filter by "Law" movies the score goes down to 7.5.
At first I thought this was an awful list, but then I filtered it by date up to 1995 and I felt that the list made a lot more sense. Is this an issue that it takes 15 to 20 years to get settle on what is truly worthy? Or is it an issue with the dawning of the Internet Age?
There are plenty of films made after 1995 that I think are highly deserving. But in 20 years from now, will we look and say Return of the King out ranks Star Wars? Or The Avengers is better than 12 Angry Men? (The Avengers was decent popcorn fun, but what was the plot?)
To each their own. I enjoy a large assortment of films. The Avengers and Batman Begins - or 12 Monkeys and The Usual Suspects - or The Triplettes of Bellville and The Lives of Others - or 12 Angry Men and The Seventh Seal. Hardly fair to say that someone who would 'enjoy' 'cinema' would 'rather pluck their eyes out' than 'watch' a 'film' like this 'anywhere'.
Interestingly, you used the term 'Film' to describe The Avengers, which some people would jump down YOUR throat for - since this was an almost All-Digital release.
I find that oversimplified. Personally, I game to relax and I watch movies to be mentally (and emotionally) challenged.
The problem with games is that they, by their very nature, have problems for the storyteller:
First, they take away his control from (at least) one of the characters, since it has to be given to the player. This means that either certain stories can't be told as they should, since you can't force the player to have the same motivations as the character, especially if they're supposed to be revealed only later.
Second, plenty of great movies would make shitty games. Dialog driven movies (12 Angry Men), for example. You'd need to put the player on rails and limit his movements to a minimum - and to do that, why make a game at all?
Third, game play can distract from the story. There's a reason why people tend to make more mistakes when they're recalling a situation where they were participants instead of passive viewers.
I posted this on the site, posting it here too:
I would say a better metric would be "How much did you enjoy this film?" vs "How good is this movie?"
I've been grappling with this problem since subscribing to Netflix, wondering how I should rate a movie I personally did not enjoy that I also felt was incredibly well made. For example, "A Clockwork Orange" is an incredible movie by all means and I would give it 97 stars out of a hundred.... but I hated every single second of it. It's gruesome, sadistic, dark, miserable, and disgusting. But it was undeniably well made.
Rewatchability sucks in the aspect because many movies can't be rewatched, while still being both splendidly produced and enjoyable. Let me make this clearer with examples: "The Sixth Sense," "Rear Window," "The Accused," "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly," "12 Angry Men," "Apollo 13..." The list goes on and on. There are great movies that just don't rank so highly because they're SUSPENSEFUL and that suspense doesn't translate will into rewatches. Rewatching suspenseful movies will make them seem boring and long-drawn.
Rewatching feel-good movies ("Seven Pounds," "How To Train Your Dragon," "Blind Side," etc.) however, is just as good the second time if not better.
tl;dr the rewatchability index will be heavily skewed towards feel-good favorites and epics, and away from dark, gritty, mysterious, and suspenseful. Not a good index.
I know "12 Angry Men" that might beg to differ about people just sitting around making a great film.
Regarding Hogan's Heroes -- some ideas might require better execution to succeed. Tablet computers, which have been around for a while, seem like a good example of this. Or a social networking site, or a stock trading algorithm, etc.
Right... that's pretty arbitrary though, given that not that long ago the father (instead of some random stranger) of an individual warned authorities that his son was being radicalized and might be used to stage an attack.
And nothing was done with that information.
That was specific, actionable and nothing was done with it, this is just a guy with a sense of humour that finds that everyday manners of speech are no longer tolerated.
There is this movie called 12 angry men, which deals with exactly that subject. What people say when they're pissed off should be taken with a grain of salt. If someone tells you they'd like to blow up the house of commons we expect you to be sharp enough to see the difference between something said tongue-in-cheek or whether you're serious.
If you haven't seen it then I suggest you do. It's quite an old movie (1957).
I thought it absolutely enjoyable in an entirely non-zombie way. I loved the movie as it was great fun, exciting action, and gore abounds, but, I do not consider it the type of super-personal 'zombie film' that I love so much.
In fact, for two excellent types of such super-personal films that predate the modern zombie film (1968,) look at Hitchcock's Lifeboat (1944) and Sidney Lumet's 12 Angry Men (1957, though he's best known for Serpico). Both include small groups of people completely reliant upon each other to make it (to a verdict, or to just survive.)
That said, I also absolutely love Robert Rodriguez and his style of "grab the camera, we're about to make a movie!"-filmmaking. I think he's able to relate his energy in a way that usually takes AAA directing (I'd categorize his style as one of 'potential' over 'polish,' but he's also capable of selling what he's doing to the viewer, two characteristics that work amazingly in tandem, at least for me.)
So, what did I think? In short, I absolutely loved it, but I didn't mention it because I don't think it fits in with what I love about zombies.