Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I watch this flick every so often, mainly to calm myself down. We all get into the RA!RA!RA! of it all sometimes, and I think a new perspective is usually a good one.

Who loves this movie?

I was thinking about how badly hollywood could mess the film up by re-making it, yet again I do think it is very outdated, and deserves a current edition so to speak. I imagine something that talks about an issue that you would see on "The Wire".

Chip in, and keep rationality alive!

I like it.

I don't see a remake working though. Remakes usually suck, and there's not much to improve on with the original movie. They would probably try and make it a more "hi-tech" court case, and would lose sight of the movie's original theme in their rush to "update" it.

It's a great movie, and while there are some legal flaws (the jury can't do it's own investigation), it's actually a pretty good representation of what a jury room is like. Things get pretty heated. It's regularly listed as one of the top ten legal movies.

Thank god, I thought this thread was about a remake.

I was pleasantly disappointed and much relieved.

Polonius wrote:It's a great movie, and while there are some legal flaws (the jury can't do it's own investigation), it's actually a pretty good representation of what a jury room is like. Things get pretty heated. It's regularly listed as one of the top ten legal movies.

Hmm... I would interested in looking into those laws, mainly because, how else do you define a debate besides an investigation into truth?

It is a great flick though, I just enjoy how it makes me think about the situation every time I see it.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I like it.

I don't see a remake working though. Remakes usually suck, and there's not much to improve on with the original movie. They would probably try and make it a more "hi-tech" court case, and would lose sight of the movie's original theme in their rush to "update" it.

Trust me, the last thing I want is to see hollywood tear this one to pieces. I think I will stop here before risking any inspiration to internet hollywood hounds.

"DIE DEVIL-DOG DIE!".... there we go that should distract them.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Polonius wrote:It's a great movie, and while there are some legal flaws (the jury can't do it's own investigation), it's actually a pretty good representation of what a jury room is like. Things get pretty heated. It's regularly listed as one of the top ten legal movies.

Hmm... I would interested in looking into those laws, mainly because, how else do you define a debate besides an investigation into truth?

It is a great flick though, I just enjoy how it makes me think about the situation every time I see it.

Well, juries are required to deliberate the evidence that is presented to them. What they can't do is do they're own investigation, and gather their own evidence. So when Henry Fonda brings in the knife, that would be disallowed. Now, jury deliberations are secret, and back then you could probably bring a knife into a courthouse, so there's no way to stop it (just like jury nullification), but it's still technically wrong.

What the move does best is show how a jury operates. 12 people that dont' want to be there, but know they have a person's life in their hands, making a huge decision based on evidence brought forward. I'm sure there are juries that don't take their duties seriously, but most really do.

The whole situation is pretty intense, and I know I would end up changing my mind on the situation at least once.

Just makes you think...

Great film/play. Absolutely excellent.

Wrexasaur wrote:The whole situation is pretty intense, and I know I would end up changing my mind on the situation at least once.

Just makes you think...

You haven't convinced me.

Exellent film. Unfortunatly our video player is broken and we can't find the dvd.

Polonius wrote:Well, juries are required to deliberate the evidence that is presented to them. What they can't do is do they're own investigation, and gather their own evidence. So when Henry Fonda brings in the knife, that would be disallowed. Now, jury deliberations are secret, and back then you could probably bring a knife into a courthouse, so there's no way to stop it (just like jury nullification), but it's still technically wrong.

I think it was mentioned in the movie that he wasn't supposed to have gone and done that.

(I might be thinking of a comment by someone else though.)

Really it's a movie about a guy who breaks the rules and subverts the Juries best judgment leading them to find a guilty man innocent all for his amusement in playing puppet master.

Ahtman wrote:Really it's a movie about a guy who breaks the rules and subverts the Juries best judgment leading them to find a guilty man innocent all for his amusement in playing puppet master.

Quite an interpretation you have there.

To an extent I agree with Ahtman. As great a film as it is I think what happens is a huge miscarriage of justice. It’s painfully obvious the kid is guilty as sin and the holes are little better than nitpicks whose significance is blown out of all proportion. Certainly not enough to constitute reasonable doubt.

I remember reading that Agatha Christie was a guest at the films premier and her comments after the film were that the outcome was silly. I agree.

In reality I think it would have been a hung jury, and the whole situation is metaphorical really. I also think it is a bit blunt to assume the defendant is guilty in the story, after all they never explained it fully. It is more than possible that the "facts" brought up in the room were actually true according to the story, although it would have made more sense with a bit more explanation I think the point of the movie was to spark intelligent debates.

I was mainly speaking on his comment about Henry Fonda's character.

http://www.filmsite.org/twelve.html

Juror #8: (Henry Fonda) An architect, instigates a thoughtful reconsideration of the case against the accused; symbolically clad in white; a liberal-minded, patient truth-and-justice seeker who uses soft-spoken, calm logical reasoning; balanced, decent, courageous, well-spoken and concerned; considered a do-gooder (who is just wasting others' time) by some of the prejudiced jurors; named Davis [1]

I saw it more like this, not sure how he was a puppet master, but Ahtman may have been cracking a joke.

I certainly don't think he was a puppet master, Just naive yet charismatic. All the facts pointed towards the kid being guilty, the holes poked in the prosecution by Henry Fonda where almost all based on assumption. I get the feeling that his character genuinely wanted to give the kid what he perceived to be a fair hearing but in doing so ended up giving a few inconsistencies far more credence than they deserved.

Still a great film though.