"Murder" vs "12 Angry Men"

On Apr 10, 11:36�am, "sawakatoome" <sawakato... DeleteThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Apr 6, 1:51 pm, BigMovie... DeleteThis @webtv.net (Old Movie Fan) wrote:
>
> >   With the Easter Weekend approaching, I wondered if anyone felt like a
> > good discussion about the similarities of these two films?
>
> Are there any similarities .. beyond both being centred around a court-
> trial?
>
> 'Twelve Angry Men', it seems to me, doesn't care about the person on
> trial (per se) .. there, the drama is in the jury room and comes out
> of the interactions between the individual jurors.
> 'Murder!', on the other hand, uses a trial as a means of bringing a
> central character, Sir John, into the story and to help kick-start his
> quest (to save an old protogee from the hangman's noose).
>
> Fergal #.

I see that I didn't really get a discussion going with this topic,
but I do think there is quite a lot in common with the two films. In
both, a single juror struggles to convince the others that they have
made a tragic mistake. Both films don't really pay too much attention
to the person either on trial or found guilty. Sir John seeks his
answers from the woman who had been found guilty and discovers the
truth, while Fonda's character, struggles within the deliberation room
to get the jurors to see that it was their preconceived opinions that
caused them to vote guilty. The issue of the indentation on the
woman's nose that indicated she needed glasses to see clearly worked
as well as the stigma of a half-cast in Hitchcock's film.
I had hoped for some serious study on the similarity of the two
films since many of us probably have easy access to both. It's hardly
worth the time if we only make casual assumptions.

Rich

A closed mind is a terrible thing to perpetuate!
 >> Stay informed about: "Murder" vs "12 Angry Men" 

On Apr 13, 2:13 am, bigsilent... RemoveThis @aol.com wrote:

> I see that I didn't really get a discussion going with this topic,
> but I do think there is quite a lot in common with the two films. In
> both, a single juror struggles to convince the others that they have
> made a tragic mistake. Both films don't really pay too much attention
> to the person either on trial or found guilty. Sir John seeks his
> answers from the woman who had been found guilty and discovers the
> truth, while Fonda's character, struggles within the deliberation room
> to get the jurors to see that it was their preconceived opinions that
> caused them to vote guilty. The issue of the indentation on the
> woman's nose that indicated she needed glasses to see clearly worked
> as well as the stigma of a half-cast in Hitchcock's film.
> I had hoped for some serious study on the similarity of the two
> films since many of us probably have easy access to both. It's hardly
> worth the time if we only make casual assumptions.
>
> Rich
>
> A closed mind is a terrible thing to perpetuate!- Hide quoted text -

Sorry Rich but I don't believe I was being flippant. I did give what I
thought was a good account of my thoughts on this. If I'd left it with
just the first line, then that would indeed have been silly (and the
sign of a "closed mind").

Anyway .. I see 'Twelve Angry Men' as a brilliant film by a favourite
director of mine (the original, that is). In it, I see the central
character, Juror No. 8, as being the catalyst that gets (sometimes,
after a great deal of time) the others to actually seriously consider
the kid's guilt/innocence.
Somehow, he just knows (as they all probably do but just don't want to
say, for whatever reason) that they've all jumped to the easy solution
for probably selfish reasons .. which turns out to be the case; as the
film goes on, we learn it wasn't all to do with preconceived opinions
(.. i.e. sometimes, it simply had to do with it being a hot day or
that some sports game was on that evening).

'Murder!', on the other hand, keeps its jury room drama confined to
the beginning of the film and we never revisit the location again. In
fact, we never even revisit one of the other jurors again, so any
drama begun or developed between Sir John and another is left
inconclusive, as it were.
And all the drama in the rest of the film isn't even remotely similar,
to me, to 'Twelve Angry Men''s. 'Murder!' is more of a straightforward
detective story with witnesses and clues and suspects .. and, probably
most importantly, a central character who is, again I believe, flawed
(in the best Hitchcock tradition).

Fergal #.

P.S: Note how unflawed and 'perfect' the central character of 'Twelve
Angry Men' is .. a flaw of the film itself, IMO, and why I described
him more as a catalyst for the others (than a fully-rounded character
unto himself). Personally, I can't stand the way Juror No. 8 never
gets overly angry (i.e. displaying more anger than is needed) or
impatient or unreasonable .. he's presented as 'too good' for my
liking.
 >> Stay informed about: "Murder" vs "12 Angry Men" 

I've just watched the film again tonight and it truly is a favorite
of mine. Films that challenge you to imagine how you might have judged
someone are always compelling to me. I could even add "The Oxbow
Incident" as another example where the obvious evidence is easily
accepted (even by the audience) and anyone who questions it is persuaded
by the others to go along with the majority. Only problem is, the truth
is learned after the innocent have been lynched in "Oxbow."
I never meant to imply that the stories were identical, but only that
the theme and methodology were similar. Watching "Murder" again, I was
surprised when I heard a woman juror tell Sir John that Handle Fane (the
female impersonator) was obviously in love with the accused.
Apparently, I never gave that much thought as I listened to the jurors
do their replies to Sir John's arguments as the group closed around him.
All I remembered was the cadence of their one unified voice saying "What
do you say to that Sir John."
I personally like "Murder" more than I do "12 Angry Men" because of
the way Hitchcock uses all of the available theatrics in telling the
story. When the landlady comes in to pressure the Markham's for the
rent (did you notice the sign she puts on the dresser?), they go into a
routine about how Sir John was going to cast them in a play (which was
not true). The landlady doesn't buy it, but just then (much to their
surprise) they get a message from Sir John. The whole sequence as they
get ready to visit Sir John and what happens as the three go looking for
answers provides quite a bit of entertainment.
Finding Sir John's photograph in Diana Baring's room was as big a
surprise for him as it was the audience watching the story. We later
learn the exact circumstances about this and we can also see that Sir
John begins to develop a fondness for her.
They set a most unusual trap to incriminate Fane, a trap that was
deliberately obvious. Arriving at the carnival afterwards, they watch
in horror as Fane falls to his death. Naturally with his death,
everyone must assume that the proof of Diana Baring's innocence died
with him. The final surprise to end the tense story is when a letter is
discovered on the body, addressed to Sir John and confessing the truth.
The conclusion comes as Sir John has freed Diana and they begin a new
life very much involved with one another. As they enter the home, the
camera pulls back and reveals that what the audience has actually been
watching is simply a play and apparently all of these people are simply
characters in a story, which of course is actually true either way.

Watching the film again today was a pleasure.

Rich
 >> Stay informed about: "Murder" vs "12 Angry Men"