12 Angry Men: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
m (revise quote template spacing) |
m (update links) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
This work is best known as the film that [[Trope Codifier|popularized]] the [[Rogue Juror]] trope. Though it was not the first work to use it, it was the first to receive widespread critical acclaim. It's a classic of American cinema and recommended watching- if only because most of the other works on the Rogue Juror page reference it either directly or indirectly. |
This work is best known as the film that [[Trope Codifier|popularized]] the [[Rogue Juror]] trope. Though it was not the first work to use it, it was the first to receive widespread critical acclaim. It's a classic of American cinema and recommended watching- if only because most of the other works on the Rogue Juror page reference it either directly or indirectly. |
||
According to the American Film Institute, it's the second best courtroom drama movie in history, after ''[[To Kill a Mockingbird]]'''s film adaptation. In 1997 it was adapted yet again, this time as a [[Made for TV]] movie on [[Showtime]] starring Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott (the main difference in this version being the [[Cluster F-Bomb|level of cussing]]). There is also a 2007 Russian Adaptation by [[Nikita Mikhalkov]] called simply ''12''. |
According to the American Film Institute, it's the second best courtroom drama movie in history, after ''[[To Kill a Mockingbird]]'''s film adaptation. In 1997 it was adapted yet again, this time as a [[Made for TV]] movie on [[Showtime]] starring Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott (the main difference in this version being the [[Cluster F-Bomb|level of cussing]]). There is also a 2007 Russian Adaptation by [[Nikita Mikhalkov]] called simply ''12''. |
||
---- |
---- |
||
{{tropelist}} |
{{tropelist}} |
||
* [[Artistic License Law]]: Being convicted of first-degree murder does ''not'' result in an automatic death sentence. (This isn't [[Society Marches On]], though the length and likely outcome of the appeals process ''after'' a death sentence might indeed be very different today). Also, see [[Hollywood Law]] below. The entire case, in real life, would have ended in a mistrial the moment it came to light that #8 had bought the exact same type of knife as used in the murder. |
* [[Artistic License: Law]]: Being convicted of first-degree murder does ''not'' result in an automatic death sentence. (This isn't [[Society Marches On]], though the length and likely outcome of the appeals process ''after'' a death sentence might indeed be very different today). Also, see [[Hollywood Law]] below. The entire case, in real life, would have ended in a mistrial the moment it came to light that #8 had bought the exact same type of knife as used in the murder. |
||
* [[Asshole Victim]]: The murder victim was an abusive father. |
* [[Asshole Victim]]: The murder victim was an abusive father. |
||
* [[Berserk Button]]: Minor example with #6, who twice threatens violence (once explicitly, once by implication) over people showing disrespect to others. |
* [[Berserk Button]]: Minor example with #6, who twice threatens violence (once explicitly, once by implication) over people showing disrespect to others. |
||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
* [[Retroactive Recognition]]: Juror #5 will be instantly familiar to anyone who's seen an episode of [[Quincy]]. Jack Klugman even gets to do a Quincy-style deduction years before the series was conceived, by pointing out the inconsistent nature of the knife wound. |
* [[Retroactive Recognition]]: Juror #5 will be instantly familiar to anyone who's seen an episode of [[Quincy]]. Jack Klugman even gets to do a Quincy-style deduction years before the series was conceived, by pointing out the inconsistent nature of the knife wound. |
||
* [[Reverse Grip]]: An important plot point is how unlikely it is for any experienced knife fighter to use a switchblade this way. |
* [[Reverse Grip]]: An important plot point is how unlikely it is for any experienced knife fighter to use a switchblade this way. |
||
* [[Rogue Juror]]: If not the [[Trope Maker]], definitely the [[Trope Codifier]]. |
* [[Rogue Juror]]: If not the [[Trope Maker]], definitely the [[Trope Codifier]]. |
||
** Unlike many examples, however, the [[Rogue Juror]] in this case isn't convinced of the defendant's guilt or innocence, at least initially; he simply wants the other jurors to take things seriously and not simply vote guilty -- thus sending a potentially innocent kid to the death chamber -- without making every effort to make sure he ''is'' guilty first. |
** Unlike many examples, however, the [[Rogue Juror]] in this case isn't convinced of the defendant's guilt or innocence, at least initially; he simply wants the other jurors to take things seriously and not simply vote guilty -- thus sending a potentially innocent kid to the death chamber -- without making every effort to make sure he ''is'' guilty first. |
||
* [[Second Hand Storytelling]] |
* [[Second Hand Storytelling]] |
||
* [[The Spock]]: Juror #4 (the stockbroker with wire rim glasses). |
* [[The Spock]]: Juror #4 (the stockbroker with wire rim glasses). |
||
* [[Title by Number]] |
* [[Title by Number]] |
||
* [[Values Dissonance]]: At the time this was written in the '50s, women weren't allowed on juries in some parts of the country. These days, the script is often produced as ''Twelve Angry Jurors'' with a more diverse cast. |
* [[Values Dissonance]]: At the time this was written in the '50s, women weren't allowed on juries in some parts of the country. These days, the script is often produced as ''Twelve Angry Jurors'' with a more diverse cast. |
||
* [[Verbal Tic]]: Juror #10 seems to have one of these, you know what I mean? *sniff* |
* [[Verbal Tic]]: Juror #10 seems to have one of these, you know what I mean? *sniff* |
||
* [[Video Credits]]: Necessary, since none of the characters are named. |
* [[Video Credits]]: Necessary, since none of the characters are named. |
||