>Haha, I smuggled a knife into a Jury room >Now listen

SJW: The Film

Literally nobody but punk kids owned switchblades back in the day, especially ones with gay wiggly blades. Weakest part of the film desu. Breaks the immersion.

the movie is great
>a used car salesmen is able to make a bunch of intelligent, and not so intelligent men, ignore the obvious and let a murderer go free based off of nothing but his opinions on what happened

i was a big fan of the "people in a room" kinds of movies and did not see this movie until recently and damn have films improved a lot since the days of 12 angry dudes

a dozen irate fellas

>>86263851
t. r/Marvel

>>86263335
the tension of that scene is great

>>86263822
fuck that shit
kid was a punk and never going to amount to anything anyway. what is letting him go gunna do? either let a murderer run free or let some ghetto shitbag free. lock him up just for being a piece of low class trash I say.

>>86263335
this movie sucks because it's just people talking in a room. It's not a FILM, it's a PLAY that someone taped. The entire VISUAL ASPECT of film is ignored.

If your film can't be enjoyed with the sound off, it's not a film.

>>86264144
camera moves quite a bit desu

File: bill.gif (188KB, 176x216px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 176x216px

>>86263927
In your opinion should all judges wear a fedora?

>>86264193
it's not that the camera doesn't move, it's that the visuals aren't interesting and they don't help to tell the story.

>>86264237
It's so forced and cheesey

>implying Fonda's knife wasn't the real murder weapon
>implying Fonda wasn't the real killer who is a master assassin but only kills under contracts and because he nearly got caught he had to implicate an innocent neighbor then assume the identity of someone on the jury to make him walk free, thereby losing the heat on himself and not harming any more people

>>86263335
It was fun to watch in Civics class, but I haven't seen it in like seven years

>>86263927

This is when we all slowly turn away and ignore you.

>>86264237
So you're saying there was nothing particularly special about the knife used to attempt to assassinate Bran Stark?

>>86264348
pleb

>>86263335
>movie's about coercion not truth & justice
dip on outta here plebian

>>86264320
If you actually think this then you didn't pay attention.

>>86263586
This.
It's a white cuck protecting a dindu.

>>86263927
we know which character you are anyway kek

I think that guy was the actually murderer and was going to admit that's how he knew the kid was innocent

Dude was creepy as fuck

>>86263586
>made by Sidney Lumet
>"SJW: The Film"
You can't be serious.

And you missed the whole point of 12 Angry Men entirely.
It doesn't matter is the kid actually guilty or not. The movie just shows that we need the "innocent until proven guilty" system if we want to keep the actual innocent people out of prison as much as possible, with the cost of letting a small number of guilty people free.

Did he do it or not doesn't matter, that's just a plot device for the narrative.

File: 12-angry-men.png (267KB, 740x416px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 740x416px

>muh gay son
his side plot dragged down the entire movie

File: 1499457949025.png (21KB, 657x527px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 657x527px

are we reenacting the movie in this thread? can I be the old guy

>>86264753
in that case ill be the racist that says he did it because he is black

>>86264801
he was a spic

>>86264737
no he was pretty integral to the narrative and the general conflict

File: 1502473420181.png (372KB, 578x789px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 578x789px

>>86264810
>>86264801
He wasn't black and he wasn't a spic, he was innocent.

>>86264144
Wow, quite the opposite. 12 Angry Men is used in a lot of film classes because of the way it is shot, with the camera slowly panning down and getting closer to their faces as the movie progresses, creating a sense of claustrophobia in the sweltering jury room. What you mean to say is that there isn't a lot of action in terms of character movement which is what it sounds like you're looking for. The visual aspect of the film is very much on point.

>>86264367
But wouldn't sending the kid to prison take the heat off of him? If the kid goes free, then they know the killer is still out there. Pretty weak plan desu

File: Untitled.jpg (163KB, 1745x1077px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1745x1077px

>>86264144
wrong

>>86264720
this

>>86264419
underrated

what race was the kid again?

>>86264720
>The movie just shows that we need the "innocent until proven guilty" system if we want to keep the actual innocent people out of prison as much as possible
Rubbish. If they wanted to make a commentary on that, the movie would depict an innocent man being convicted, only for him later to be proven innocent.

>Did he do it or not doesn't matter, that's just a plot device for the narrative.
Lol, dumb SJW.

>>86265130
I thought he was Italian.

>>86264906
On the other hand it's mostly studied in english as a play following the stage direction rather than cinematography.

>>86265144
Yeah you're right, Lumet actually depicted a clearly completely guilty italian kid and made Fonda make him innocent at the end, yes.
Even if your retarded statement was true, how on earth does that make the movie "SJW"? Shouldn't it be the literal opposite then?

The movie sucks because it is stupidly unrealistic for a courtroom drama.

10/10 times in real life the jury is hung and that kid goes to jail.

>>86265429
But that doesn't make a good film then, does it?

It should have been declared a mistrial immediately and he should have been prosecuted.

You don't get to just "investigate" a case by yourself. First off none of his testimony was even on record. Nothing he said could be cross examined or even accessed by the defense or the prosecution.

It's amazing that a movie like this displaying what amounts to a gross miscarriage of justice is so widely renowned.

>>86265144
you're a fucking retard. it LITERALLY doesnt matter if he did it or not because the process is whats important here. If everyone thought like you, we have a guilty until proven innocent which is a literal shitskin system. This movie is pro-intelligent white man system of law. It is not le sjw to be fairly tried by a jury of your peers, in fact, it is a VERY sjw thing to say that IS a bad thing. damn, the irony here

File: 769c741e34e23877e5c9d00c7d671c.jpg (4KB, 182x111px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 182x111px

>>86263335
The first time you see the movie it is great, it makes you believe democracy even more. But then it gets repeated and you see how much Idiot Juror explores the doubt for the sake of the doubt.
What I mean is of course we cannot know exactally what happened, but that is not reasonable doubt, this is inherent epistemological doubt.

>>86265585
innocent until proven guilty my man
there were no proofs, even if the kid did everything that he was prosecuted for

>>86265641
there were testimonials. There is a female Justice in the US Supreme Court that idolizes the movie, but recognizes that the jurors made use of assumptions, not facts, to disprove them.

>>86265144
Imagine being this retarded

>>86265689
Maybe I am being too harsh here. In fact what I really mean is the movie stimulates the effort not to convict anyone. Like an Italian jurist once said "See the image of Christ in every accused person". I believe this is detrimental to societies where it already is difficult to follow rules (Latin American Countries).
Maybe uptight Americans and Germans need 12 Angry Men

File: 12men.jpg (35KB, 500x299px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 500x299px

>I guess in the end we truly were 12 Angry Men

>>86265516
>First off none of his testimony was even on record. Nothing he said could be cross examined or even accessed by the defense or the prosecution

What the fuck do you think it means when a jury retires to deliberate? They just silently write down their individual verdicts and then tally them up?

>>86265913
I left the cinema at this point. Fucking hacks.

>>86265847
What are you talking about?
Presumption of innocence is highly valued in Germany and a fundamental part of its constitution (and also EU law)

>>86264753
Is peep taking off or putting on his shirt?

>>86265952
>I left the cinema
are you 70+?

>>86265130
One of them that flooded into NYC in the 50s

>>86265585
>Wants me to find him not guilty
>Can't even look at me with both eyes

the nigger did it

>this thread

Only a 10/10 film can inspire this many autists to get butt-flustered

>>86265913
the ending credits music really took me out of it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu3SdvNmBQY

>>86266055
Yeah, but some people there are too eager to condemn people for little things, being too strict, too literal. But, hey, this keeps you from having a chaotic routine like countries that are too permissive.

>>86264237
The blocking and camera movements are so fluid.

>>86263851
>"people in a room" kinds of movies
I recently saw a British film that did this. What a piece of shit. Are you willing to suggest a better "people in a room" because 12 angry men is the best one I've seen.

They effectively conducted their own investigation using outside evidence. Any competent judge or prosecutor would've called bullshit.

File: 1444715990846.png (79KB, 500x300px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 500x300px

>>86263335
Sheeeeeeeeeeeit

>>86267493
I know they already made a remake of this movie but what the 2018 remake happens, I wouldn't not pass it by some Hollywood Hack executive shoehorning a song like this at the end.

>>86267653
Glengarry Glen Ross isn't strictly that, but the action is mostly limited to 2 places.

>>86267829
Lmao, this movie shit on that piece of garbage. Try again.

File: Untitled.png (294KB, 851x532px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 851x532px

there it is... the most middlebrow scene on the planet

seriously, if you were going to criticize something, criticize this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXlHKTPfLVA

>>86267683
Technically, if the judge found out about it, they'd have to retry the kid with a completely different jury.

Also, since the fan is broken through the first half of the movie, they jury was actually under duress.

>>86267948
It was a different time. People like that still existed.

File: try.jpg (55KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 320x320px

>>86263927
>t. #10

>12 Angry Men
>only 1 or 2 of them get visibly angry
2/10 movie

>>86267993
hrm, you're actually right. didn't think about it like that. still dont like it tho

I have to rewatch the movie but does it show the prosecution has 100% evidence to convict?

>>86265130
savage

>>86267683
in theory the defense should have been bringing up those points, but as a juror or a judge are you really going to go out of your way to try to get a retrial purely because the jury gained information that led them to think he wasn't guilty?

*sits*
*leaves chair and moves about the room*
*sits*
*leaves chair and moves about the room*
*sits*
*leaves chair and moves about the room*

>Well what movie was it that you saw on Tuesday?
>I-I don't remember
Are you fucking kidding me?

>>86268592
It's been awhile since I've seen the movie but doesn't Fonda's character make him go back to what movie he saw several weeks ago?

>>86268036
>not 2/12

>smuggled

12AM is never ever to be taken literally as a legal argument. The wiki page says as much. If every trial was held to such meticulous standards, no one would ever be convicted.

The point is to challenge prejudice and what you think you know without having seen evidence for it.

>>86268674
I wanna say it was a very recent date but you could be right. The point is less that it's silly for him not to remember something like that than it was a horrible way to prove a legitimate point: memory is much more fickle than we'd all like to think.

>quips: the movie

File: MV5BMjVjNTg5ZTgtNjZiMy00ODkwLTk1YjYtOGEzM2MwNGFhZmZlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTgyMzEyNDY@._V1_UY268_CR146,0,182,268_AL_.jpg (11KB, 182x268px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 182x268px

What's the best 12 Angry Men parody?

>>86265144
>They have to make it simple enough for me to understand it, otherwise it's rubbish.

>>86264237
So he was the real killer? This is dumb as shit.

>>86270650
yes

>>86268954
KOTH

File: 12am 1997.jpg (55KB, 432x432px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 432x432px

So whatever happend to that kid the strong silent type?

>>86263335
>americans call that toothpick a "knife"

>>86270650
Are you retarded?

>>86274352
>Criminal was not white
>American

choose one

to all the posters who insist the message of the film revolves around the importance of the american judicial system of innocent until proven guilty why have the first dissenter introduce additional evidence thus constituting a mistrial and making this whole exercise extra judicial.

>>86264144
crearly you dont seem to know much about movies, saying is just a play tell us how little you know about movie language please fuck off

>>86265272
>>86265523
>>86265750
>>86270301
>moron is so asspained he resorts to samefagging
Lol, embarrassing.

>>86264737
wait was his son gay???

>>86265951
The evidence is supposed to be presented to the whole court not behind closed doors where the prosecution/defense can't even object to it

File: ishe.png (247KB, 636x342px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 636x342px

>>86277073
possibly

I really loved this movie until I realized it portrays 11 men as extremely shallow (some even stupid), and one man as a messiah who knows everything and enlightens everybody. That concept is what baffles me so much, not the message of the movie which I see isn't well received by some, judging by this thread.

>>86268036
It was actually called 1-2 Angry Men but they couldn't print posters with "-"'s at the time

>the movie opens with "The case was to be examined by the jury of twelve and the things would soon explode like 12 sticks of dynamite, seeing how life is on their hands and death is on their minds; with all of this in mind, they truly become 12 angry men"
Jesus Christ, I understand the movie being praised for starting in medias res, but what a hack.

>>86266363
Underrated

>>86279228
kek

>>86263335
>HE'S OLD! HE IS OBVIOUSLY LYING FOR ATTENTION!

>>86279187
It didn't portray the other jurors as shallow it portrayed them all as having personal hangups which were preventing them from objectively reviewing the facts of the case

>>86263335
With the exception of this scene the film did a very good job of demonstrating the legal concept of reasonable doubt. Whether or not the kid actually killed his father is irrelevant as we the audience are only given as much information as the jurors anyway. With all the facts of the case presented and all the prejudices, misconceptions and logical fallacies of the jury stripped away there did in fact exist a lack of evidence to definitively determine whether the kid killed his father. I don't know why people don't understand this.