I can't name a single person in this film, this film is not about individual actors or even the actors as a collective. What helps this film to stand out are the opinions of the characters, the opinions of people at the time which are completely, historically true and therefore powerful and meaningful . The fact that it takes an hour to convince a man that there is doubt in this case after everyone else has realised it is just ridiculous. There was no logical reasoning as to why this member of the jury was so prejudice but then that was really what it was all about- a few people that were trying to convict a kid based on a prejudice- they couldn't have seen or heard what they were claiming to hear and the kid had a rubbish lawyer because he was a minority. This film in many ways was like a shorter version of Harper Lee's 'To Kill a Maockingbird'.
The change in outside weather was the only thing that helped the audience to understand the passing of time. I admire the one man who was strong enough to keep his vote when it was clear that he was the only one with a difference in opinion. As the film developed reason came to play a stronger part, prejudice was overthrown and the position of the jury was made clear to the jurors- you are there to only condemn someone if you feel that they are guilty beyond reasonable doubt- you cannot convict someone just because you don't like them.
Is this a good film? For it's time, definitely yes but only because of the context behind it. Analysing the filmography of it then you would have to say - No. The plot itself would not hold up in cinemas today and critics would be calling it a sensational flop. This film is more one of a political nature and therefore should be treated as one, one that in its time would have made a big stand on society in America and one that would have been very powerful.
No comments:
Post a Comment