🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿


12 Angry Men


🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿


🎙️ EPISODE 269: 06.08.20

These men... are they angry? Sure. Are there 12 of them? Goes without saying. But what layeth beneath the surface of their... anger... and their... maleness?
It's hard to digest media in these over-saturated times. Everything and anything seems to take on "new context" given "the circumstances." COVID and the George Floyd protests are the only news. We used to manufacture news, invented different ways to broadcast this news on cable TV. It was 24-7 and the stories just kept on coming. But then the news died. "No NEWS is good NEWS" can't happen when all there is NEWS. My mind can't go an hour without feeling the ping, the desire to find the next nugget, the latest and greatest piece of information, that link or screenshot or Twitter video which unlocks the next door as my frail, tired psyche tries to piece together a sensible narrative, if not a full understanding of... the NEWS.
Movies can and should be a distraction. But I'm hard pressed to get through an episode of Barbie: Dreamhouse Adventures without politicizing the onscreen action, even in the vaguest of ways. It's completely absurd. The describers in the title aren't meaningless. I'm sure most murder trials in the 1950s were explicitly male-only? And the number 12 seems to be what we're still broadly working with as far as jury selection goes. However, it's missing a word: WHITE.

The initial reaction to this film was positive, a writer for the New Yorker at the time went so far as to call it "a fairly substantial addition to the celluloid landscape" (bold!). I wonder, however, if they'd inserted that word into the title (12 Angry WHITE Men) whether it would have gone over so well. Me guessy not so muchy.


Of course, it's unfair to make such assertions. It's placating, it's "virtual signaling." The murder suspect in the plot is supposed to be Puerto Rican, although that's never referenced directly. He's poor, different, you know, not like these 12 dudes deciding on his fate. So – long story short – Henry Fonda changes the other guys' minds and they all change their vote from guilty to not guilty. All in a tight 90 minutes! Bada-bing Bada-boom. A fairly substantial addition to the celluloid landscape, indeed.

It's easy to see this as a progressive work within the imagined structure of the 1950s. But there's the rub.... it's all just... imagined. 1957 doesn't exist. The elderly of today were, at best, children or teens in 1957. This is the nature of time, folks. Sorry to be the one to tell you how time works and how the opinions and experiences of those on death's doorsteps (via the electric chair, or something else) are worth less than the collective wills and desires of the mean. We can't stand on the ideas of something that no longer exists, let alone have the creators of those ideas have some kind of meaningful say. We can't make something great.... again. Because who's to say what was what, and when, or how it was, if so. That's the very nature (flaw) of history. It's fluid. I don't need to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, let alone some ghost from a bygone era. This is not some progressive statement. They don't vote not guilty to dismantle some biased system. No, they tactfully deconstruct the facts of a case, Columbo-style, until they can't help but mumble, both with glee and self-pitying defeat.... "reasonable doubt." There's no social justice in the physics of sound or the ornamental design of a switchblade. That's just stuff. And this is just 90 minutes. 90 minutes you can try to turn off the old brain to, or at least lower the volume. There's nothing reasonable about it.

You google the name of the actor who played the defendant ("john savoca") and this is the top non-IMDb result:


That ain't it, folks. But, yeah... RIP.



CHRONOLOGICALLY
EPISODE 268 - (YOU ARE HERE) - EPISODE 270 ⫸

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Movie. Powered by Blogger.