“Obi-Wan never told you what happened to your father.”
“He told me enough! He told me you killed him!”
“Ah, so he did tell you.”
Star Wars is the most liberal movie ever. Just make the rebels Democrats and the Empire the GOP. Make the Force political correctness, and make the Death Star all the oppressed white Christians who are forced to say “Happy Holidays.” See? Totally liberal movie. Q.E.D.
In the conservative version, the arresting officer just shoots the kid, and it never goes to trial…
We really need a Like button.
If Buffy only had a cell phone, then she…
Yeah. Boring.
It has characters that have principles.
This is the first I’ve ever heard that 12 Angry Men movie is liberal. For the record my super-conservative mom loves it.
The version of the movie I say, the black and white one, wasn’t really about racism at all for most of the jurors. In fact each of the jurors had different motivations for their vote, only one of which was racism. (And I could have sworn one of the jurors -the one who knew about knife fighting- actually claimed the same background as the accused.)
Yes, Jack Klugman’s character. He also grew up, “In a slum.”
There’s talk from other characters about “them”, and how “they” are all the same and you can’t believe anything “they” say. Given Klugman’s character’s identifying with the defendant, I always took the dominant prejudice in the room to be associated with class.
That was Juror #5, played by Jack Klugman in the 1957 film. When other jurors talk about children from the slums (in reference to the defendant), he identifies himself as also having been raised in the slums, but I don’t recall him naming his or the defendant’s ethnic background or implying they were the same. His commonality with the defendant was poverty, not specifically ethnicity.
As you see, this thread is a tribute to both.
Are you a little butt-hurt that the mean ol’ liberals haven’t teed off on you yet? Sure sounds like it.
I guess that’s why you are hiding behind your beliefs here in the pit. This discussion would have really been over your head in Cafe Society.
Serious questions for you:
-
What point are you trying to make in the OP? You clearly have one but I don’t understand what it is.
-
What about your point did you think was so incendiary that it rated being put in the Pit? What did you expect the reactions, both content and tone, to be like?
- That you change a couple of skin tones and the film is suddenly completely different despite the dialogue being the same.
But As others have noted quite well, I didn’t think this through. First i mixed up Lee J. Cobb with Ed Begley. I also forgot all the dialogue about prejudices. It was a poorly conceived post.
- Using the words ‘liberal’ ‘black’ and ‘white’ In a film about racism and class?? Better to put in the Pit so the Mods don’t have to spend more than five minutes wondering if i’m just trying to set Cafe Society on fire.
As for the reaction I expected…see nuanced, well-balanced gentleman above you.
Kind of a “fruit of the poisonous tree” situation, yeah?
Still, respect for acknowledging that your premise was flawed.
I dunno, the 1997 adaptation included some black actors as jurors but mostly the same dialog (with some updates) and it wasn’t significantly (let alone completely) different.
For that matter, I don’t remember anyone “browbeating” the holdouts at the end. On the contrary, the loudmouth bigot (played in 1957 by Ed Begley) goes off on an extended rant and only relents when it’s clear every other juror is turning away from him in silent revulsion. I think there was a bit of pressure put on the rational stockbroker character (my personal favourite, played by E.G. Marshall) but the last “guilty” juror (Lee Cobb) also gets to rant a bit until it becomes obvious to everyone including him that his anger is not at the defendant but to someone else (implied to the audience to be the juror’s son).
So basically, I don’t understand your point, either. Just changing the races of some of the characters doesn’t really matter and what you’re proposing is a not-insignificant alteration of the script. There are lots of courtroom dramas are about racism - Twelve Angry Men isn’t really one of them, nor can a simple choice of casting make it into one.
Given that this is the pit and given your OP and your response I was referencing, I’d say “nuanced, well-balanced” is an apt description.
But like JB I’ll give you props for owning up to the flawed premise.
Hey, just had a thought: what if America had been discovered by black African sailors who then exterminated the native population and begun systematically enslaving white Europeans for the next 500 years, and oppressed them legally, socially and economically for much longer than that? White guys like me would have the moral high ground, then, wouldn’t we? That would be really sweet, from my perspective as a white guy who already has all the advantages we’re assuming I’ve been denied, right? Let’s discuss this scenario seriously, I mean it, because it makes me feel so much better!
Sounds like a plan…I’m not white. Do I still get to play?
Don’t lie. You posted in the Pit. You wanted people to be upset with you. If you wanted people to be nice, you’d post in a forum where people had to be nice.
I DID!! you got me!! I’m a mean ol liar lying mcliar face!!
Hold on…let me get my lotion out. Ok…go. Be mean. Let me have it big boy.