Movie Reviews
New, Old Movie Review: ‘12 Angry Men’ (1957)
This classic is an important movie for parents to watch with their children for many reasons.
Many centuries ago, Aristotle explained that truth is the mind’s conformity with reality. Defining it is simple; it’s practicing truth that can prove difficult. On a social scale, truth can prove uncomfortable, especially in a world that sometimes demands nonconformity with the most basic of realities. On a personal scale, truth can be obstructed by the lies we tell ourselves about ourselves and about others.
Nature seeks truth, but nurture is another matter. Nurture — or the failure to properly nurture — can create prejudices and false biases. And these can not only blind us to truth, but wreak havoc on those around us. This is a vital lesson, and I’ve rarely seen it illustrated better than in 1957’s 12 Angry Men.
Though the film broadly fits into the courtroom trial genre, it begins with a twist: we don’t see the trial at all. The story begins at the point where a somnambulant judge is giving instructions to the jury. The bored judge explains that this is a murder trial and that a guilty verdict carries a mandatory death sentence with no chance for clemency. After that, the jury of 12 men walk into a private room to begin the proceedings. Although the jurors don’t realize it at first, each of these 12 men is about to find himself on trial.
Within just a few minutes, they take an early ballot. Eleven men vote “Guilty.” One man, portrayed by Henry Fonda, votes “Not guilty.”
One juror is particularly annoyed at Fonda’s vote, and doesn’t mind telling him: “Boy, oh boy! There’s always one!”
The jury foreman is polite but condescending: “Perhaps if the gentleman down there who is disagreeing with us … perhaps you could tell us why. You know, let us know what you’re thinking and we might be able to show you where you’re mixed up.”
As each man takes his turn explaining why he voted guilty, it becomes clear that some are afflicted by a blinding bias or outright racism. Outraged that Fonda’s character has had the temerity to suggest that the accused teenager might be innocent, one juror launches into a tirade: “You’re not gonna tell me we’re supposed to believe this kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I’ve lived among them all my life. You can’t believe a word they say. You know that. I mean, they’re born liars.”
The operative word in this sentence is “THEM.” But THEM does not just refer to race for all of the jurors. For some jurors, THEM is poor people; for others, THEM is foreigners, or old people or teenagers or tough kids. We progressively discover that, for one juror, THEM is his own son.
Somewhere in his past, Fonda’s character might have had a THEM, but not by the time we are introduced to him in the jury room. He’s grown sick of the tragic hatred of rash judgment toward others. Fonda fires back to a fellow juror: “I’d like to ask you something. You don’t believe the boy’s story. How come you believe the woman’s? She’s one of THEM too, isn’t she?”
As the story progresses, Fonda implores the jurors that what is considered rock-solid evidence might be only built on sand. The question is whether some of the jurors’ biases will allow them to question what they desperately want to believe.
One of the great geniuses of the movie is that some jurors are not motivated by hatred or even dislike; rather, they are simply attempting to find the truth. They discover that truth can be hard to find, even if you are making a sincere effort to find it. There is a moment in which E. G. Marshall’s stockbroker character sees the truth, and rises above his pride to embrace that truth. Every time I watch that scene, I get a lump in my throat.
The movie also contains a powerful message of forgiveness to one’s enemies. You and I need to hear that message. Years ago, I confessed to my spiritual advisor that I like arguing. He assured me that arguing, per se, is not sinful. Arguing is not necessarily unjust or uncharitable (although those vices can often arise). But he also gave me a piece of advice that I’ve always tried to remember and employ: After the argument, make sure you part as friends. This movie reminds me of my spiritual advisor’s counsel. It’s one I have taught my own children, having watched the movie with all of them. When they’re arguing, I often say, in reference to the film: “Help the old man put his jacket back on.” You will understand what I mean after watching the movie.
I first watched this movie with my dad on a lazy summer afternoon when I was a young teenager. After I saw the first few minutes, I was convinced it would be boring. By the time the ending credits rolled, I was fascinated by the legal system. Since then, I’ve seen the movie at least 30 times. In fact, I try to watch the movie every year to remind myself of the importance of seeking truth — especially difficult truths I’d rather not see.
This is an important movie for parents to watch with their children for many reasons, but perhaps most of all to illustrate the devastating nature of racism.
There is a narrative that everyone in America is racist; there is a competing narrative that no one is racist. We should object to both narratives because both are wrong. The first view is despairing, as though there is no escape from hatred. But the truth is that God grants us both the free will and the grace to rise above racism — which makes it all the more troubling when one refuses to accept that grace.
But it is absurd — dangerously absurd — to claim that no one is racist. Over the years, I’ve heard my share of racism against various ethnicities. I didn’t hear much racism against Mexicans growing up, but such racism has certainly come into vogue, largely through the broken window of politics. In recent years, I’ve heard friends and associates make demeaning comments to me about Mexicans, which only seem to subside when I inform them that my wife is ancestrally Mexican — and thus, so are my children. Thus, I appreciate this movie on a very personal level.
We parents do not have the luxury of raising our children in an honest world. But you and I can be — we must be — personal examples of both truth and charity. And being that example must entail this: a moral outrage when dishonesty and racism and THEM-ism are championed. Viewing 12 Angry Men with our families can be part of that process.
movie review
TOY STORY 5
Running time: 102 minutes. PG (some thematic elements, rude humor). In theaters.
Long before ChatGPT was a household name, Hollywood had been making AI the villain for decades — from HAL 9000 to Skynet to Agent Smith.
Yet the most emotionally involving spin on the terrors of tech in ages arrives not from groundbreaking sci-fi, but the smart, wonderful and tremendously funny fifth “Toy Story” movie.
That’s a surprise, since it’s a film that I really hoped would never happen. After middling “4,” which was a giant step down from the heartbreaking third, the world was more than ready for Woody and Buzz to ride off into the sunset. Woody actually did.
Well, it’s good that Tom Hanks and Tim Allen got back behind the mike, because the digital age gives Pixar’s playthings a renewed sense of purpose and atypically high stakes. Usually the gang helps a young person stay in touch with their childhood. This time, they save one in progress.
That’s the formative years of little Bonnie (Scarlett Spears), the girl who inherited the dolls from Andy (who’s now, like, 40) in the last movie. She’s 8 years old, paralyzed by shyness and totally friendless. Desperate, Bonnie begs her parents to buy her a Lilypad, an interactive touchscreen that’s all the rage at school.
Yes, the baddie that Woody (Hanks), Buzz (Allen) and Jessie (Joan Cusack) must face this time is an alarmingly cute tablet, voiced by Greta Lee.
So, rather than humanity’s fears of artificial intelligence taking control of the nuclear arsenal or replacing us with cyborgs, director Andrew Stanton’s “5” taps into a much more immediate concern: screens rewiring kids’ minds.
Much like when action figure Buzz arrived, sigh, 31 years ago, the toys are mortified by the mysterious intruder and her luminescent ilk. As they look across their neighborhood, all they can see for blocks are glowing blue windows with zombie youths staring into the 10×10 void.
The end is nigh, they think. How can a cowboy, cowgirl and a space cadet compete against a reactive mini-computer that connects a lonely child to the entire planet?
But these toys aren’t ready for the dark recesses of eBay just yet. They go head to head — or plastic to plastic — with Lilypad, whom Lee gives a voice that’s both bestie and “Mean Girls.”
You may recall lovebirds Woody and Bo Peep went off on their own at the end of the last chapter. Of course, they find their way back, but Jessie is running things now. That’s a refreshing and appropriate switch-up. Cusack’s maternal performance is better suited to this particular adventure than Hanks’ “old buddy, old pal” delivery.
After a sleepover mishap, Jessie winds up lost at another house — her first one, it turns out — where a girl named Blaze (Mykal-Michelle Harris) lives. And it’s there we meet perhaps the best new character in this franchise since 1995: Smarty Pants.
The real misfit toys aren’t the OG crew, we learn, but obsolete computer devices from the aughts. One is Conan O’Brien’s Smarty Pants, a hysterical, hyperactive box that teaches tykes how to use the toilet. He’s been powered down for years and therefore goes berserk when juiced up.
O’Brien is — and I’m sure he’d agree — a toy trapped in a man’s body. He’s practically typecasting. And his demented acting is so energetic and untethered, you can picture Disney security guards hauling him out of the recording studio. I mean that in a good way.
There’s also a lot of fun mined from a shipment of misplaced Buzzes. We check in on the look-alikes occasionally as they morph into a phalanx of determined Navy SEALs to eventually join Jessie and Co.
“Five” is arguably the first new “Toy Story” film to be both watched and understood by the kids of the 1995 original’s millennial audience. That shared experience is very moving all by itself.
But, even more poignantly, who can teach these young parents this vital lesson in 21st-century child-rearing better than their own toys?
3.5/5 stars
The notoriously treacherous hurdles that Hong Kong telecommunications company i-Cable used to put in front of customers looking to unsubscribe from its internet and pay-TV services throughout the 2000s and early 2010s provide the premise of this Kafkaesque comedy-drama – an alternately hilarious and heartbreaking case of raging against the system.
By Susan Granger
With the release of his 35th movie, it’s obvious that Steven Spielberg is not just a good story-teller, he’s a GREAT story-teller.
The suspenseful tale he spins this time is “Disclosure Day” about the U.S. government’s attempt to keep the truth about UFOs secret.
Sinister Noah Scanlon (Colin Firth) heads WARDEX (Waived Reporting, Development and Extraction), a quasi-Defense Department agency from which cybersecurity expert Daniel Kellner (Josh O’Connor) has stolen a powerful device of alien origin along with extensive classified information and video files.
Although his girlfriend Jane (Eve Hewson) is held hostage by Scanlon’s underlings, Daniel manages to free her and get away, igniting a manhunt.
Supported by WARDEX’s Director of Biological Assets, paternal Hugo Wakefield (Colman Domingo), whistleblower Daniel believes people have a right to know about the coverup, dating back to the 1947 Roswell, New Mexico, paranoia and the Nixon Administration.
Meanwhile in the middle of a TV broadcast, Kansas City, Missouri, meteorologist Margaret Fairchild (Emily Blunt) suddenly begins making bizarre, guttural clicking sounds which make no sense – except to Daniel, who recognizes the alien code.
To the bewilderment of her boyfriend, Jackson (Wyatt Russell, Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell’s son), Margaret can suddenly speak foreign languages – like Korean and Russian – and manipulate the minds of everyone she encounters.
What Daniel and Margaret have in common is a terrifying childhood trauma that neither wants to remember. To tell you more would ruin the film’s many white-knuckle surprises and insights about faith in a supreme deity and the philosophical essence of humanity.
Scripted by David Koepp from Steven Spielberg’s story, it revolves around a nefarious conspiracy, cloaked in sci-fi mystery, tracing back to “E.T.” and “Close Encounters of a Third Kind.” And it’s a timely topic since former President Obama said he believes aliens are real, prompting President Trump to accuse him of revealing “classified information.”
Sure – there are some gaping plot loopholes – but cinematographer Janusz Kaminski dazzles with a high-speed train chase. Buoyed by John Williams’ throwback score – on the Granger Gauge of 1 to 10, “Disclosure Day” is an exciting 9, playing in theaters now.
Catch up on Susan’s recent reviews:
Susan Granger
Westport resident Susan Granger grew up in Hollywood, studied journalism with Pierre Salinger at Mills College and graduated from the University of Pennsylvania with highest honors in Journalism. In addition to writing for newspapers and magazines, she has appeared on radio and television as an anchorwoman and movie critic for many years. Read all her reviews at susangranger.com.
-
Lifestyle4 minutes agoDMV artist turns belts into a conversation about discipline
-
Technology14 minutes agoThe Complete Calvin and Hobbes is a great last-minute Father’s Day gift
-
World19 minutes agoAnti-G7 protest turns violent as demonstrators torch Tesla and smash UN office windows
-
Politics26 minutes agoDems pick potential successor to DC’s congressional delegate after decades-long incumbency
-
Health29 minutes agoBride in full wedding gown makes 2-hour hospital trip to see her mother before the ceremony
-
Sports34 minutes agoBest Of World Cup: Top Fan Moments, From Cape Verde’s Goats To Mexico’s Duck
-
Technology41 minutes agoNew wheeled robot says no thanks to humanoid hype
-
Business44 minutes agoCapital Group buys Bunker Hill skyscraper
