I decided to post one of my essays from this semester's English class. The assignment was to watch a movie, and then its remake. Then we were required to find the differences between the two films as well as some sort of societal change that would have caused those differences.
The film I chose to look at is "12 Angry Men". Admittedly, the two versions of this film didn't really have a lot of differences. The story and dialogue are nearly identical. However, there is one big difference: The cast in the newer film is far more diverse--racially I mean.
Anyway, here's the essay, in which I discuss my findings in more detail. Enjoy!
(PS: I have an entire "Works Cited" list if you feel the need to see it. Just let me know!)________________________________________
An accurate, though often underestimated way to measure the attitudes, traditions, and emotions of any culture through time is to watch movies. Whether it is a time of war, peace, or political unrest—anything that might be happening at the time will invariably be portrayed on film. It could even be said that a way for people to escape from or confront the issues that their society is facing is to watch them play out on the big screen.
Movies may not be an obvious source of information, but they can be counted on to give an accurate snapshot of society. This becomes even clearer when one watches two versions of the same film, especially when they have been produced decades apart. This tendency is something that will be explored further in this paper, using one film as an example.
The setup seems simple. Twelve jurors, locked in a cramped room are instructed to come to a unanimous verdict regarding the murder trial of an eighteen year old boy. If convicted, the boy faces the death penalty. During the course of their time together, each juror’s individual character is revealed; the good and the bad.
“12 Angry Men,” directed by Sidney Lumet, was originally released in 1957 (Fonda). Starring Henry Fonda, the story develops around the deliberations of a jury—if their unanimous verdict is “guilty”, an eighteen year old boy goes to the electric chair for the murder of his father. When they first enter the deliberation room, a vote is cast. Eleven of the twelve men immediately vote “guilty.” Only one, Juror #8 (played by Henry Fonda) raises his hand for a “not guilty” vote.
From there, the story becomes far less simple as Juror #8 begins to convince his fellow jurors to reconsider their decision. By pointing out the inconsistencies and gaping holes in the prosecution’s case, the jury begins to see the case in a whole new way. Each and every man in that tiny deliberation room reveals the darkest side of his personality during the course of the film. One by one, the jurors change their verdict. (Internet Movie Database)
The original version of this film was taped in black and white. Every juror was a Caucasian male, as were the judge, both attorneys and the guards. According to a review by Tim Dirks, the story of “12 Angry Men” is meant to be metaphoric. “The jurors were made to represent a cross-section of American attitudes towards race, justice, and ideology…” (Dirks)
In “12 Angry Men”, race is a source of tremendous tension in the group. Juror #10, played by Ed Begley in the original film, is openly racist. To the credit of the other jurors, every one of them is disgusted by his bigotry, turning their backs on him during his most impassioned racist speech. However, although the characters are more open-minded, seeing a racially integrated jury on film in 1957 was not something that most people would have been completely comfortable with. When “12 Angry Men” was first released, the Jim Crow Laws were still in effect.
Jim Crow was the name given to a set of laws which were passed during Reconstruction in 1877. These stated that white people and black people should be kept “separate but equal”. Of course there was hardly any “equality” involved in this societal segregation (Pilgrim).
The Jim Crow Laws didn’t really end until the 1960’s. Even then there would be quite a long way to go before African Americans were fully integrated and accepted into mainstream American society. Some say we’re still not there. Now, over fifty years later, Americans look back on the time of the Jim Crow Laws as though they ended a century ago, when in fact it has been merely half that time.
In 1997, “12 Angry Men” was remade and released as a cable television movie (Lemmon). Directed by William Friedkin, this new version of the film was also set in New York City. The case under discussion was the same; the dialogue is almost identical to that of the original film. The more minor differences between the original film and its remake include: the fact that it was in color, the actors, and the addition of a few curse words.
The one stark difference between the two films is the fact that the cast is considerably more diverse. Four out of the twelve jurors are African American. The guard is African American, and the judge is a woman. In the remake, Jack Lemmon takes over the role of Juror #8. His performance is good, but it’s the performance of Mykelti Williamson as Juror #10 that is the most surprising. Juror #10, an offensively racist white man in the first film, is now a Black Muslim man. (Internet Movie Database)
When most people think about racism, they think about white people looking down on every other race. What this casting decision does for the audience is to make them think about the way other races feel about each other. Racism is ugly no matter who it’s coming from.
The question now becomes: What is the reason behind the difference between the 1957 and 1997 versions of “12 Angry Men”? The answer is simple: The Civil Rights Movement.
In 1957, the Civil Rights movement was only just starting. Two years earlier, a 42 year old woman named Rosa Parks refused to relinquish her seat on a segregated bus to a white person, sparking a flame that would change America. According to the official NAACP website, Parks’ story has been skewed a little through legend and rumor. Contrary to popular belief, Parks didn’t remain in her seat because she was too tired. A long time member of the NAACP, she was willfully protesting against the Jim Crow Laws. Because of that simple act, she is now considered to be the mother of the Civil Rights Movement (NAACP).
On February 14th 1957, Martin Luther King Jr. formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference—a group whose purpose was to fight segregation (SCLC).
In that same year, a new Civil Rights Act was presented before Congress. Its purpose was to protect the voting rights of all citizens, including “Negroes.” At the time, the Democratic Party was made up largely of Southern politicians, many of whose constituents still believed that blacks were a lesser race. Democrats chose to filibuster the Act until it was weakened enough for its terms to be more acceptable (eisenhower.archives).
Because of the turbulent debates regarding the issue, Civil Rights were slow in their success. It took decades of work to bring about the equality that African Americans needed and deserved. On August 6, 1957; the Director of Minorities for the Republican National Committee—Val J. Washington, wrote a letter to then Senator Lyndon B. Johnson. In the letter, Washington chastised Johnson, a Democrat, for the anti-Civil Rights actions of his party (Washington).
Then in 1964, at the insistence of now President Lyndon B. Johnson, a new Civil Rights Act was signed into law. This outlawed the unfair treatment of any individual, regardless of race, gender, etc. It was a big step toward a better, more integrated society, giving all citizens a better chance to reach their full potential, and work together as equals.
Since the Civil Rights Movement, African Americans have gone from being seen as second class citizens to highly respected people, vital to American society. People of all races and origins have come together as friends and fellow Americans. The first ever African American President is currently in the Oval Office. With every generation, we come closer and closer to becoming a country of true equality for all citizens.
This society-wide change for the better is largely due to the heroic efforts of Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and enlightened members of the United States government. Now, instead of people being shocked at the idea of African Americans serving on the same jury with Caucasian-Americans, they would be shocked and appalled if every jury were not made up of a diverse array of people.
If nothing else, movies can show us as a society where we have been, and how far we have come. At least in the case of Civil Rights, we can look at our progress with a sense of satisfaction, and gain a greater hope for the future.
