Where can I see good old movies?
Faced with this question, my previous answer was that it would be better to see the West Lake at best. The so-called fierce "Rashomon", the so-called gorgeous "Gone with the Wind", and the so-called classic "North Africa Spy" did not make me sneeze. As long as it is an old movie, no matter how talented it is, it is now an old man;
But "Twelve Angry Men" taught me deeply, no, it taught me a deep lesson, old films can also get older and stronger, and reach the "stunning" level. In the future, if you ask where the old movies can be strong, I will point directly to the moon.
Twelve Angry Men was watched at night. The whole film took an hour and a half, and after watching it, I was so excited that I watched it again. The second time is not a jump to watch, but a complete, continuous second time. It was two o'clock in the morning after reading the second time, and I still couldn't calm the burning flame in my heart, so I couldn't sleep for a long time. Good movies delight people, and great movies transform people. Twelve Angry Men has transformed me to a certain extent, and made me realise first-hand how rich a film can be to attract audiences! Now after a few days of calm thinking, I have initially figured out why this black and white old film from the 1950s can be so addicting, so I wrote it down, hoping to attract more fans for "12 Angry Men".
"Twelve Angry Men" is a single scene throughout (the court scene at the beginning and end is negligible, it is completely decorative, and it will not make much difference to delete it): Twelve jury members discuss in a lounge Decide whether a murder case is convicted. The accused in the murder case was an 18-year-old child, and the deceased was his father. The 12 jury members must discuss a consensus: the child's murder is not guilty. If established, the child will be sent to the electric chair for execution. If not, then the grounds for the refusal must be based on "reasonable doubt" arising from the reasoning, inquiry, evidence, testimony or procedure of the trial as a whole. Due to the complete collection of witnesses and physical evidence, eleven out of twelve people firmly believed that the child was guilty at first, and only the architect played by Henry Fonda felt that there was something strange in the case. At the end of the movie, all twelve people acquit the child.
There is a huge contrast between the beginning and the end. This seemingly "impossible task" often tests the ability of the script the most. It's like a propositional composition, if it's a matter of course, it's called skill, and if it's sloppy, it's called Wuji. Far from being a domestic blockbuster, Twelve Angry Men has become a model of this kind of dramatic conflict - I just regret seeing it so late.
Let's start from the beginning, face this proposition composition for ourselves, see what answers we can get, and then see how "Twelve Angry Men" answers. There are several difficulties in the title: First, the movie only takes place in a conference room, which means that there are almost no major changes that make the visual pleasure; Less is less, not more is because there is no change, and a lot is because we have to introduce every character in place, including occupation, personality, IQ, background, political orientation, mental journey, all of which must be reflected through dialogue and actions It is a huge narrative project when you think about it. Third, this is about a murder trial. There are many witnesses, evidence, and testimony in a murder case, including the time, place, and characters. There is also psychological analysis. This information is massive. How to make the massive information reasonable, planned and step-by-step arranged in each person's dialogue, and fully take care of the audience's acceptance level, no need to take notes, no need to check Data, this is even more difficult; Fourth, this story can be summed up in one sentence as a "miraculous reversal", that is, one person gradually persuades the remaining eleven people. This is the biggest difficulty in this film, because it is so full of Dramatic plot, as long as the arrangement is exaggerated, there will be deliberate suspicion, and the arrangement is subtle and makes the audience feel that there is no credibility, and what kind of rhythm the twelve people are persuaded one by one, it is a profound knowledge. ——If you are a little careless, the audience will feel that it is arranged. Once the fake Dakong's hat is buckled, don't think about turning over again. This is the most difficult point.
So how did Twelve Angry Men come to be?
It suddenly occurred to me that before talking about "Twelve Angry Men", let's talk about another movie that was very popular on the Internet last year but very unknown in theaters - "This Man From Earth". About this movie, I have written before, and I will not repeat the views I said. In terms of narrative skills, under the premise that the plot is developed in a closed space and relying on dialogue, "This Man From Earth" is not only a breakthrough compared to "Twelve Angry Men" (the black and white is changed to color, it seems powerless) , and a significant regression. Whether it's action scenes, music choreography, actor performances, or line design, the appeal is not a story, it's the difference between professional and amateur. This is a strange phenomenon. The praise of "This" by those who admire "This" is very useful. "Twelve Angry Men" is very useful. If these words were posted on the public Internet, it is very likely that many fans of "This" would use vicious language to attack me as SB, but I believe that after reading my analysis, these people will shut up, because obviously the director of "Twelve Angry Men" Many of the geniuses of "This" either didn't do it, or it was greatly reduced. Well, off topic, no more mentioning "this".
While following in the footsteps of genius is overkill, I'll still try to analyze Twelve Angry Men's techniques.
One, how do you remember twelve people at once?
Twelve jury members, twelve protagonists. What are people most afraid of? chaos.
Because only Henry Fonda is a big star (actually, this face is absolutely unknown to us young people), so that the audience can remember everyone in half an hour, and then look forward to them in the next hour It takes a lot of work to take turns on stage and sing operas! I still can't imagine how much talent it takes to build such a grand narrative building.
First of all, let me ask you all, if you were to make a film and you had twelve very different characters to introduce, what way would you use to "nicely and quickly" let the audience remember who they are? Let's think about the more famous ten-person group play movies. "The Lord of the Rings" relies on racial distinction, and "Love Call Transfer" relies on many stars to distinguish, and they all introduce characters through a long period of time. What if time is tight and only half an hour? What if the characters aren't stars? How to do?
Twelve Angry Men has a different approach, and their approach is only available for this film.
The way they guide the audience to remember the characters is not the name (there is no name, and the name is not important), not the number (the number has no personality difference, but will hinder people's memory), not the occupation and character (this takes time to strengthen the impression, Not a very simple and effective method), not the appearance of tall, short, fat and thin (this still needs to be repeated to make people remember), not the clothes (not only black and white, but everyone wears similar formal clothes) ... what is it?
Someone told me that a spy can memorize a long paper in a short period of time, not by memorizing, but by memorizing, that is, replacing some textual codes with another non-textual code, such as ours. A certain part of the body or the location of each province on the map of China, then the brain area he uses is not the area we usually use to memorize text, but other brain areas responsible for processing concrete things, so the memory efficiency will be greatly improved. Its core skills, according to my understanding, are equivalent to the Dafa of "combining numbers and shapes" in high school mathematics classes. Indeed, when I took the college entrance examination in mathematics, I could answer almost all types of questions by relying only on the combination of numbers and shapes.
Writing this, I can't help but sigh that the director of "Twelve Angry Men" is a genius. Unwittingly, they turned us into the supernatural Bourne, guided us to use the spy way to remember, and let us remember these twelve people effortlessly.
The first thing the director does at the beginning of the chapter is to establish a moderator; and the first thing the moderator does is to announce that everyone is seated according to the jury number. Note that this humble announcement is the cornerstone of the entire narrative! The way Twelve Angry Men makes us remember everyone in a very short period of time is where the twelve are! ! ! Let fixed people sit at fixed positions on the long table, one at one end and five at one side. In the future, even if people will walk around due to the need for the plot, they will be brought back to their seats after a period of time to continuously strengthen their impression. I bet anyone who's seen Twelve Angry Men can't name the characters, but they can all tell where everyone is!
Simple! efficient! Just genius! Other movies simply can't do that because it's impossible not to keep the characters still from start to finish. Therefore, the scene is single, others say it is a disadvantage in narrative, I said that the genius is a unique advantage! "Twelve Angry Men" may only lose the shackles, but gain the whole world!
Second, how did each of the twelve angry men sing?
Well, we have analyzed why we can remember these twelve people at once, but this is only the most basic and easiest first step for the director to conquer us. Next, we need to analyze why they can make everyone impress us so deeply?
It is necessary to reiterate the major difficulties here: First, it should not be too exaggerated, otherwise the audience will look silly and hypocritical when they see your skills (the narrative of "Hero" is that the skills are seen at a glance, but it is not original, It seems too utilitarian, so it has been BS until now); Second, it can't be too low-key, otherwise the effect will not be effective, and the audience will not know your expression; Third, you can't label characters, a movie that relies on characters and dialogue to support the scene, labeling is suicide; , of course, everyone cannot appear and sing at the same time, and it is difficult to grasp the overall rhythm when appearing in batches; Fifth, everyone's viewpoints and thoughts have levels and changes, because except for the first one, the other eleven people have experienced 180 The degree of change; six, there is no precedent for this kind of story.
The above six major problems, "Twelve Angry Men" must overcome the top five.
For the sake of convenience, I will introduce the twelve men in a clockwise direction according to the orientation of the twelve angry men sitting on the edge of the long table:
Directions at 12:00: The host, juror No. 1, the jury leader, and the school football coach. His role is the organizer. In the story, he plays a very small role; but in the structure of the film, it is only through him that the director can achieve certain intentions: he is responsible for providing support for materials and props, for setting the rules, and for regularly organizing votes. Although he himself has been emotional, the rules he made effectively keep the other eleven angry men firmly in their seats. The most commendable thing is his support for this principle-as long as someone proposes, he will organize a vote. This allows both the angry man and the audience to see the outcome of the debate after a phased debate, and each outcome produces a new psychological effect for everyone, pushing the story to continue.
A little direction: Juror No. 2, small, wearing glasses, young, unknown occupation, but it should be a job that requires high IQ, because Juror No. 7 often mocks him as a "genius". He didn't have many roles, and it was his first time to participate in jury work. At first, he didn't have his own opinion, but as the discussion deepened, he gradually gained a position. Although he did not stand on the cusp of the storm, his help was very powerful several times. Raised the question of the murderer's way of holding the knife, indirectly contributing to such a "reasonable question". Once helped No. 8 reenact the scene for a few seconds, he was warmhearted, and once provided everyone with throat lozenges.
Two o'clock direction: Juror No. 3, middle-aged, loud, hot temper, owns a communication company. Proud, conceited, but a little illogical. Because he fell out with his son, cut off the relationship between father and son, and looked at this father murder case with hatred for the younger generation, he was the last and most stubborn person standing on the "guilty" position. As an experienced juror, he took quite detailed notes during the jury, so he was also the first person to list the case information, mainly the testimony of two witnesses, the elderly and women, so we know how disadvantaged the defendant is : The old man not only heard his quarrel with his father, but also witnessed his son running away; the woman also witnessed the whole process of the murder across the street. Thanks to Juror 3's message, we're basically on the "guilty" side as well. No. 3 doesn't know how to speak, especially when he slipped his tongue a few times, and his self-made oolong lines highlighted his cute side under his hateful appearance.
Three o'clock direction: Juror No. 4. If No. 3 is the most stubborn "BOSS", then No. 4 is really the most powerful "BOSS". Number 4 is my favorite character because it was so successful. As an investment broker, he has the most confident position, the most rigorous expression, the clearest logic, the most objective position, and the most stable emotion. My best buddy, determined to be a professional like him, turned out to be very similar to him, even objectively enough to blame himself for mistakes, the last sentence "It's strange that I ignored this detail" was written by the screenwriter The stroke of genius is simply the Sherlock Holmes of the financial world! Such an incomparably sturdy bull man is the most troublesome when he is an enemy, and most reliable when he is a comrade-in-arms. As the last and second person to be persuaded, he is actually the final big BOSS. If not a detail is brought up, he is likely to regain the lost ground, or even make a comeback - in fact, he created the only one Reversed, and reasonable and powerful. When he declared that he had voted "not guilty," saying "because I have a reasonable doubt," I literally shouted hooray. It is a pleasure to listen to this man speak. To say that his shortcomings, may be too rational.
Four o'clock direction: Juror No. 5, unknown occupation but should be considered a decent job, from the same slum as the defendant. He hesitated at first, but by the fourth vote he had stood firm in his innocence. The biggest contribution is his identity: it not only proves that people from the slums are not necessarily worthless, but also proves through his personal experience that the defendant will not assassinate people in the way in the case, and answers the questions raised by No. 2, forming a complete form. a "reasonable doubt".
Five-point direction: Juror No. 6, occupation is a decoration worker. Although his occupation is not decent, he is well educated and respects the old and loves the young. It was a firm "guilty" faction at the beginning, which did not play a major role in the story line, but asked No. 8 a very philosophical question in the toilet: "If you really convince us that we all voted innocent, But that kid actually killed his father, so what should we do?" This sentence seems unintentional, but it actually points out the core of "Twelve Angry Men": not to find out the truth, but to find a reasonable doubt.
Six o'clock orientation: Juror No. 7, a marmalade salesman, a fan, wearing a hat, has a more typical salesman character, selfish, fickle, cynical, self-righteous. He had tickets for that night's football game in hand and was eager to get out to watch the game, so he was the most absent-minded and eager to get out of the scene. This just explains why he insisted on "guilty" and then switched to "not guilty", even though he didn't admit it.
Seven o'clock direction: the most important person is here, juror No. 8 played by Henry Fonda, the only person who proposed "innocence" from the beginning, carrying the sustenance of the director, and the spokesperson of hope, but not a "Gundam All"figure. As an architect, although he has clear thinking and raises a lot of strong doubts, I think his analytical skills are far inferior to No. 4, and sometimes even worse than No. 9. He did not claim "innocence" because he had clear rebuttal evidence. In the face of strong doubts, he would be at a loss for words. He proposed "innocence" from his correct understanding of "reasonable doubt" and the sage temperament of "compassion and compassion", not based on reason, but based on instinct. So he just wants to talk, he just wants to sway. So we see him say the most three sentences are: "I DON'T KNOW, LET'S TALK ABOUT IT", "MAYBE", "IT'S POSSIBOLE". Fortunately, "one hero and three gangs", his persistence and the architect's practical character enabled him to successfully achieve a major reversal and complete the almost impossible task.
Eight o'clock direction: Juror No. 9, the oldest old gentleman. He was the first to stand up for the number 8. Compared with the sensibility of No. 8, his role is equivalent to that of No. 4 to the "guilty" camp, providing "firepower" for the "innocent" camp with a strong and rational analysis. Of the 12 Angry Men, he is the smartest and most observant. His appearance and psychological analysis of the two witnesses, the old man and the woman, almost reached the level of Poirot, with a sharp sense of penetrating and penetrating. I think he was either a college professor or a newspaper editor or really a detective before he retired. Listening to his analysis is simply pleasing to the eye! With his speech, "Twelve Angry Men" is like Agatha Christie's soul possessed, like a polyhedron, and then turned to the side of detective novels! He raised an interesting question: Is the testimony of witnesses really credible? Such intelligent questions are always endearing, and his answers are almost perfect. I think No. 9 is the most critical figure in the "Not Guilty" camp.
Nine o'clock direction: Juror No. 10 must be a nouveau riche, arrogant, and always full of discrimination and prejudice against vulnerable groups. After publishing a disgusting discriminatory remark, he was "non-violently resisted" by the rest of the eleven angry men. As a result, his fragile psychological defense line collapsed and he stood on the side of "innocence".
Ten o'clock direction: Juror No. 11, a bearded watchmaker with a British accent, has the ability to think independently, and raised his own question: "Why did the child run back to the scene?" Bundle. And the most commendable thing is his righteous speech: he has expressed his interpretation and views on the legal concept of "reasonable doubt" more than once, and even raised it to "this is why our country is so strong", which can be said to point out the film Core. And his question to the speculative No. 7, "If you think the child is guilty, then you should persevere, rather than cast acquittal for the sake of ending quickly", which seems righteous and heartening!
Eleven o'clock direction: Juror No. 12, a person from the advertising industry, another person to be played. Cynical, love to tell bad jokes, sway stance, slick and sophisticated. Compared to the real jobs of architect, watchmaker, and financier, the creative and superficial advertising career makes No. 12 one of the most eye-catching at first but the least idea. And his advantages are: not stubborn, respect for facts, and have a sense of justice. The best moment was when one voted him thinking of deserting. No. 1 called him several times before he heard it. He said "GUITY——" in a long and impatient tone. Activate this man's character.
Okay, after taking so much effort to introduce the characters, you can see that everyone has a unique background and personality, which is only flat; vertically, they are displayed in a rhythmic, hierarchical, focused, and step-by-step manner Come out, the idea is this: a new case analysis triggers a new character display, the new character display causes a new debate, the new debate triggers a new vote, and the new vote results in a new case. Doubt... The director is to show the character through the display of the case information simultaneously. In the end, the clues are all clear, the evidence is all overturned, the character is all displayed, and some people even reach the brink of collapse... To complete such a complex homework in an orderly manner, it is true Is talented!
Some comrades suggested that the paragraphs of the film are divided according to the weather conditions outside the window and other branch plots that distract the audience. I think it can be much simpler, that is, the number of votes is divided:
The total number of votes for the whole article:
The first time, 1:11, only 8 asked questions, but I noticed that 5 and 9 raised their hands quite hesitantly and lag.
After that, on the 8th, he proposed to see the murder weapon and proved that the murder weapon was suspicious as evidence.
The second time, at 2:10, the 9th joined in.
Contradictions between the testimony of two witnesses, the elderly and the woman, were subsequently raised. Analyze the mental state of elderly witnesses.
The third time, 3:9, 5th joined.
On the 11th, the question of why the defendant returned to the scene was raised.
The fourth time, at 4:10, the 11th joined in.
Then through the reenactment of the witness scene of the elderly witness, it is proved that his testimony is not credible. This is a very powerful action scene, and the rebuttal is very powerful.
The fifth time, 6:6, No. 2 and No. 6 joined at the same time.
Later, the defendant's testimony that he was watching a movie was discussed, and the confrontation between No. 8 and No. 4 proved the credibility of the defendant. This scene made No. 4, who has never sweated, sweat, which was extraordinarily exciting. Subsequently, No. 2 raised the issue of the direction of the assassination of the murder weapon, and No. 5 proved that it was impossible for the defendant to kill in this way.
The sixth time, 9:3, No. 1, No. 7, No. 12 joined.
Then on the 10th, a declaration of discrimination was issued, and everyone invariably dealt with it coldly, and the psychological defense line of the 10th broke down. As the most rational person, No. 4 turned the tide and presented the most lethal evidence: the direct witness evidence of women. For a time, no one could refute.
The seventh time, 8:4, the 12th defected.
The confrontation has entered a deadlock, and everyone is discussing how to make a decision. On the 9th, I observed a detail and put forward the most exciting arguments and rebuttals in the whole article. In order not to affect your first viewing interest, I refuse to disclose that this is about glasses and eyesight. At this point, all the evidence and material evidence that were originally conclusive have been marked with doubts.
The eighth time, 11:1, only No. 3 persisted.
No. 3 lost control of his emotions and his defense line collapsed, and finally voted "Not Guilty".
There are 8 battles before and after, each of which is an epic gladiatorial battle between the characters and positions of some of the angry men. Although it is a black-and-white picture, it is so informative, organized, playful, and tense, without being pretentious, without being sloppy. When it is time to be angry, it will be angry, and when it is time to give relief, it will be heroic and refreshing. !
It's very late to write, let's brake quickly to end.
I found that I can only list the appearance of "Twelve Angry Men" at present, but I can't tell the secret of why the director has organized the plot so wonderfully.
In addition to being ashamed, I am not lost at all, because skills are always dead, but I have experienced the living spirit of this film: that is, life and awe and respect for truth. "Twelve Angry Men" is not trying to show off the concept of "reasonable doubt", but to say, when a person's life is in your hands, are you willing to think for yourself, even with a little doubt? The story of Twelve Angry Men clearly and proudly declares that indomitable skepticism and respect for facts are what makes their country so strong. So, why is Twelve Angry Men so exciting? Acting is one thing, scripting is one thing, filming and editing is one thing, after all, it's such a respectable spirit. It is this spirit that inspires us, makes us sigh, and makes us excited!