"Murder" vs "12 Angry Men"

Old Movie Fan · External Since: Jan 19, 2005 Posts: 163

With the Easter Weekend approaching, I wondered if anyone felt like a
good discussion about the similarities of these two films?
Hitchcock's "Murder" concerns the conscience of a juror who had been
persuaded to go along with the majority and find someone guilty, while
in "12 Angry Men," a very similar event occurs during deliberation when
only one juror votes 'innocent'.

Rich Wagner

sawakatoome · External Since: Feb 26, 2005 Posts: 260

On Apr 6, 1:51 pm, BigMovie... DeleteThis @webtv.net (Old Movie Fan) wrote:

> With the Easter Weekend approaching, I wondered if anyone felt like a
> good discussion about the similarities of these two films?

Are there any similarities .. beyond both being centred around a court-
trial?

'Twelve Angry Men', it seems to me, doesn't care about the person on
trial (per se) .. there, the drama is in the jury room and comes out
of the interactions between the individual jurors.
'Murder!', on the other hand, uses a trial as a means of bringing a
central character, Sir John, into the story and to help kick-start his
quest (to save an old protogee from the hangman's noose).

Fergal #.

bigsilentfan · External Since: Jan 13, 2005 Posts: 564

On Apr 10, 11:36ï¿½am, "sawakatoome" <sawakato....TakeThisOut@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Apr 6, 1:51 pm, BigMovie....TakeThisOut@webtv.net (Old Movie Fan) wrote:
>
> > With the Easter Weekend approaching, I wondered if anyone felt like a
> > good discussion about the similarities of these two films?
>
> Are there any similarities .. beyond both being centred around a court-
> trial?
>
> 'Twelve Angry Men', it seems to me, doesn't care about the person on
> trial (per se) .. there, the drama is in the jury room and comes out
> of the interactions between the individual jurors.
> 'Murder!', on the other hand, uses a trial as a means of bringing a
> central character, Sir John, into the story and to help kick-start his
> quest (to save an old protogee from the hangman's noose).
>
> Fergal #.

I see that I didn't really get a discussion going with this topic,
but I do think there is quite a lot in common with the two films. In
both, a single juror struggles to convince the others that they have
made a tragic mistake. Both films don't really pay too much attention
to the person either on trial or found guilty. Sir John seeks his
answers from the woman who had been found guilty and discovers the
truth, while Fonda's character, struggles within the deliberation room
to get the jurors to see that it was their preconceived opinions that
caused them to vote guilty. The issue of the indentation on the
woman's nose that indicated she needed glasses to see clearly worked
as well as the stigma of a half-cast in Hitchcock's film.
I had hoped for some serious study on the similarity of the two
films since many of us probably have easy access to both. It's hardly
worth the time if we only make casual assumptions.

Rich

A closed mind is a terrible thing to perpetuate!

sawakatoome · External Since: Feb 26, 2005 Posts: 260

On Apr 13, 2:13 am, bigsilent....TakeThisOut@aol.com wrote:

> I see that I didn't really get a discussion going with this topic,
> but I do think there is quite a lot in common with the two films. In
> both, a single juror struggles to convince the others that they have
> made a tragic mistake. Both films don't really pay too much attention
> to the person either on trial or found guilty. Sir John seeks his
> answers from the woman who had been found guilty and discovers the
> truth, while Fonda's character, struggles within the deliberation room
> to get the jurors to see that it was their preconceived opinions that
> caused them to vote guilty. The issue of the indentation on the
> woman's nose that indicated she needed glasses to see clearly worked
> as well as the stigma of a half-cast in Hitchcock's film.
> I had hoped for some serious study on the similarity of the two
> films since many of us probably have easy access to both. It's hardly
> worth the time if we only make casual assumptions.
>
> Rich
>
> A closed mind is a terrible thing to perpetuate!- Hide quoted text -

Sorry Rich but I don't believe I was being flippant. I did give what I
thought was a good account of my thoughts on this. If I'd left it with
just the first line, then that would indeed have been silly (and the
sign of a "closed mind").

Anyway .. I see 'Twelve Angry Men' as a brilliant film by a favourite
director of mine (the original, that is). In it, I see the central
character, Juror No. 8, as being the catalyst that gets (sometimes,
after a great deal of time) the others to actually seriously consider
the kid's guilt/innocence.
Somehow, he just knows (as they all probably do but just don't want to
say, for whatever reason) that they've all jumped to the easy solution
for probably selfish reasons .. which turns out to be the case; as the
film goes on, we learn it wasn't all to do with preconceived opinions
(.. i.e. sometimes, it simply had to do with it being a hot day or
that some sports game was on that evening).

'Murder!', on the other hand, keeps its jury room drama confined to
the beginning of the film and we never revisit the location again. In
fact, we never even revisit one of the other jurors again, so any
drama begun or developed between Sir John and another is left
inconclusive, as it were.
And all the drama in the rest of the film isn't even remotely similar,
to me, to 'Twelve Angry Men''s. 'Murder!' is more of a straightforward
detective story with witnesses and clues and suspects .. and, probably
most importantly, a central character who is, again I believe, flawed
(in the best Hitchcock tradition).

Fergal #.

P.S: Note how unflawed and 'perfect' the central character of 'Twelve
Angry Men' is .. a flaw of the film itself, IMO, and why I described
him more as a catalyst for the others (than a fully-rounded character
unto himself). Personally, I can't stand the way Juror No. 8 never
gets overly angry (i.e. displaying more anger than is needed) or
impatient or unreasonable .. he's presented as 'too good' for my
liking.

Old Movie Fan · External Since: Jan 19, 2005 Posts: 163

I've just watched the film again tonight and it truly is a favorite
of mine. Films that challenge you to imagine how you might have judged
someone are always compelling to me. I could even add "The Oxbow
Incident" as another example where the obvious evidence is easily
accepted (even by the audience) and anyone who questions it is persuaded
by the others to go along with the majority. Only problem is, the truth
is learned after the innocent have been lynched in "Oxbow."
I never meant to imply that the stories were identical, but only that
the theme and methodology were similar. Watching "Murder" again, I was
surprised when I heard a woman juror tell Sir John that Handle Fane (the
female impersonator) was obviously in love with the accused.
Apparently, I never gave that much thought as I listened to the jurors
do their replies to Sir John's arguments as the group closed around him.
All I remembered was the cadence of their one unified voice saying "What
do you say to that Sir John."
I personally like "Murder" more than I do "12 Angry Men" because of
the way Hitchcock uses all of the available theatrics in telling the
story. When the landlady comes in to pressure the Markham's for the
rent (did you notice the sign she puts on the dresser?), they go into a
routine about how Sir John was going to cast them in a play (which was
not true). The landlady doesn't buy it, but just then (much to their
surprise) they get a message from Sir John. The whole sequence as they
get ready to visit Sir John and what happens as the three go looking for
answers provides quite a bit of entertainment.
Finding Sir John's photograph in Diana Baring's room was as big a
surprise for him as it was the audience watching the story. We later
learn the exact circumstances about this and we can also see that Sir
John begins to develop a fondness for her.
They set a most unusual trap to incriminate Fane, a trap that was
deliberately obvious. Arriving at the carnival afterwards, they watch
in horror as Fane falls to his death. Naturally with his death,
everyone must assume that the proof of Diana Baring's innocence died
with him. The final surprise to end the tense story is when a letter is
discovered on the body, addressed to Sir John and confessing the truth.
The conclusion comes as Sir John has freed Diana and they begin a new
life very much involved with one another. As they enter the home, the
camera pulls back and reveals that what the audience has actually been
watching is simply a play and apparently all of these people are simply
characters in a story, which of course is actually true either way.

Watching the film again today was a pleasure.

Rich

sawakatoome · External Since: Apr 17, 2007 Posts: 7

On Apr 14, 4:15 am, BigMovie... RemoveThis @webtv.net (Old Movie Fan) wrote:

> I've just watched the film again tonight and it truly is a favorite
> of mine.

I remember at the 1999 Hitchcock Centennial Conference in New York,
Slavoj Zizek and the panel of critics (or was it theorists?) he was on
were asked for their favourite early-period (i.e. before 'Rebecca')
Hitchcock films. Zizek nominated 'Murder!' and added that he felt it
was grossly underrated.

> I personally like "Murder" more than I do "12 Angry Men" because of
> the way Hitchcock uses all of the available theatrics in telling the
> story.

Me too. Although I do feel Lumet did a fantastic job on '12 Angry
Men' .. in cutting it up into little bits of film, whilst not once
allowing us to be confused about who was where exactly (.. unless he
wanted us to be). He could have taken the easy route, containing the
action in as many long shots as possible but he didn't. I felt
Friedkin messed this up with his '90's remake. (I also didn't buy that
Jack Lemmon was the right age to play Juror No.8.)

> When the landlady comes in to pressure the Markham's for the
> rent (did you notice the sign she puts on the dresser?), they go into a
> routine about how Sir John was going to cast them in a play (which was
> not true). The landlady doesn't buy it, but just then (much to their
> surprise) they get a message from Sir John. The whole sequence as they
> get ready to visit Sir John and what happens as the three go looking for
> answers provides quite a bit of entertainment.

An interesting thing about that scene, for me, is that the girl
playing the piano (who is she exactly? Is she the Markham's daughter?)
plays very badly and amateurishly at the beginning. Its actually awful
to listen to and makes the scene sound ugly .. fitting because the two
are squabbling with their landlady.
There's a knock at the door, its a message for the Markham's from Sir
John and they proceed to read it out in the presence of their
landlady. Her mood and their mood changes for the better and exactly
at that moment, the girl playing the piano now plays quite brilliantly
and flowingly .. giving the scene a more relaxed feel. Hitchcock the
Expressionist strikes again!

> The conclusion comes as Sir John has freed Diana and they begin a new
> life very much involved with one another. As they enter the home, the
> camera pulls back and reveals that what the audience has actually been
> watching is simply a play and apparently all of these people are simply
> characters in a story, which of course is actually true either way.

Sir John has been constantly referring to his new play and his desire
for Diana Baring to star in it. Unless I'm mistaken, that final shot
is supposed to be that play.

Fergal #.

P.S: Actually, is that Sir John we see *in* the play with her -- I
never thought it was (he'd already met her outside the prison, didn't
he?) -- and is that the Markham's playing the servants? (Personally, I
think that quite likely, considering my thoughts on Sir John.)

bigsilentfan · External Since: Jan 13, 2005 Posts: 564

On Apr 17, 4:11?am, sawakatoome <sawakato....RemoveThis@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> P.S: Actually, is that Sir John we see *in* the play with her -- I
> never thought it was (he'd already met her outside the prison, didn't
> he?) -- and is that the Markham's playing the servants? (Personally, I
> think that quite likely, considering my thoughts on Sir John.)

It's impossible to tell for certain that Sir John is in the play.

>Sir John has been constantly referring to his new play and his desire
>for Diana Baring to star in it. Unless I'm mistaken, that final shot
>is supposed to be that play.

Yes, the Malcolm's are clearly seen as servants on the stage, but
I'm unsure of the other man in that final scene. Either way, having
the film suddenly transform to a stage made for a very pleasing
ending.

Referring to the scene in the Boarding House Dinning Room:

>An interesting thing about that scene, for me, is that the girl
>playing the piano (who is she exactly? Is she the Markham's daughter?)
>plays very badly and amateurishly at the beginning. Its actually awful
>to listen to and makes the scene sound ugly .. fitting because the two
>are squabbling with their landlady.

It would seem that she is their daughter, because, as they're
facing evictions she say's to her husband, "Lucy will have to go stay
with her Aunt Sophie, (brief pause), I mean Sophie will have to stay
with her Aunt Lucy," and then the girl protests that she doesn't want
to go to Aunt Lucy's. This made me wonder if the actress hadn't
accidentally flubbed her line, but since the scene was comical in
nature, Hitchcock didn't bother with a re-shoot. The fact that the
girl waited for the line to be read correctly seems to support my
point about this.

>There's a knock at the door, its a message for the Markham's from Sir
>John and they proceed to read it out in the presence of their
>Landlady. Her mood and their mood changes for the better and exactly
>at that moment, the girl playing the piano now plays quite brilliantly
>and flowingly. giving the scene a more relaxed feel. Hitchcock the
>Expressionist strikes again!

Thanks for pointing that out Fergal; I went back to scene 9 on the
'LaserLight' disc and you are dead on. That's what so great about in-
depth studies of Hitchcock's older films, where every detail can be
important.
This has been great discussion, especially with a film that I
really enjoy. See how much we can learn from others in this group
when we get involved with discussions.

Rich Wagner