12 angry men movie to book analyisis.

The Fight For A Life

In the classic story of ?12 Angry Men? originally directed by Sidney Lunnet and then by William Friedkin many characteristics shine through in both films. Both directors chose different actors, camera angles, and lighting, but the essence of the film stays the same. Each film also is greatly influenced by the time period in which they were made. Each time period is reflected in many ways throughout the story of ?12 Angry Men?, the same deep message can be pulled from each version due to the vast similarities and differences in each.

The action in this play is that of a tense and tight because of the seriousness of the case at hand. Sidney Lument uses the tense environment in the play to make the movie seem as realistic as possible. The tension also plagues the members of the jury. The jury comes from many different life styles. The wealthier of the jurors degrade and put down the neighborhood from which a few jurors lived in which causes the tension to only rise. These scenes of conflict raise the intensity of the movie and grab the viewer?s attention, and while the audience is pulled in the many little important details are reviled. Sidney Lument adds more scenes in his portrayal. The bathroom scene, one of the added scenes, is where two jurors discuss the verdict away from the loud conference room, where much of the commotion is going on. William Friedkin uses a little different od of action; he tones those scenes down a little, but makes them more frequent as an attempt to keep viewers attention longer. The action scenes are what create the tense atmosphere where the debates begin and where they end.

The variation of camera angles and of quality angles provides the viewers with something more to devote their attention to. Sidney Lument uses this technique generously throughout the movies because it enhances the effect of what characters are saying. When a camera zooms in on an actor?s face to draw attention away for the other actors and to focus on the speaker you can?t help, but be pulled into what his words are saying. William Friedkin uses this technique but he allows another actor in the camera view that agrees with the speaker, making the speakers words have more meaning. Both directors use this technique to force major ideas and points that he wants to make clear. This effect greatly enhances the overall story because the audience will know the facts and will be able to follow the story.

Lightning is also a very important feature in films because make a viewer look to a certain point on the screen when brighter light is put on a particular spot. Both directors bring attention to speakers and to set moods and tones for the film by using this od. In the corners of the rooms there is shadows and it is very dark because the director does not want the attention of the viewer to be looking at the room so much as the actors and the themes. The lighting is also focused on important objects in the room such as the knife and the diagram so the viewer is allowed to get a clear look at the evidence that is being shown. This also allows the audience to keep up with the story and not lose attention. Lighting is a key feature in movies and both directors use it to their advantage, to keep the story going and to draw attention to important people and objects.

The age of the films plays an important feature in how the different meanings of the play relate with the viewer. In William Friedkin?s movie he uses many different people to narrate the story in which many people can understand. A he uses three black in his films one is an activist, one is an older man, and the third is a middle-aged man who lived in the slums. Not just other actors are constantly picking on but these men, but also by each other, which is kind of ironic. The activist is very racist, contrary to what you would think he would be, against the people who lived in the slums, the other juror who lived in the slums is very angry about how he is being treated and that he is not being a different race but that of his own. The older movie by Sidney Lument has the same argument but it is between two white men but it is less prominent because the whites in the movie are supposed to be more argumentative and more racial than that of a minority race. The time span between these two movies is just about thirty years and between those thirty years a lot has happened, this show the way the world is changing and how our society is changing with it.

During each film the same message can be seen in each both directors make the film there own by their choice in the cast and the way each character is portrayed. These movies are each strong in their own sense and keep true to the original play.