Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
12 Angry Men Is More Relevant than Ever in the Age of Trump
The 12 ordinary (white) men who congregate in Sidney Lumet’s film have been given the God-like power of determining the ultimate fate of teenage street kid—a minority accused of murdering his father. Their leader, initially, is Juror No. 3—a sour, authoritarian bully played by Lee J. Cobb, who is ready, even eager to send the boy to die. Then Henry Fonda enters as bleeding-heart Juror No. 8, who—in what can only be deemed an outrageous fantasy—uses logic and facts to convince a group of skeptical, angry strangers to agree with him.
Cobb’s sharply drawn antagonist at least has a legal obligation to mask the rage and racism behind his desire to execute a poor kid. Drumpf, meanwhile, didn’t even need to be on the jury of the notorious 1989 Central Park 5 case—in which five black teenagers were falsely accused of raping and beating a wealthy white jogger—to determine that the defendants were guilty. Now a president who backs measures like a Muslim immigration ban, Drumpf has broadened the conversation around race in this country to empower the Juror No. 3s of the world. Like Cobb’s villain, Drumpf’s primary motivation often seems to be a sour, unshakable conviction that a non-white person accused of something is almost assuredly guilty—and that we, as white people, owe it to “real Americans” (i.e, other white people) to punish them.
SNIP
The juror appeals to the other white men on the basis of racial resentment, saying that bad behavior “is born in” that nebulous “them.” The more worked up he gets, the more repulsive his words sound—and the more his fellow jurors reject both his argument and his entire worldview. Gradually, they stand and literally turn their backs on No. 10. It’s a touching scene, and more than a little heartbreaking in the context of 2017—where our own Juror No. 10 was rewarded with the highest position in the land.
Cobb’s sharply drawn antagonist at least has a legal obligation to mask the rage and racism behind his desire to execute a poor kid. Drumpf, meanwhile, didn’t even need to be on the jury of the notorious 1989 Central Park 5 case—in which five black teenagers were falsely accused of raping and beating a wealthy white jogger—to determine that the defendants were guilty. Now a president who backs measures like a Muslim immigration ban, Drumpf has broadened the conversation around race in this country to empower the Juror No. 3s of the world. Like Cobb’s villain, Drumpf’s primary motivation often seems to be a sour, unshakable conviction that a non-white person accused of something is almost assuredly guilty—and that we, as white people, owe it to “real Americans” (i.e, other white people) to punish them.
SNIP
The juror appeals to the other white men on the basis of racial resentment, saying that bad behavior “is born in” that nebulous “them.” The more worked up he gets, the more repulsive his words sound—and the more his fellow jurors reject both his argument and his entire worldview. Gradually, they stand and literally turn their backs on No. 10. It’s a touching scene, and more than a little heartbreaking in the context of 2017—where our own Juror No. 10 was rewarded with the highest position in the land.
http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/04/12-angry-men-60th-anniversary-donald-trump?mbid=social_twitter
I've got to watch this movie again. This is really on point!
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
