Spring Break
Viewers can count on Mikhalkov's '12'
by Daniel Baron
Staff Writer
Arts | 3/10/09
Posted online at 10:05 PM EST on 3/9/09
/ Last updated at 5:47 AM EST on 3/9/09
Nikita Mikhalkov's 12 is a gripping adaptation of the classic 12 Angry Men. One difference between the two films lies in the penalty that would be incurred should the defendant be found guilty. In 12, it is life in prison with no possibility of appeal and no parole. In the original, it's the death penalty. Another difference is the inclusion of a major social issue; 12 is about a young Chechen man accused of killing his stepfather, a Russian soldier. 12 Angry Men points out bias near the end; 12 brings it up right from the start.
Both movies involve juries that are one member shy of making their required unanimous decision in a matter of minutes; what they think will be a quick meeting turns into a drawn-out argument. And both movies are a bit ridiculous in that their juries are surprised when they have to cancel plans. In real life, people know they will be busy for jury duty ahead of time and don't expect to be able to do other things. 12 Angry Men is a little guilty of this flaw, and 12 is very guilty of it-there is even one juror who is supposed to be performing on a tour and believes he will be able to do so without interruption until it becomes obvious that he will have to miss a performance.
Fortunately, 12's dialogue redeems the screenplay's faults. The words themselves were flowed together. The need for such words in the first place, however, was dubious at times. For instance, here and there a scene seems redundant. Once in a while, it appears that a scene is only included to give a particular actor his moment to shine. In short, the length of this movie could have been cut without affecting its quality.
The biggest difference between 12 Angry Men and 12 is the remake's intensity. I don't mean the sanitized, choreographed intensity we find in America. I mean raw, horrific, cold Russian intensity. And, while the structure and plot were a bit weak and at times over-the-top, reminding me that I was staring at nothing more than a projected recording of a scripted, improbable series of events, the intensity gave 12 verisimilitude, paired with dialogue that made me forget I was just seeing a movie.
Both movies involve juries that are one member shy of making their required unanimous decision in a matter of minutes; what they think will be a quick meeting turns into a drawn-out argument. And both movies are a bit ridiculous in that their juries are surprised when they have to cancel plans. In real life, people know they will be busy for jury duty ahead of time and don't expect to be able to do other things. 12 Angry Men is a little guilty of this flaw, and 12 is very guilty of it-there is even one juror who is supposed to be performing on a tour and believes he will be able to do so without interruption until it becomes obvious that he will have to miss a performance.
Fortunately, 12's dialogue redeems the screenplay's faults. The words themselves were flowed together. The need for such words in the first place, however, was dubious at times. For instance, here and there a scene seems redundant. Once in a while, it appears that a scene is only included to give a particular actor his moment to shine. In short, the length of this movie could have been cut without affecting its quality.
The biggest difference between 12 Angry Men and 12 is the remake's intensity. I don't mean the sanitized, choreographed intensity we find in America. I mean raw, horrific, cold Russian intensity. And, while the structure and plot were a bit weak and at times over-the-top, reminding me that I was staring at nothing more than a projected recording of a scripted, improbable series of events, the intensity gave 12 verisimilitude, paired with dialogue that made me forget I was just seeing a movie.
Be the first to comment on this story