Books2Movies Club discussion

Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose is a play that started its life first as a teleplay, but was then expanded for stage and afterwards for feature film too. It is a brilliant character study and courtroom drama, that rightfully captivated its audiences both on stage and on TV screens.

I wonder if any of you saw somewhere the stage adaptation of the play? If so, can you share with us your experience?

There are many adaptations of the play. There are even French, German and Finnish version of it. The most famous is of course 12 Angry Men (1957) by Sidney Lumet, starring Henry Fonda and Lee J. Cobb among jurors, that was nominated for best picture, director and screenplay. (Lost all to The Bridge on the River Kwai.) The other adaptation that you might find, and that I think is also good, is 12 Angry Men (1997), a TV movie in which starred Jack Lemmon, Ossie Davis, George C. Scott, Hume Cronyn, Armin Mueller-Stahl, James Gandolfini, Tony Danza etc. So many good actors in such a play cannot be a miss!

It would be great if you can read the play first, if only to imagine your own stage version of it, and then watch the movies. I hope you'll like it. Freely share your thoughts and impressions with us!

Zeljka wrote: "Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose is a play that started its life first as a teleplay, but was then expanded for stage and afterwards for feature film too. It is a brill..."

There is another movie that came out based on "12 Angry Men". It's a Russian movie from 2007 called "12" about jurors who must decide the fate of a Chechen teen who is charged with killing his stepfather. The director is Nikita Mikhalkov, also the director of "Burnt By the Sun"

I really just noticed this and will read/see before the end of the month. I think I'll watch both 1957 and 1997 versions to see what may have changed but I'll listen to the audio first. This looks very interesting and I'll let you know what I think soon.

I finished the book and both movies....it was a lazy day; I truly enjoyed all of them but I don't recommend doing this in one day. The only significant differences in the movies were that each incorporated the times with which they were done so the overall thoughts of the men were a bit altered, the men in 1957 were all white though there were italians and a german while in the 1997 the men were black, white, russian and italian. The whole psychiatric issue was not brought up in the 1957 movie but was well done in the 1997 movie.

I prefer the 1957 movie though I have grown up seeing many of the stars in the '97 version and truthfully I can't tell you why; maybe the more classic feel of the older where as the newer is too real. All the actors (in both versions) did a wonderful job though admittedly '97 may have had some better acting. One little note, the audiobook was 1 hr 50 min, 1957 was 1 hr 34 min and 1997 was 1 hr 57 min.

All in all I'm pleased with this selection and that I was able to participate even if in a small way. If anyone (including you Z) gets the chance to read and or watch I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Powder River Rose wrote: "I finished the book and both movies....it was a lazy day; I truly enjoyed all of them but I don't recommend doing this in one day. The only significant differences in the movies were that each inco..."

Thank you for your excellent and very insightful review, River Rose!

I read the play two days ago, and was quite impressed by it. It works well as a mystery play (was the boy innocent and why), and as a psychological treatment of all the characters. Each juror was so different and gave different account of their thoughts. Interesting it came up to me while reading that the 8th juror (and probably the others followed his cue) actually played a part the defense lawyer should have during the trial but didn't. All the testimonies presented during the trial had faults a good defense lawyer would have picked at once. All the more it's terrifying to have the jurors make their decisions based on testimonies that weren't well scrutinized!

On the other hand, the case was not so important itself as the presentation of how jury duty works and what it implies. All these men were I suppose respectable citizens without any blemish on their record. However, they weren't without their own flaws - one was hot tempered, the other so prejudiced and racist impossible to talk with, the other were indifferent to the whole matter, etc.

Overall, brilliant play! River Rose, I have both movies available to watch, but I'll listen to you and watch them a few days apart, just to give my thoughts some time. I am curious to see the performances of the actors in both versions. That 1997 version should be livelier considering the more modern (and realistic?) take on profiles of jurors. Or it was sadly the way it was back then in 1950s that the jurors were mostly (or completely) white men even in NY.

Margaret wrote: "There is another movie that came out based on "12 Angry Men". It's a Russian movie from 2007 called "12" about jurors who must decide the fate of a Chechen teen who is charged with killing his stepfather. The director is Nikita Mikhalkov..."

Thanks for sharing! I think I even noticed there is a French version of the play. That's the beauty of it - the words are so powerful and meaningful, they translate so well on every stage.

I didn't realize there were so many adaptations of this great play. I love the 1957 movie, and read the play not long ago. It's definitely a favorite.