Adam's Rib (1949)

Intro.

I used to work at a customer service call center, where I answered around 80 phone calls a day.  Sometimes I thought I had heard it all, from the most colorful of obscenities to sweet, happy people who would sing to me.  From time to time my caller would make some old film reference which I would get (much to their delight).  I even got a few film recommendations, like Adam's Rib.  Now a couple thousand calls and a new job later, I came across a copy of the film and remembered the callers who told me to watch it.  As it starred Katharine Hepburn, I couldn't very well say no, and soon found myself a new favorite romantic comedy.

Overview (with a few spoilers - sorry!)
Young housewife Doris Attinger (Judy Holliday) suspects her husband Warren (Tom Ewell) of infidelity.  She tracks him down, catches him with his mistress and nervously pulls a gun on them.  Shaking all over, she fires off several rounds, one of which hits Warren in the shoulder.  Doris is brought up on charges of attempted murder, but manages to get the best defense lawyer on her side - Amanda Bonner (Katharine Hepburn).  The only problem is that Amanda's husband Adam (Spencer Tracy) gets assigned to the prosecution.  The resulting court trial challenges not only the definitions and prejudices of the law, but the marriage of Amanda and Adam.  Amanda argues that Doris was only defending herself and her family, and if a man had done what she did, no one would judge or blame him.  Adam argues that no one, not even Doris, can twist the law to forgive something that was clearly attempted murder.  As the case grows more intense, the drama at home between the Bonners worsens, no thanks to their neighbor Kip (David Wayne) who is in love with Amanda.  While Amanda does win the trial, Adam isn't quite finished as he figures out a way to make her realize that he was right all along in their domestic argument.  What results is a dramatic and hilarious conclusion about the one difference between men and women.

Highlights

Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn have amazing chemistry in all of their films, but this one is especially good.  Few couples I think could have really conveyed the love and respect the Bonners have for each other while still expressing their very stubborn opinions.  I liked how the strain on the marriage comes through gradually and erupts both in the courtroom and in their home.  Both Adam and Amanda have strong arguments and it's great to see them battle it out as they are both so well matched.

I love Judy Holliday.  One of my favorite musicals is Bells Are Ringing but that's mainly because it also stars Dean Martin and really they just make a great couple.  But in Adam's Rib, Judy gives a great performance as the slightly neurotic Doris.  Her interview with Amanda at the beginning is great:
                                    Amanda: "And how did you feel after you shot him?"
                                    Doris: "Hungry."
Doris with all her sweetness becomes the lightning rod for the whole trial.  The jury selection is even geared towards the defense.  Amanda asks each possible juror, "do you believe in equal rights for women?" and surprisingly some of them say of course not.  While hers is a cause for women and aimed to prove that Doris was only defending her home and her life, Amanda fails to realize that Adam's point is exactly that.  If Doris is to be treated equally, then the law should apply to her the same as to a man in that situation.  Their clash in the courtroom carries to the bedroom where Adam tells Amanda that he doesn't like what she's doing.  "Marriage is a law, a contract," he says.  "Are you going to outsmart that the way you've outsmarted all the others?"  Now that's good writing!

I was talking to some of my coworkers about this film and they brought up something called the Bechdel test.  Basically it's a standard test applied to films, books, etc.  The three rules are 1) it has to have at least 2 women in it, 2) they have to talk about 3) something other than men.  It all started with a comic strip, but the idea has really taken off, spawning lots of study and some interesting online debates like the ones here.  It's an interesting concept, especially as the commentors have mentioned that the test itself is like the letter of the law, but the film itself is the spirit - a film that passes the Bechdel test does not mean it is feminist-friendly.  It could even be anti-feminist.  Anyway, at first I got very upset because I think Adam's Rib is a great film for the feminist cause, but it didn't meet the requirements, as Doris and Amanda's conversation is all about Doris trying to kill her husband.  However, Amanda calls a few women to the stand to prove that women are the equals, if not superiors, of men.  We meet a prominent female chemist with more degrees than anyone could remember, a foreman with 383 workers under her (including her husband), and a vaudeville performer.  At least the conversation with the chemist does not involve men.  Katharine Hepburn embodied the feminist cause as early as the thirties; she was even banned because she insisted on wearing pants.  Her performance here is classic.  And just as we can argue over the Bechdel test, Amanda Bonner concludes for us all - "just as man is body and soul, law is letter and spirit."          
 

Review and Recommendation

Okay, this post is getting much too long, so I want to open it up for thoughts and comments.  I highly recommend Adam's Rib to everyone.  It's a great example of the legendary Hepburn-Tracy team as well as a film with such a strong leading lady. 

P.S. Special thanks to my coworkers Catherine and Rachel.  You guys rock!

12 Angry Men (1957)

Intro.

I know I've mentioned those films before that I swear I've seen, but can't remember.  Part of that may be due to a film's huge impact on American film history.  If there is such a thing as a Hollywood canon of films, 12 Angry Men must be on that list.  I was fortunate enough to have it on my DVR and finally got a chance to watch.

I learned on TCM that studios did not want to touch this film.  Henry Fonda had purchased the rights from the television version, and together with the screenwriter, Reginald Rose, the two personally financed the picture.  It was one of Henry Fonda's top three favorite films of his career (the others being The Grapes of Wrath and The Ox-Bow Incident), and it's easy to see why.  

Overview 

The film opens with the end of a trial - the judge is excusing the jury to go and deliberate the fate of 18-year old Puerto Rican boy who has been charged with first degree murder.  If found guilty, the death penalty is mandatory.  The twelve jurors file into the Jury Room and begin their deliberation.  They take an initial vote and get the result of 11 guilty, 1 not guilty.  What most of them thought would be a simple, open-and-shut case becomes a long afternoon debate on the hottest day of the year.  The lone holdout is Juror 8 (Henry Fonda).  He begins asking simple questions about the trial and asks for one hour to consider the case in exchange for a man's life.  Each point of the case comes up for debate.  We start to see that the case isn't just about a boy's guilt, but about the process of democracy and at what point you can sentence a man to die.  When the final verdict is reached, each man leaves the courthouse changed, yet each one remains nameless except for Jurors 8 and 9, who shake hands.

Highlights

The film feels a lot like one of those Hitchcock films that is completely contained in one space - in this case, a jury room.  The sweltering heat of the summer afternoon/evening with no air conditioning adds to the heated arguments between the jurors.  Even though it's only one room, the camera work and the fine acting keeps the film fresh and interesting.  There's a definite line of action - first in introducing each point of the court case and second in the number of men on each side (guilty or not guilty).  There are 5 votes in total during the film, and no two are held or filmed the same way.  In one, we only see the hands of the voters, in another we only see faces.  I feel like I could watch this film over and over and still notice something different.  It's a lot of subtle details, but details are what make a story pop.

On the surface, the film seems straightforward, maybe even simple in plot.  But the subtle undercurrent of deeper problems makes it compelling.  All of the acting is superb - these are the finest actors of the day.  Henry Fonda made a point of picking actors he admired the most to act in this film.  It is full of great talent and a complex web of stories, all of which add to the film's intensity.

I also really enjoyed how well-developed and dynamic the characters were.  Even though they remained nameless, each juror had his own personality.  It was fascinating to see what they talked about in the breaks between discussing the case and which juror talked to which.  It was also interesting to see who changed his vote and what it took.  Juror 10 couldn't get past his bigotry, Juror 3's problems with his own son influence his vote, Juror 5 had a similar background as the defendant, and Juror 9 used his age and experience to help sway several members.  The level of detail put into each character made this film not just a great courtroom drama, but one of the best character studies in film. 

Review and Recommendation

There is a lot to be said in favor of 12 Angry Men, but instead of writing a much longer post, I will simply say that this is an absolute must-see.  Not only is it a quintessential drama, but it is an important study in human nature.  It addresses some of the deepest questions in our society - questions on race, background, the justice system and who or what can determine absolute guilt.

P.S. Thanks to Catherine for getting on my case to watch this film.  Catherine, you were right!  Definitely a great movie!