Mikhalkov's film is a remake of Sidney Lumet's film, but from the original there is only structure. 12 men decide the fate of a boy who is on trial for murder. At first, they are almost sure of his guilt, and then there are doubts that end (pardon, spoiler) with an excuse. That's where the similarities end, because where Lumet and the Americans have the procedure, we have the benefits of respected actors. Here Sergey Gazarov actually dances with a knife, but Yuri Stoyanov makes a parody of the already forgotten producer Lesnevsky. And this Mikhail Efremov argues how our viewers want to laugh and do not want to think. Gaft tells the story of his father. Well, and Nikita Mikhalkov with his desire not to be above the fight, but to be above all and greater than all. And in between, shots about the war in Chechnya are more chewing on time than giving something to the movie. But this is the task of Mikhalkov’s film, not to defeat segregation with logic, as it was with the Americans, but to explain with emotions and knocking out pity with his knee that the unfortunate Chechen people should be sheltered and warmed up. This is a pretty clear statement for 2007. Not for 2024 anymore.
The jury trial, where the jury decides: is the defendant guilty?, considers a complex case. The accused - a young man from Chechnya is suspected of murdering his stepfather - an officer of the Russian army.
12 begins when 12 jurors decide whether the defendant is guilty. The testimony of witnesses has already been heard and the evidence has been reviewed. The fate of the young man depends on their decision: to acquit the young man, or to admit that he is guilty, and then his future life will be in prison.
The jury in the school's gym decides. Jurors: physicist (S. Makovetsky), taxi driver (S. Garmash), surgeon with Armenian roots (S. Gazarov), Jew (V. Gaft), pensioner (A. Petrenko), cemetery director (A. Gorbunov), channel general director (Y. Stoyanov), artist (M. Efremov), dean (R. Madianov), engineer (V. Verzhbitsky), human rights activist (S. Artsibashev). The head of the jury is a veteran of hostilities (N. Mikhalkov).
The jury was at first almost unanimous in its decision of guilt. One person had a different opinion. At this point, this person tells the story of his life - why he makes the decision. When he went down after a black streak in his life, one person treated him more carefully than others. And then his life changed. And it seemed that the case could be solved faster and dispersed. But the fate of a person, his life is decided, so we need to delve into many details, think through many versions. When many of the characters begin to look at this situation through the experience of their lives, they think more deeply. When the opinion of these people will be based on the experience of their lives. In the film and soulful monologues about the memories of life, experiments, polemics. People in an enclosed space. The night comes, followed by dawn. A lot of people have something to say. This film about the realities of Russian life raises many problems. The film teaches that any work should be taken seriously, try to weigh, think about a lot. A lot can depend on decisions.
And interesting is the figure of the head of jurors. His logic, his position. He does not pressure anyone with his opinion, but experience and wisdom allowed him to intuitively feel the truth from the very beginning.
10 out of 10
If we compare with the tapes of 1954 and 1997, the picture of Mikhalkov is very much inferior.
When I first watched '12 Angry Men' (1997), I was very surprised that such a monotonous, uneventful film could drag me from the first to the last minute. I was so interested that I got into the words of every character in the film and was afraid to miss any detail. After watching, there were pleasant impressions.
After a while, I wanted to see the original 1956 movie. To be honest, I expected that the old film will cause me boredom, but in the end the film was no worse than the picture of 1997, and something even better.
And now the turn came to the picture of Nikita Mikhalkov '12' I watched a couple of trailers and was optimistic about seeing them. But the film to me ' did not go ' from the very first minute. I don’t know why many people praise actors so much, but I didn’t like them at all (except for Garmash and Gaft), I didn’t want to believe them, and I just watched them through the force. First of all, I was disappointed in Stoyanov - only comedy films suit him. Everyone else also behaved unnaturally and seemed to read on a piece of paper, and almost all for some reason stuttered a lot, maybe it was intended, but watching and listening was unpleasant.
Separately, it is worth highlighting the inappropriate and life-threatening scene with a knife. Why was this circus performance unclear.
It was also funny to hear Stoyanov’s hero screaming in the toilet, depicting a gag reflex.
To sum up, the film did not live up to my expectations. All these dialogues, stories, arguments, they do not delay at all, at this time you only look at the clock and think about when this, as one of the jurors of this picture put it, pure galimaty will end.
Everyone likes to present Western films, but they do not want to appreciate our quality Russian cinema. Oh, yeah, guys, it's quality. With a whole galaxy of great actors, with thoughtful dialogue, with tragedy and absolute dedication of the film to the topic. But, alas, the fashion for American cinema covers all kinds of creativity of Russian performers and directors. Honestly, I watched the movie Sidney Lumet ' 12 Angry Men '. Yes, the film is a masterpiece, but it is a completely different, different presentation of material. Cartoon of Lumet here is only background and nothing more.
Today, having watched the film again, I just admired the performance of our Russian actors, most of them Soviet masters. Makovetsky's play, his dialogue, I was in tears. Maybe I'm a little sentimental, but I like that sentiment, I feel like I'm not lost yet. A Harmash about his child - it's impeccable acting, just amazing acting talent, which overlapped with a great script. Mikhail Efremov, still in good condition, was magnificent and was not in prison. What to say about Gafta and Stoyanove? Alexei Gorbunov, as always interesting and colorful and it is a pity that the political system has become the head of talent and its oblivion. Here you can talk about everyone, everyone participating in this tape is a gift and it is a surprise for the viewer. The problem of the murder and the Chechen boy, unlike Lumet, is only an excuse and not a key point - it is opening your heart to compassion, attention to the fate of a stranger and a spiritual message to every viewer who watches this film. I'm sorry, but the masterpiece Lumet here is just not in the topic - another task of the film is not a procedure.
Nikita Mikhalkov, as always at the height, I watch all his films with great pleasure. I see no need to compare his views on the political system with his professionalism and creativity. Just someone likes to tears to be in the trend and watch Lumet, not realizing that the film is about something else.
You can treat Nikita Mikhalkov differently. It is possible not to share his civic positions, not to understand the motives of his actions. But that Mikhalkov-director is an outstanding phenomenon in world cinema, the fact is indisputable.
Having gained a foothold in the elite of Soviet cinema in the 70s, in the twentieth century he made many beautiful films. But I'm particularly moved by his later painting "12."
The remake of the American movie “12 Angry Men”, shot 50 years later, takes technology. The location is static. Only the play of actors and the music of Eduard Artemyev create a magical harmony that does not let go for 2.5 hours.
The movie is very popular because it turned out to be very Russian. Everything happens in our own way.
12 jurors from different generations and areas of life. It is hard to imagine any other situation in which so many different men were at the same table. But they are destined to decide the fate of a Chechen boy who is accused of murdering his stepfather, a Russian officer.
Against the background of disputes and disagreements, the fates of the characters appear. From different characters emerges the image of Russia. And just as clearly become visible our eternal troubles and vices. Corruption and nationalism, theft and drug addiction, poverty and child violence. And all of them are the result of the main defect - indifference to the neighbor.
Very subtle detail... Getting up the first to fight Russian indifference, the Chechen guy gives hope to the icon of the Mother of God.
Each of us sooner or later would do well to visit the “company of twelve” to stop at least an hour of daily running, looking at ourselves and how often we are mistaken in our beliefs.
Maybe 11 companions won't make it. They will see, judge, spit and go their own way. But even one is the one who is capable of compassion and helping others. Even he is already so much.
Sometimes mercy is above the law. Compassion transcends daily settings. And if each of us cares, someone will reach out to us when we need it most.
The movie is beautiful. I don’t like Russian cinema, but it’s a masterpiece. The only thing that didn’t excite me was the taxi driver’s monologue. I found these words to be frankly false.
“12” by Mikhalkov – another, 2007, adaptation of the TV show “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose (1954). It was filmed by Sidney Lumet in 1957, Friedkin in 1997, and others made a hand. Mikhalkov adapted the play to the realities of his country, and this is what happened.
An officer of the Russian army was killed, his stepson, an 18-year-old Chechen boy, was charged. The jury, after the trial, gathered in the sports hall of the school to pronounce a verdict. The jury is portrayed by well-known Russian artists, they are given a reason and opportunity to show talent, which they do. Makovetsky, Garmash, Gaft, Efremov, Gorbunov and others - it is pleasant to watch their play, no matter what film shows shortcomings.
Of the shortcomings, for example, sentimentality in music, excessive sentimentality, pathosity and emotionality in dialogues are striking. (For example, Efremov, who plays an entertainer, throws a basketball, he does not have time to catch, falls, laughs at him.) Then he goes into a pathetic monologue about how everyone around shamelessly cries about serious things, and dear to him, therefore, only a smile that he once caused his grandmother. You shrug. It is beautiful, but unnatural. Sentimentality-pathosity is closely associated with the desire to moralize and embrace the immense acute social, because of which even the rolling version lasts 2.5 hours, and the director’s – all 3.5. Accents are placed with heavy strokes; monologues and dialogues, talentedly played, moralizing nails are clogged.
You remember 12 Angry Men (1957), which contrasts with 12. Lumet skillfully shows how irrational factors influence the rational reasoning of the jury: profession, life history and other features of the jury, as well as the temperature in the room and even the desire not to be late for a sports match! Influence this is mainly served unobtrusively, natural, sometimes elegantly, an easy play of semitones. Even when the jurors in Lumet say something instructive - about the benefits of democracy or the harm of prejudice - they do it succinctly and it looks natural.
12, ending, raises the question of the limit of active assistance to the neighbor. Mikhalkov seems to argue with Lumet (as well as with Rose, of course): is it enough for the jury to perform their duty or does it sometimes need to help the defendant after the verdict is pronounced?
Lumet's answer: enough! Lumet is proud of what the jury did; the film can even be considered a propaganda of American democracy, because thanks to democracy, it is possible to rationally pursue justice in a court case (this idea is expressed directly). And Mikhalkov devalues the jury’s activity, such a seemingly bright one – which only had to be overcome by stagnation and mental laziness, for a long time grinding with his brain, forming judgment rationally, and not on the basis of prejudices. "A lot more is needed (at least in our country)," Nikita Sergeyevich says, "you didn't even start helping the kid." And completes the picture so that you expect a sequel - some action movie or detective - with Mikhalkov in the title role.
Mikhalkov presupposes the film a philosophical epigraph, many inserts in the film references to what is beyond the law. For example, above the law is mercy, which is quoted after the end of the film. Characters speak heartfeltly about how someone treated them (or others) with mercy, then change their sentence. (This principle seems to come from Buddhism: one can show compassion to the extent that one has experienced compassion from others.) )
And as if that wasn't enough, Nikita Sergeevich adds heat, fanning the fire of acute sociality, and the fire of acute sociality engulfs the entire film. The mess in the country, the war in Chechnya, the people laughing at the occasion and without reason, the wreckingly built sports hall of the school, in which the jury sits, and, finally, the sinister scams of a sinister construction company (inserting the film into the Western film tradition of “the corporation as the main villain of the plot”)! All of this, of course, is instructive and morally high, only ... is this the story? The result is slackness and stretching.
However, there is an opinion that style should reflect the content. If the thought “this is an important issue, so we will not spare time on it” is placed in the center of the content, then, it means that in style one should strive not for conciseness, but for the most detailed – and long-lasting – analysis of the issue, as long as it is necessary.
Only to what extent is it necessary? Where is the line between good taste and sentimental excess? In my opinion, Mikhalkov in “12” is still excessive.
(By the way.) Mikhalkov has a lot of sociality in 12, and yet all the jurors in the film are men, as in Rose’s 1954 play. An oversight, though. Feminism nowadays is noticeable in the countries of the former Soviet Union, and the words “angry men ” were removed from the title. Fridkin, for example, took care of the acute social case - in 1997 in his film adaptation he shot three black actors as jurors.
Sentence
Yet the shortcomings are not enough, and the plan may be intricately tailored, but human. Therefore, the verdict of the film is innocent.
"12" and "10 Negroes"
"12" reminded me of Agatha Christie's "10 Negroes." Also, a group of people is going to the unity of place and time; these people are also connected by a judicial issue; they also drop out one by one (in "10 Negroes" - from the sentence "guilty", in "12" they change the verdict to "not guilty"); also "on the other side" of these people there is someone extremely important for them (in "10 Negroes" - A. N. Owen judging them (even if he is himself a member of the group, he is still in some sense outside of it), in "12" the guy they are convicted); in one film, the characters remember those who are or someone who are innocent, who are not guilty in another, who are innocent, who are remembered in the conceptually innocent, "12" - the main characters are not guilty, who are innocent, who are not guilty in another. It seems that the stories in “12” and “10 Negroes” are the positive and negative of one plot structure.
I have recently believed that in life everything is possible, even what is impossible.
The work of Nikita Mikhalkov can be treated differently, or love, or hate, especially if it concerns his cognition works. Mikhalkov himself is also not baldly sewing, and causes contradictory feelings to himself. But one thing is to give him credit, he is a great actor, knows how to sing beautifully and make a strong movie. For 'His own among strangers, a stranger among his own', he is worthy of popular love, at least.
So, 2007 is an extremely difficult time for modern cinema, if we have earned respect in the festival field, then everything is not so simple in the world of films for the mass audience. Nikita Mikhalkov releases the drama '12' where he also acts as a screenwriter and plays a major role. The film itself is a remake of the classic American film '12 Angry Men' what happened in the end?
To begin with, Mikhalkov rejected the idea of a complete transfer of the original plot, he took only the main idea, adapted it for the Russian audience, supplemented it with modern realities, developed individual characters. Ie, to speak briefly and clearly, Nikita Sergeyevich simply improved the already excellent film, in my humble opinion.
Alas, in the original, every hero is faceless. I do not deny that the film is old, that it was customary to play, but I personally did not remember a single character from there. They all came together for me, I don’t know why. But I repeat, the film is old – beautiful, it needs to be seen. In our film, literally every character is imprinted in memory. Each had his own character, his own personality, his own manner of speech. The devil is in the details, they say? So here the details served not only the manner of speech and movement of the characters, but also the appearance, just immediately leaving them, you can assume who is who.
Quote: If you want to fly, fly, the way is free. If you want to stay, stay. Just decide it yourself. No one will do that for you.
And so I come to what Mikhalkov did just fine, he put together a real pantheon of wonderful actors. This casting is not just good, it is perfect. It is even difficult to pick up which of them played better - they are all wonderful in their own way, literally everyone played a role, showed himself in the plot and left a trail. There are no words, bravo!
Dialogues and monologues were changed, expanded, and pumped in comparison with the original. There are more memorable phrases that you can grab on quotes. In the story weave the events in Chechnya, those terrible events that still respond in the minds of Russians. There are no good or bad things in this film, and the accused is good or bad. It's easy to judge, much harder to live with.
And if the original is about an hour and a half, Mikhalkov's tape lasts two and a half hours. How can you attract a viewer to such a timekeeping, when the matter practically does not go beyond one audience? And here you can pay tribute to the camera work, the camera does not hang in one place, it wanders among the heroes, soars to the ceiling and in general, the narrative thanks to the operator looks dynamic.
Music from maestro Eduard Artemyev plays into the hands of the film, some compositions even noted for myself, and I am happy to return to them.
Bottom Line: Twelve is a superb drama and intriguing detective story that is built entirely on dialogue and acting. A film that can safely be called a worthy remake, not belittling the dignity of the original. A film that can serve as an example of how to shoot a chamber film in Russia. It is a pity that Mikhalkov left this. . .
It feels like it. Mikhalkov and Konchalovsky listened a lot, some ideas are clear.
Often I hear that worse than the original, they say, added our social problems and all. I disagree.
I’m not going to compare this with a different kind of love for the original.
For me, this is a battle of monologues, for a long time, I have not seen such a concentration of good monologues, actors have not had such a field for demonstrating their acting abilities. Sergey Garmash convinced me that I did not like him before. Sergey Gazarov, liked most of all, charming - many times from smile to laughter.
It seems a little vulgar to bring out problems, somehow in the forehead, exaggerated, without opportunities to think, to doubt. They chewed it, put it in their mouth. Then this make-up, wigs, as if unprofessional, as if the students dressed up in different uncles. Maybe on purpose, because at first I was annoyed, and then I got used to it, so it is necessary that there is an aftertaste of dirt, greasiness, absurdity of what is happening.
I touched one thought, about laughter, listened to Brodsky, saying that our people laugh, grind their teeth - at a time where compassion to show and help or at the power laughs at the same time the stall removes. And it's about laughing, because we're really scared.
And now, after all, you feel love for the Russian person, look at yourself from the outside, feel your potential. In the meantime, life is boring by law.
The famous feature film by Nikita Mikhalkov is a remake of the American legal drama 12 Angry Men, based on the play of the same name by Reginald Rose. In the center of the plot is a discussion by twelve jurors of a criminal case about the murder of a Chechen boy of his adopted father. At first glance, the motives of the case and the cause-and-effect relationship lie on the surface. The matter seems simple and understandable, the decision is made without difficulty, but among them is one who does not agree with the decision and wants to talk.
Unlike the original play and film of 1957, Nikita Mikhalkov’s film raises many personal themes that are familiar to everyone. The director created not just a film about the reasoning of freedom and justice, but tried to speculate about the problems of society that concern everyone. Schools, institutes, hospitals, theaters, and even cemeteries all become the main topic of discussion. The slogan of the film is “For everyone and about everyone...”, which exactly emphasizes the main message of the film, the drama of which is emphasized by the musical accompaniment.
Everything here is Russian, not Harvard.
Despite the fact that the director speaks on topics that may be close to the Russian person in meaning and mentality, I am sure that there are many examples in the world that will be close to everyone on Earth who has faced this. Whether it's wars, interracial stereotyping, or social issues.
The most important detail in this film, which is worth noting, is the amazing cast. The film is played by twelve first-class Russian actors, whose play is breathtaking. From the first minutes, we (the audience) can see special features, manner of speech and habits of the characters, with which the actors do not part with the campaign of the entire narrative in the film. The director managed to achieve this effect with the help of total concentration of artists over the role, he forbade them to participate in other projects so as not to have to switch. And also on the set there were several cameras that recorded at the same time, the actor needed constant attention, because he did not know who was in the frame. Thanks to such a non-standard manner of shooting, the characters turned out to be alive and very colorful.
Nikita Mikhalkov’s acutely social drama was awarded many prestigious film awards and awards, including an Oscar nomination by the American Film Academy in the Best Foreign Language Film category. It is a pleasant fact that the big picture of the complexity of being did not pass unnoticed.
Well. The difference between the remake of Mikhalkov and the original is very indicative and is a good personification of the difference between the old cinema and the new.
Let’s start with the fact that the original was an hour and a half, and the remake was two and a half. As you know, there is no question of any conciseness in Mikhalkov. In general, the remake is weakly similar to the original, only a synopsis. Mikhalkov's remake is not even a single film, it is more like a set of monologues. There are good monologues: Harmash, Gorbunov. There is one monologue magnificent from Efremov, which I saw long before watching the film, which hooked me with expression and truthfulness and told about the same thing that told the famous copypaste from anonymous forums ' You do not understand what the essence of /b/', only in other words. But it's still a set of monologues.
The film has colorful inserts with constant footage of the war, the defendant's backstory - everything that was not in the original. And Mikhalkov’s jurors are not faceless ordinary people, they all for some reason tell their stories about their lives, all these tirades about themselves, this was also not in the original. The narrative is stretched both before the trial and after, the consequences of making specific decisions are considered, this was also not in the original.
The original is legal and psychological. The remake is social and political. And these two comparisons will explain better than my other words. The acting was upset. Everyone is crooked, engaged in some kind of dope, a constant grotesque and meaningless insertions. Yes, the above actors play well, but they sometimes arrange a clown. Sometimes the movie was hard to watch, because there was simply no point in what was happening.
Plus I can put for ' adaptation' script: if the original defendant was a guy from the slums, then here is a Chechen boy. However, the characters are badly adapted, because, as I said above, the film is not about psychology and types, it is about sociality and politics. And Mikhalkov, whose ego is perturbed both from the poster and from his image of Jesus in the film, who is wise, fair and knows for everyone and even the viewer how to properly. It is better not to take this film as a remake, but as a separate movie, not related to anything. This will make it easier to watch.
“The 12 jurors must unanimously deliver a verdict to a Chechen young man accused of murdering his stepfather: guilty or not guilty,” the plot of Mikhalkov’s film 12.
From the film Lumet Mikhalkov left only the canvas, elements of the plot, but no more. The very essence of the film, its content is Slavic-mental. This is a parable film, a film-reflection, a film-metaphor of all our today’s lives, shot with the finest Mikhalkovo overtones, reflection, philosophy. The film, in general, is not even about the problem, not about the situation with the Chechen youth. This movie is about all of us. About the stiffness of indifference, irresponsibility, callousness towards the far and the near, which has corroded all of us, or at least many of us. The 12 jurors have no names, only numbers. They are representatives of different professions. There is a taxi driver, a cemetery owner, a TV channel producer, an electronic engineer, an employee of a Russian-Japanese corporation, and a metro worker. Many different people of different nationalities. The surgeon is Georgian, for example. There is also a Jew who was brilliantly played by Valentin Gaft. And all the time, these people, sorting out the situation with the Chechen boy, come out to talk about themselves, about their own problems, about the situation that worries them. It turns out that everyone in this life is hooked by something: some injustice, some difficult problem. And all this seems to spill spontaneously onto the screens of the film. There is a feeling that the film was shot with one take, one camera. All this is so vivid, hot, and immediately resonates in the hearts of the audience.
And we are talking about very fateful, some important things, for example, the law. What is the law in Russia? Why isn't it being implemented? It is difficult to live by the written rules, so everything is so complicated everywhere: in the cemetery, on television, and on the stage - anywhere! It is impossible not to empathize with all these flows of emotions, passions, because at some point you realize that all this applies to you. And now you're in the opinion of this man-surgeon, the taxi driver, the electronic engineer. And the hero of Yuri Stoyanov generally changes his opinion 4 times in a row literally and forgets from what opinion he changes this judgment. There's even that comic effect. By the way, not only in the film such heavy, philosophical reflections, frames that make you empathize, but also some fun, a lot of humorous moments. In general, there are a lot of transitions from the tragic to the comic, from the complex to the simple, funny, and from this the film becomes even more polyphonic, symphonic, I would say stereoscopic. And you realize that each of these people is right in his own way: this one, this one, and everyone is right! And the man, this very young man, he alone is without rights, unhappy. How do you protect him? And the film eventually finds some common denominator, comes to some common decision. I’m not going to talk about it, of course, because everyone should see it, this movie. And everyone for themselves to answer all the questions that this tape raises (these are the questions that our life raises).
And most importantly, friends, give yourself to this film with all your heart, with all your soul, do not be afraid of emotions, tears, these sublime passions that this film will awaken in you. I am sure that you will have great pleasure and will make a great leap in your development, rise to a new level of spiritual purification, spiritual perfection.
This film is for everyone and everyone – everything is chewed and chewed. And humor - vulgar, or even below the belt. In the picture there is no intrigue, no interesting plot, no unique shooting. Just musical effects, detailed stories, flashbacks and something of a hoax.
Almost all the emotions that arise when watching a movie are based on these very visual effects (a killed puppy, a flying bird, etc.). The rest is due to stories that are very cheap, but as much as possible in Russian spiritual.
All those who think that the Russian man in Western films is always stereotypical and disgusting - is it better here? Subjectively, for me, this is the film after which you see a Russian man as a man at the bottom. Rotten and lost. And Russia is like a bottom, absolute and terrible.
The original film, 12 Angry Men, had a negative stereotype of the time as the defendant - a guy from a slum. Social problem. Sharp, clear, bright, simple. No more details. So what's going on in our movie? The same negative stereotype is the Chechen guy. But Mikhalkov could not use a simple story, because he would not take the film without the maximum cranberry taste. A Chechen man is accused of murdering his adopted father, an officer from Chechnya (!).
The film-original shows the mentioned characters of the case in question as interesting characters, giving the ground for deep reasoning about the problems of society. In our film, is the problem of a jealous woman really so important? Moreover, the film receives an updated ending. Prolonged, epic, bringing emotions to the maximum.
And yes, the movie is too long, twice as long as the original. As it seems to me, two important points in this regard: the obviously stupid viewer, who must necessarily clarify everything and at the end show a very intelligent character Mikhalkov - this is one, and two - the inability to write a sparkling, multifaceted and deep script.
It's just the acting. And not everyone.
As well as the availability of the film and the challenge of emotions, albeit with such vulgar techniques.
For this, everything.
4 out of 10
Having high hopes for 12, I was very disappointed.
The boring narrative, the absence of any drive (which, for a moment, was in the original film of 1956!), a lot of superfluous details, turn an interesting concept into a swampy mess, stretched for more than two and a half hours.
The quality of the shooting is simply creepy - the trembling of the frame, the cropped figures of the characters, it is simply unpleasant to watch. Hope for high-quality acting, also, was not confirmed - the characters are crooked, minted, taunted and aimlessly yelling. The talent of famous actors is wasted.
Regarding the film’s content... The people in the face of 12 cartoon characters are represented by small, mean, habalistic, weak and painfully stupid. Morality about the opposition of the Russian soul and the dryness of the law, reeks of pure, unjustified demagoguery. Mikhalkov’s traditional disrespect for history also takes place in the picture.
Mikhalkov’s work is a pitiful, boring parody of the famous classics, with aimlessly woven vilification of the people and a strange quality of shooting.
A unique Russian film, or the story of the pro- and nbsp; that the Russian officer is a former non-...
I liked the film and made a very positive impression.
1) In the picture there is a brilliant acting. Characters are bright and memorable.
2) An interesting sharp plot, keeping the audience in suspense and not giving the opportunity to get bored.
(3) Important topics were raised. The theme of human indifference and nationalism. The topics are raised boldly and honestly. Full disclosure.
(4) The project promotes friendship and internationalism, which Ruslan Aushev spoke about.
(5) Director. It does not follow the path of nationalism, cheap populism and primitive conjuncture. This behavior is worthy of respect. This can be done by a person with a strong spiritual and moral core.
For a long time in Russian cinema, Caucasians, including Chechens, acted as enemies. I think they were demonized intentionally. Remember openly anti-Caucasian, and generally anti-human tapes, "Brother", "War" and the like. Those who play on the lowest feelings of a person without a rod and incite ethnic and religious discord. And most importantly, they do not offer a single reasonable and positive solution to the issue of relations between different peoples. But provoke in unrealized people with low intelligence hatred and aggression.
The film 12 is useful because it demonstrates to the audience that friendship and normal human relations between Russians and Chechens are possible. Not all Chechens are terrorists and bandits, but there are decent people and good friends among them.
And the main thing is that in order for Russians to be better and stronger, they need to work on themselves first, and not lower and humiliate others. The same applies to other representatives of different nations. You do not need to form a hatred of someone on a national basis, you need to first specifically understand what does not suit you and whether you are really right.
That’s the point of the movie “12”. At least for me personally.
Conclusion. A unique Russian film, or a story about the fact that a Russian officer is not a former officer!
Of course, this film story will not appeal to nationalists. After all, it shows the friendship between Russians and Caucasians and clearly explains that the strength of Russian people lies not in hatred of others, but in a demanding attitude towards oneself. And the ability to be friends and not be indifferent.
And who would appreciate the “12”? Who's going to like "12"?
That's right. Those who are for friendship, internationalism and humanism! To create and build, not to destroy and destroy.
These are the people who are for good! And I am one of them.
At first, I was surprised that an hour and a half of the original film (not taking into account the play), stretched for two and a half. And just Mikhalkov included a lot of additional scenes, monologues for life, dancing in the camera, flights of a sparrow and hochm over the size of the bust of the schoolgirl. Why? They do not affect the plot and atmosphere!
The characters now and then tease each other, so that after a few scenes with them to look at this circus becomes unpleasant easy. Everyone is trying to portray some drama, mercilessly replaying.
And if in the original film of 56 the change of opinion of almost each of the jurors was difficult, almost felt the course of their thoughts, then Mikhalkov everything happens because the script is time to change the distribution of votes. Often there was no evidence of innocence. And when they even were, the change of opinion occurred after the heartfelt story of one of the characters.
And this sudden real estate scheme? If she was already known in court, then the jury should have doubted. And so with most of the evidence of guilt.
Everything is so strained, unnatural, they did not decide the fate of a person, but poured out their soul, but fooled.
I am already silent about the last scene and the monologue of Mikhalkov himself, who said that the state can not do anything, you need to take everything into your own hands?
3 out of 10
This remake is the essence of Russia. We will do as they do in the West, but we will throw kilotons of pathos. "12" reminds me of all those squalid, pathetic discoveries of new trash cans, lanterns, speakers, bus stops. Not just take and make it work, and drive the local administration, put on ribbons, solemnly cut them, and in the center to dig a sign “installed by the Deputy so-and-so”. It was good for them and they enjoyed it.
The film is obscenely puffing and pushing, wedging our Russian spirit into American history. The idea was simple: take the main plot and some details from 12 Angry Men and fill it with 10-minute monologues and hypertrophied acting. In the frame gathered not ordinary people, but solid Actor Actors.
Here's the first long monologue. The hero tells how he descended to the bottom, drank, lay under fences, he was beaten, in general, garbage life. And who's telling this? Makovetsky! Makovetsky, man! The man with the most intelligent face in Russian cinema. I'm supposed to believe he was lying under the fence? I can't even imagine that. Is Makovetsky dirty and smelly on the trains? Fighting the police? I could understand if you could tell this story to Garmash's hero. But here they are trying to impress me, and I do not believe.
I don't believe Garmash either. In the movie, he's just a taxi driver. But where did he suddenly turn on the honored artist of Russia and he shows a multi-minute acting sketch, driving Stoyanov around the gym. Is a taxi driver really capable of doing that? He's going to have such a quick speech, he's going to be able to do that without rehearsals? What are you doing as an acting teacher?
I never thought I'd say this, but I didn't like Yuri Stoyanov at all. But it's more director's fault. Instead of inviting actor Yuri Stoyanov, he invited the host of “Gorodka” Yuri Stoyanov. And with him on the set came the city. What are these curves? What an elaborate fear, an elaborate nausea, an elaborate mannerism. Yes, even the mother of the hero Stoyanov depicts dressed as a woman Stoyanov. Why the clown? The director just put some stigma on the artist: they say, your level is “the Town”, that’s it in my film and show. And Stoyanov showed someone who would look more organic in a humorous program. In my opinion, the actor was simply insulted by this role.
Mikhalkov himself and his character completely fell out of the film. And did Mikhalkov have a hero? Nope. Mikhalkov played himself - he sat majestically at the head of 11 jurors and simply recorded the results of the vote. There's no sense that he's in the process, that he's one of them, that he's concerned about the criminal situation. In Sidney Lumet's original painting, Martin Bolsam's hero was also chairman, but he didn't fall out of that dozen, he was first among equals. Mikhalkov is somehow above all, he is not a jury, he is a divinely granted justice, watching how the voting will take place. He already knows everything from the beginning.
And again, where you can shoot simply and efficiently, the director tries to impress some inappropriate exaggerated show. What's the game in the knife episode? What's the game with these monologues? Moreover, it is conceived that Actor Aktorych pronounces a soul-wrenching monologue, after which necessarily someone from the jury says: “I changed my mind, he is innocent!”. How does that work? I could barely stand the monologue of Petrenko’s hero while he talked and buried all the holes in his body. What was that about? He told a story on his knee, after which one of the jurors suddenly changed his mind. And this is used as a stencil throughout the film.
All in all, it's a hot game. Against the background of a simple, well-made painting by Lumet, Mikhalkov’s creation looks like a caricature. Huge heads, sarcastic grimaces, hyperbolized qualities, deliberate acting, which seems to boast of itself. In short, a cartoon.
Mikhalkov is the only director in Russia today who makes high-fiction films. He doesn’t have a single passing or even average film. He only makes films of the highest standard. You can argue about it, but it is the presence of disputes that emphasizes that these are boulders. No one will argue about empty, worthless and unfulfilled. No one will throw a stick in a green pear, it must still ripen to throw it. The stick is thrown only into the mature fruit. That's why they criticize him, that's jealousy. Weary of the Sun 2: Coming Up, for example, is a luxury movie to watch and watch. This is a new perspective of the military theme, a new perspective. Maybe it's a private look at some episodes, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen. How are we used to seeing war? To fight, for the Motherland, for Stalin! We need one victory.” But there was everything in the war, enemies and traitors who burned wheat. And Nikita opens some facets, and does it subtly, artistically. Nikita is an artist, he has the right to his opinion. He earned his whole life the right to show the war and his heroes just like that!
When I read devastating articles from people who think in cliches, cliches (" Step to the right, step to the left - shooting), I do not understand how they can ridicule it, blaspheme. And it's all groundless. Just a naked hula. I rotate in my circle of intellectual, intelligent people who accepted Mikhalkov’s paintings completely unconditionally. Because Mikhalkov sees further than today’s often biased critics. On many issues, I think like him. I can say that Nikita Mikhalkov is a modern purebred genius who, in addition to possessing an unusual, very sharp, subtle, sometimes piquant, paradoxical mind, is also an artist, a great manager, an amazing businessman (I do not know how this combines in him, how he can find money, handle everything), a rich person, communicates with the authorities. How does he do all this? An artist is also a businessman. I understand the work of Mikhalkov, I understand what he wants to say. I am on the same wavelength with him, what he says is very close to me. This is a man of rare breed, national scale. He would make a great president. Of course, many people want to belittle him, lower him (especially, he behaves very bravely, dignified, proudly, like a master). I remember in the press that he asked to be called a master. It's a game, a genius joke! And people are building pyramids out of it, bringing some bases under it. That's ridiculous.
Let’s talk about the movie “12”. “12 jurors must unanimously render a verdict to a Chechen young man accused of murdering his stepfather: guilty or not guilty.”
From the film Lumet Mikhalkov left only the canvas, elements of the plot, but no more. The very essence of the film, its content is Slavic-mental. This is a film-parable, a film-reflection, a film-metaphor of all our today’s life, shot with the finest Mikhalkov undertones, reflection, philosophy. The film, in general, is not even about the problem, not about the situation with the Chechen youth. This movie is about all of us. About the stiffness of indifference, irresponsibility, callousness towards the far and the near, which has corroded all of us, or at least many of us. The 12 jurors have no names, only numbers. They are representatives of different professions. There is a taxi driver, a cemetery owner, a TV channel producer, an electronics engineer, an employee of a Russian-Japanese corporation, and a metro worker. Many different people of different nationalities. The surgeon is Georgian, for example. There is also a Jew who was brilliantly played by Valentin Gaft. And all the time, these people, sorting out the situation with the Chechen boy, come out to talk about themselves, about their own problems, about the situation that worries them. It turns out that everyone in this life is hooked by something: some injustice, some difficult problem. And all this seems to spill spontaneously onto the screens of the film. There is a feeling that the film was shot with one take, one camera. All this is so vivid, hot, and immediately resonates in the hearts of the audience.
And we are talking about very fateful, some important things, for example, the law. What is the law in Russia? Why isn't it being implemented? It is difficult to live by the written rules, so everything is so complicated everywhere: in the cemetery, on television, and on the stage - anywhere! It is impossible not to empathize with all these flows of emotions, passions, because at some point you realize that all this applies to you. And now you're in the opinion of this man-surgeon, the taxi driver, the electronic engineer. And the hero of Yuri Stoyanov generally changes his opinion 4 times in a row literally and forgets from what opinion he changes this judgment. There's even that comic effect. By the way, not only in the film such heavy, philosophical reflections, frames that make you empathize, but also some fun, a lot of humorous moments. In general, there are a lot of transitions from the tragic to the comic, from the complex to the simple, funny, and from this the film becomes even more polyphonic, symphonic, I would say stereoscopic. And you realize that each of these people is right in his own way: this one, this one, and everyone is right! And the man, this very young man, he alone is without rights, unhappy. How do you protect him? And the film eventually finds some common denominator, comes to some common decision. I’m not going to talk about it, of course, because everyone should see it, this movie. And everyone for themselves to answer all the questions that this tape poses. These are the questions our lives pose.
And most importantly, friends, give yourself to this film with all your heart, with all your soul, do not be afraid of emotions, tears, these sublime passions that this film will awaken in you. I am sure that you will have great pleasure and will make a great leap in your development, rise to a new level of spiritual purification, spiritual perfection.
What is this quote about? About the system: the system of life, the system of justice, the system of judgment, the system of rules and the system of their implementation or disregard. We're really all in the system. Every living soul. And I can easily prove it.
Only a lazy person does not scold the authorities and does not say that everything is to blame for corruption. If it weren’t for the selfish government, everything would be better. I don't mind speaking that way sometimes. And in the sorrows of almost 145 million Russian citizens, a small group of people who, perhaps, lack horns, is to blame. Now a question. How long have you been downloading a term paper from the Internet instead of writing it / how long have you been paying a bribe to the GAIShnik so as not to mess with paying fines? Did you buy alcohol after 22:00 / did you smoke in prohibited places / did not fasten, knowing that this area is “safe” and your violation will not be recorded? Such household examples can be given a huge number. That is why we are all in a clip and in order to make the world a little better, we must probably start with ourselves.
The picture "12" by Nikita Mikhalkov, as a ringing slap to bring to consciousness a person with a foggy mind, only this film acts as a weapon of mass destruction: it can bring to mind almost every viewer. Mikhalkov will make you think again about modern and at the same time eternal purely Russian problems: here you and corruption, and stereotypes about persons of the Caucasian nationality, and careless attitude of the state to educational institutions and much, much more.
Despite the fact that the script and every replica of the jury was cleaned and scraped to mirror shine, and the cast, in my opinion, could not be better and more professional, the whole film does not leave the feeling of understatement due to the fact that the maestro is silent Mikhalkov. I think 99% of the audience guessed that Nikita Sergeyevich will leave the last word for himself. That's what happened.
Discourse on where exactly the notorious civil liability begins and ends leads us to the idea that all the salt and pain of the Russian people is that our mind is flexible enough to come to a difficult decision about the innocence of the accused boy, and most hearts are not brave enough to help the guy with anything but the phrase "Not guilty!"
Movie "12" is for us, about us and the painful.
This is at least the third version of the film “12 Angry Men”.
Remakes have different goals. The most common is to make money on an already tested topic. Sometimes this is done to present with more modern special effects, now popular actors or more recent ideas.
In my opinion, this remake is very valuable for the Russian audience. The reason is simple: it makes no sense to look at the originals. Even with a good dubbing, we will not be able to fully imbue with the ideas that the creators tried to convey. There are many reasons for this: we come from different countries, different decades, different cultures and different conflicts. An important lesson can be heard, but not heard.
But in 2007, we, the Russian audience, were given a Russian remake with domestic actors, realities and social problems. I got to this film only 11 years later, and even for me it turned out to be somewhat outdated: due to the year of my birth, I am not familiar with the Chechen conflict, due to my education in an international university, I am weakly susceptible to national stereotypes. The original was shot in the United States in 1957. In 60 years, little has changed, and almost everything. The main lesson remained the same, but the triggers that allow the viewer to understand what he is being told and what this concerns him personally, too, have changed. Looking at the original film today, a lot of people can pull back, because 60 years have passed, laws have improved, racial discrimination has gone, and so on. And that's why I think it's important to remake this movie at least once every 30 years. Maybe 50 years from now, the defendant will be biased for being transgender or not joining the party. If the social callus is such, then it will be time to put pressure on such strange calluses.
I don’t like this movie just because it has a good base. Adaptation to time and country is carried out at the highest level. I personally liked the actors, they believe, empathize. Many of them I saw too often, others never, but none of them I have not seen movies in five years, so their skill was perceived as the first meeting. I loved getting to know them again from this movie. Operator techniques, which were told in the description, I remained almost invisible, which for me is rather a good sign.
I deliberately do not want to draw any moral conclusions, as they all have their own and can change from year to year. The main thing is that they are, which means that the film was not shot in vain.
I haven’t seen a movie in a while and probably wouldn’t have seen it until early June. But fate decided that I should still see a picture of my soul starving for art. And the film was special, namely the painting by Nikita Mikhalkov “12”. All I knew about it before I watched it was that it was filmed in 2007 (I was 8 at the time) and was wildly boring because it was just chatting and chatting. But as time passes, I have grown up, and, consequently, my perception and outlook have changed. Let’s get to the movie itself.
1. The plot of the film and its problems.
The film raises a lot of issues, but the most basic one is the importance and role of jurors in the judicial system. Throughout the narrative, this topic is intertwined with various aspects that are present in the activities of jurors: Who is selected for the jury? How do they perceive their work? Are the jury conditions normal? Do they want to help the defendant or do not want to understand his situation?
2. Don't be indifferent!
Throughout the film, the writer, the director and the actors through their actions and statements urge people not to stand by when someone near you is in a terrible state. “One person was more attentive than the others.” There's also a trumpet episode in the movie that proves to us that we talked, we forgot, and everything stayed the same, unchanged. So be careful!
3. Let's talk about the Russian judicial system.
The most painful and burning moments for me were those where our judicial system was discussed. The film shows the falsification of facts and evidence accusing an innocent boy of anything, and a lawyer who does not want to protect his client, because he can not ensure his financial condition, and bribing witnesses. It's hard to watch. Just think that this can happen every day!
4. "Empty laughter or a meaningful smile"
The hero of Mikhail Efremov touches on an important problem, namely the desire of a person to escape from the serious realities of reality. He notes that our laughter is empty, giving nothing. This is how we hide from the harsh realities of our lives.
5. Grotesque actors.
Now let's talk about acting. Some artists have grotesqueness. They're obviously overdoing it. For example, Mikhail Efremov, when he laughs, or Yuri Stoyanov, when he is sick. But most of all, I want to mention Sergey Garmash. He's just playing divinely. Especially his monologue about his son takes by the soul, at this moment a lump comes to the throat!
In the end, I want to say that the film is very interesting! And you won’t regret 2.5 hours to watch!
10 out of 10
Very rarely write negative reviews, because I think it makes sense to write about what is good and what is worthy of review. But I can't help it. So I'll take a chance and tell you what I didn't like about this movie.
Overall, I feel good about remakes. I even remember cases when the remake is not worse or better than the original source. But this film is not the case at all. It’s worth noting that if you haven’t seen a 57-year-old movie, you might like this one, but if you watch the original, you feel such a contrast that you don’t want the 12 movie to be shot at all.
Plot. Curiously, Mikhalkov used the same idea and plot as Sidney Lumet, but there are many details made differently. Let’s say that the main key points were repeated, but the surrounding details were invented by Mikhalkov. It is clear that it was impossible to borrow the narrative in full for transfer to our Russian reality: at least in Russia, the court does not impose death sentences. But this gives rise to the first dissatisfaction with the film: having reduced the presentation of the very essence of the story, Mikhalkov deprived him of the most interesting, but nothing brought a new, worthy idea of the source. It would have been better if he had invented something of his own!
Heroes. This is the second weak part of the film. 12 jurors and 12 stereotyped, caricature heroes, i.e. very far-fetched: if illiterate and short-sighted, then to such an extent that the teeth creak at him in the frame (Petrenko); if the aggressor, then
To foam at the mouth (Garmash); if a sympathizer, then something on the verge of morony (Makovetsky)... Where have you met such people in your life?
At first, I thought that this film would also highlight the hero on whom the narrative would be based, since it is he who casts doubt on the souls and minds of others, and stared greedily at Makovetsky. In this film, all the characters except Mikhalkov are given a lot of time, but they are all secondary to him. And it turned out in the end very lubricated, as if Mikhalkov did not want to focus on himself, but in the end could not resist and still made a speech. He didn’t have to be in his own movie.
Stamps. The plot also includes many stamps that “work” for the public. The most striking is the story about a Chechen young man, which is told along the way, then interrupting the hearing of 12 jurors. The viewer is shown the extremely difficult fate of the guy: war, shooting, death and losses. Pure speculation on the feelings of the audience. Some shots with the dead were shown repeatedly, apparently, so that the viewer did not miss them. Strange idea and not very well done. It is possible to get rid of these inserts and the film would not lose anything.
Dialogues and monologues: It's a separate topic. And frankly, the sharpest for me. We recall the speech of the aggressor jury (Garmash): everything around the bastard. The speech of the jury is the director of the cemetery: all around are thieves, hoarders and scoundrels. Juror-Chairman (Mikhalkov): All Russians only talk, but do nothing. If you listen to them, it becomes very disgusting, as well as bitter and hurtful for every thinking person who seeks his own way and seeks a better life. The creators of this film do not respect people at all, they do not even think about it. All around them are garbage and unworthy people, because there is no worthy hero in the film. All vulgar, ugly, empty. Who do you look up to? Who's the benchmark? Mikhalkov as himself?
Separately, I want to mention actors who are very famous and very talented. Only thanks to them I had the courage and strength to watch the film to the end. Makovetsky, Garmash, Gaft, Gazarov, Efremov, etc. are titans of their craft, real masters. They are the only decoration of the film. In my opinion, it was difficult for Garmash to play his role, too negative image of his hero. He seems to be tired of his own hatred.
Millions. Why then in the film introduced such “highlights” as a bra in the locker room, syringe, enema, etc. It does not decorate the narrative at all, on the contrary, it causes some squeamishness and alienation to the heroes.
I want to believe that the time when such films will be in demand will end. I personally want to believe that.
12 Angry Americans vs. 12 Russians or our N. Mikhalkov vs. them.
The film “12” by N. Mikhalkov, released back in 2007, but I watched it only recently and first, was disappointed that in my opinion the best director in Russia today, Mikhalkov, did not create anything new, but simply took and remade an American film. For comparison, I watched both movies.
"12 Angry Men" - was filmed in 1957 and won the main prize of the Berlin Film Festival of the same year, was nominated for three Oscars.
In the center of the picture is a Puerto Rican teenager who is accused of killing his father and all the evidence against the boy! After hearing the case, 12 jurors retire to make a final decision - yes or no? The jury votes, and it turns out that one of them believes the boy is innocent. His opinion, of course, is unexpected and even annoying. Shortly after the jury voted that the boy is innocent, by expressing his opinion and arguments, convinces one after another and in the end, all 12 make a verdict that he is innocent.
The idea behind the film is very interesting; how 12 people can decide a person’s fate by taking greater responsibility in making a final decision.
The film “12” by Mikhalkov, was shot in just 5 weeks. And this is not surprising, since the finished film was taken and just remade. The same 12 jurors (only with the overwhelming majority of our professions), the same arguments and versions as in the American film and even a boy, the same outcast of society, simply because he is from Chechnya.
At first glance, there is a feeling that the jury does not care about the fate of the boy, and everyone thinks about how to quickly leave and go about their business; one kicks the ball, the second push-ups on the bars, the third in the toilet, the fourth presses the bar. But everything changes after one of the jurors, played by Makovetsky, votes against the fact that the boy is guilty, and then tells a story from his life. This story is about a scientist whose invention the Soviet government considers unnecessary. And now, the very moment when there is a feeling that the film is not just a copy, but a film about us, about those who live in the post-Soviet space.
Further, along the line of the plot development, each of the jurors tells a story from his life that could only have happened to us and from these stories, it is clear that often in life not everything is fair and right.
Mikhalkov’s role is briefly dialogic, but meaningful and significant by expressing his version, after which it becomes really sad, since this can only happen in our country.
The film turned out to be very emotional and Mikhalkov managed to make a foreign film, ours, really about everyone!
It’s a great movie that goes beyond the legal detective. Lumet borrowed only the plot frame, in other respects – it is completely different, qualitatively new film. The director not only adapted the plot of the famous film for Russian realities, he deepened and expanded it, thanks to which the film turned out to be completely different. It was not enough for Mikhalkov to make a film about justice and justice, he wanted to make a film about life itself.
For example, I cannot stand Mikhalkov’s mannerisms to single out the iconic, main, most vivid roles, his vanity and self-confidence I cannot accept. So in "12" his amateur artist is almost a visionary and preacher, an exceptional, noble hero. The director optimistically believes in people (albeit only in his own person), but believes that someone cares that one in the field is a warrior. But the talent of Mikhalkov-director is stupid to deny, although you can argue with him in something, criticize his campaigns. I have long since caught this peculiarity of his: to intersperse conversations about the human soul with shameless, simple-minded vulgarity (like the enthusiastic stories of the cemetery director about his young mistress). From an aesthetic point of view, it resents and disgusts me, but isn’t that what makes his films a projection of everyday life? And we can talk for a long time about what the true purpose of art is and what form it should take.
In the film there is a lot of close and understandable. The stories of the jury seem to be told to us by someone from many acquaintances. Acting makes you believe, believe all these people from the first to the last word and experience their life drama (and everyone has their own). I especially liked the hero of Sergey Garmash – a cruel and deeply unhappy man. But Yuri Stoyanov, in my opinion, looked inappropriately comedic.
When it seems that everything is over, caring people have done a miracle – they have solved a cunning murder, the plot makes a new turn. It turns out that all people are essentially good (especially if they are shamed), capable of mercy and understanding, but their mercy is ineffective. They want to live with a calm conscience and the unencumbered concerns of others. Even the first “not guilty” voter does not want to do anything more than raise his hand, thereby showing the necessary dose of sensitivity and discarding responsibility for the life of another person.
After watching, there is something to think about.
Mikhalkov’s film 12 is based on Lumet’s classic Hollywood film 12 Angry Men. However, do not consider the picture of Mikhalkov as a remake. Initially, after reading the introductory plot and plan, it may seem so: to some extent, the characters are accurately preserved, many little things are copied, such as the knife experiment and the false testimony of the witness. But in the course of the films, it becomes clear that the jury Lumeta and Mikhalkov’s “jury” are completely different films.
Mikhalkov's film is not entirely about jurors and the fate of the accused boy, it is most likely about the fate of Russia. Twelve jurors symbolize the problems that arose after the collapse of the USSR. Amazing images among the jurors were Russian scientists collaborating with a foreign firm, a typical nationalist and anti-Semite, a Jew, a faint-hearted director of a TV channel and many others. Having found out the jury, I was not very eager to watch the film, I thought that for two hours they would discuss the problem of “who in Russia lives well” instead of the boy’s fate. But it turned out that the problems of the jury, which symbolize the problems of the Russians, in no way look pretentious.
The film mixes the tragic and the comic. Scenes with a difficult childhood of a Chechen boy, monologues about the unsuccessful life of a jury change dramatically to innocent pranks of a jury. In some places, it's really funny. Sometimes I want to say “I don’t believe.” Still, there are grown-ups here who, strongly or not, understand that they decide the fate of a person. And, for example, the game of the hero Efremov with a pen looks ridiculous.
From the painting by Lumet, Mikhalkov’s paintings are still different in that the fate of the boy himself, who allegedly killed his father, is told. Without blood and without violence, his example shows the horrors of war, a terrible and destructive force that sweeps away the whole family overnight. This nameless boy and his dancing in a cold, cramped cage is an example of bravery, of unfallen spirit. Mikhalkov came up with a beautiful move, when the acquittal of the jury is only a long beginning of a new, vague and even more terrible than the years spent behind bars, the fate of the boy. He looked deeper into the problem, asked a philosophical question: maybe in prison the life of this person will be more peaceful than in the wild, where he can be killed by those who took away his adoptive father?
But in this beautiful moment, I am completely disappointed by Mikhalkov’s character, Nikolai. Throughout the film, he was a silent observer, and then suddenly opened up, showed that he was wiser and even more human than all the other jurors. And also the most omniscient - in the past he was an officer and knows the Chechen language. It hurts the other jurors, especially the physicist who first acquitted the boy. He, like everyone else, suddenly turns out to be indifferent, alien to other people’s troubles. And only the character of Mikhalkov is ready after the verdict fate to take responsibility for the fate of the boy. It really hurts for the characters. And there is a certain egoism of Mikhalkov, who decided to play the most humane and wise of the jury, who shamed eleven people at the end.
In conclusion, a small legal fact: Russian law requires a simple majority of votes to acquit. But it is necessary to forgive Mikhalkov the legal unreliability of the process. He must have known about it, but the film would have lost all its appeal if it had to convince even six people of the defendant’s innocence.
I have always been prejudiced about this film and did not want to watch it. The most repulsive positioning of Nikita Mikhalkov as the tsar of Russian cinema. Although the presence of an Oscar and even talent is not a reason to pick your nose up. And in general, it seemed to me that to sit for 2.5 hours in a chamber environment in a circle of long-term bored people is torture for me. But still objectively the film left a pleasant impression, despite the small nuances. Most interesting is the story and its production. In the gym locked 12 jurors, who need to unanimously put a comma in the catch phrase “execute can not pardon”. Guilty or unjustly convicted young Chechen — it is not so important for the viewer at the very beginning, because to restore the trial will be bit by bit later, catching the details of the case and learning the evidence from the conversation of the jury at the table, who need to apply the resolution on conscience.
I immediately felt sorry for the prisoner. The point is not that at times the director showed the boy’s childhood, which was not at all cloudless. It was just that the jury meeting turned out to be so bizarre and motley that it raised questions not only about their competence, but generally adequacy. Adults just walked into the gym and let's fool around. Who throws the ball, who remembers piano lessons, and someone even tries on a bra. Are these clowns supposed to decide a man's fate? The second moment of surprise is the almost unanimous verdict at the very beginning of the meeting. Hey, what about the presumption of innocence? Why go to the jury if there is no time or desire? But in each group there is necessarily a renegade. Someone should wear a white coat. After that, “A Baba Yaga against!” it really became interesting who else would switch to the side of the outsiders. There has already been a debate between the two sides with arguments in the dispute and new details of the case, supported by hypotheses.
Only a star vinaigrette spoiled the impression. In fact, the acting ensemble played well. But in their images there was too much farce and deliberate comicality. And it wasn't without stamps. Although each actor was given an emotional monologue, where he could express himself in a dramatic role. This opportunity was best used by Sergey Garmash. Although in the beginning, the image of a rude taxi driver annoyed by tugging the blanket on himself. There was too much of it. But all the personal stories of the jury were life stories. The places are quite controversial, sometimes touching. I just kept asking, "Why the hell do they turn their soul inside out in front of strangers?" They don’t even know each other’s names, but are frank as if they have already drunk on the brewdershaft repeatedly. And what does their personal life have to do with it? Lyrical retreats reminded me of sudden Indian dance songs. The ending puzzled me, too. If it was possible to do it as it turned out, then why should I object? The main highlight is that you yourself begin to think where you would put the unfortunate comma.
7 out of 10
This film should not be taken as a remake of Sydney Lumet’s classic 12 Angry Men. Critics of this film accused Mikhalkov of betraying the classic. But the resemblance is external. Sam Mikhalkov admits that “12”, a remake of 12%. In fact, the film was made by Nikita Sergeyevich, about us. About our relationship to each other and about the fact that behind each person there is a story. Sometimes funny, sometimes tragic. But his. We are all human, superficially the same, but essentially different. This film also reveals the Russian mentality. It should be noted that behind the label of judicial drama, the current problems of our time are revealed.
The tape involves wonderful artists; Makovetsky, Garmash, Mikhalkov, Artsybashev, Petrenko, Efremov, Gaft, Madianov and others. Yes, the selection of actors and their performance is brilliant. Note that they differ in nationality, social status, temperament. With these 12 jurors, Mikhalkov showed the whole of our society, with its hesitations and moods. It's a kind of microcosm. But there's no politics in the film. It shows that we are responsible for those we have tamed, that is, we take responsibility not only for ourselves, but also for the other person. Our freedom ends where the freedom of another begins.
The film has a theme of the Chechen war and its consequences that we still feel. A dog with a severed hand is a hello to a distant war. I remember when the film was in cinemas nine years ago, one newspaper wrote that Mikhalkov made a frankly Russophobic film in which he showed that all Chechens were innocent victims, and Russian bastards started the war. Strange assessment. The film, as I said above, is about responsibility. The responsibility of the authorities, among other things. Why are wars unleashed at the top and at the bottom the consequences? Mikhalkov does not give an answer to this question, but invites everyone to think about it for themselves.
The example of the school gym shows the infrastructure of modern Russia, the conditions where we live. And that we tolerate everything. The film is about the tolerance of the Russian people. And our choices. Mikhalkov also, like Dostoevsky, describes the tragedy of a young man - a 20-year-old Chechen boy.
I will also note the good music of Eduard Artemyev, the camera work of Vladislav Opelyanets and the script of Novototsky and Moiseyenko.
10 out of 10
The poor quality of the picture – both in the director’s and in the script (especially in the script), and for the most part in the actor’s plan – the scale of the disaster can only be compared with Mikhalkov’s desperate admiration of himself. A nasty combination, but it fully demonstrates all his inferiority as an artist and as a person.
Lumet's original film is almost flawless in artistic, literary and stylistic aspects, and is also subtly didactic. It's a debut job. Mikhalkov, by 2007, shot feature films for 33 years in a row, but he could not get rid of the hopeless vulgarity (not physiological, but in terms of low taste).
In the script, a blunder. This is a Cargo imitation of 12 Angry Men. For example, in the original, five jurors took the side of the defense only after a series of serious factual claims to the accusation, and the characters of Mikhalkov for this only one knife and a couple of “tale stories from life”. As for me, the success story of the electronicsman, the story about the love affairs of the Jewish father and the monologue of the “fun laugh” (on the stereotypical characters I’ll go through) should clearly not be enough to so split the jury.
How long did the pensioner have to travel from the bed to the front door? 35 meters? What kind of apartment is this? Or here. In the 54th minute, one of the characters lights a cigarette, and the other asks him: “Is it okay to smoke here?” At the same time, one of the first plans in the gym is a tube tee: the character of Artsibashev clogs the pipe. Apparently, this is a tribute to the original film, where one of the jurors also smokes a pipe. But in the 50s, this was the order of things, now in an unfamiliar company, the pipe always causes a keen interest (I declare authoritatively, like a chimney), and in "12" no one pays attention to it.
But small plot flaws could be forgiven if everything else was on par. But no, the dialogues are written disgustingly, the characters are stereotyped to the point of caricature, the actors are inconclusive (Harmash only stands out against the general background, but this background forms, for example, Stoyanov, who plays about the same as in the scenes “The Town”), “suspence” is template, and from the bad taste of some moments (syringe, bra, manipulation with drops, the final scene with a bird) naturally pulls to puke.
In addition, the film is indecently delayed. And yes, I understand, on the APC with the Russian flag is a corpse. I don't need to poke him in the eye every ten minutes.
3 out of 10
I am a person almost without prejudice, but I try not to watch Russian cinema.
You know, I love quality movies. And on a Friday evening, choosing a film to watch, I stumbled upon a Russian film lasting two and a half hours! As they say, who does not take risks, he does not winter in the Maldives!
In fact, the film is very deep, the monologues of the actors are imbued with life and Russian reality. Yes, this reality is not very proud, but it is close, behind the wall, in the window opposite, on the fifth floor across the block.
And if you can make that reality a little better, then let's do it! About such thoughts begin to turn the picture upside down.
I still don’t plan to watch Russian cinema often, but this masterpiece will be reviewed! Thank you, Nikita Sergeevich!