Why 12 ANGRY MEN Is Such An Important Film

A superbly told story, while entertaining, can also stimulate us to examine ourselves closely. One of the best ways to get a person to reflect upon themselves in such a way is to be relatable. 12 Angry Men is a very relatable film (Dir. Sidney Lumet. Perf. Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Ed Begley. United Artists 1957).

No matter what your station in life - your gender, your nationality, your religion, your view on politics - you will find some aspect of yourself reflected back in one or more of the characters in this movie. You will see men who are fair, who search for facts, who rely on opinions, who are swayed easily by the crowd, who are prejudiced, who take things too personally. The film reveals how some of the men are moved to change their original viewpoints based on the facts and the realization that they have based their decision on personal feelings, while others’ apparent change seems based upon expectation by their peers.

One of the film’s most compelling scenes involves a man (performed superbly by Ed Begley) fervently imploring the other 11 to echo his opinion. One by one, the others rise from their seats and turn their backs on him. It is the first time we see the majority of the jurors unified for the same reason. The man’s race-based rantings, it is agreed, are not worth sharing and have no place in this room. Humiliated, perhaps ashamed, the lone man slumps into his chair. He utters not a single word again, save to give his last, and sincerely changed, vote of not guilty.

By the end of the movie, I was both satisfied and unsettled. I would like to think that I would be the kind of person to stand against something I feel is wrong, even if my viewpoint is not a popular one. As I watched the movie, however, I felt sympathetic to characters who were in conflict with the man who first stood up against the crowd (perf. Henry Fonda). I related to the few who seemed to want to do the right thing but who at first remained silent out of fear. I also questioned if I would stubbornly stick with the wrong sentiment, because it is influenced by my own personal feelings and experiences. One such example is the man who held onto his vote of “guilty” up until the very last, and we find out that the reason why is because the defendant reminded him of the heartbreak he had for his own estranged son (perf. Lee J. Cobb).

I feel that this movie is important for people to watch, because it compels us to reflect deep within and ask ourselves which man or woman would we be. Who would I be? Would I be the first person to stand up when I feel something is wrong, or would I be apathetic? Would I base my decision on what the facts are? Would I be moved primarily by others’ opinions? I believe these self-reflecting questions are important to ask ourselves and watching this movie is a good incentive to do that.

BARBIE DOLL - a poem analysis on the objectification of women in society

Objectification of Women and Societal Influence on Beauty and Behavior

examined in Marge Piercy’s “Barbie Doll”

The Sixties was a fairly complicated decade for women. While it was a time for the emergence of the “Supermodel”, such as Twiggy, who inspired women to crop their hair into short blonde locks, wear heavy eye makeup and diet until they had the lithesome figure that Twiggy and other models had, there was also a strong feminist backlash against the prototype of typical female beauty standards. This was evident during The Miss America protest demonstration at the Miss America Pageant on September 7, 1968, one year before “Barbie Doll” was written, by about 400 feminists and civil rights advocates. As part of the protest, a collection of symbolic feminine products, including false eyelashes, were thrown into a trash can located on the boardwalk in Atlantic City. There is a dissonance of theme in “Barbie Doll” which suggests how our main subject was influenced by society and the peers around her into fitting a more objectified mold of what a young woman should act and look like and ultimately her own demonstration of how she discarded these outer physical values.

The first example of how the author views society as objectifying women is in the first stanza “This girlchild was born as usual/and presented dolls that did pee-pee (1-2). The use of the word “girlchild” seems very objective and almost as though she does not have a personal identity of her own but rather could have just come off the assembly line, similar to the way a doll would. Early on, she is influenced to be what is considered a proper little girl should be when given household items that are thought to be feminine, such as "miniature GE stoves and irons/and wee lipsticks the color of cherry candy.” (3-4).  Puberty is an especially sensitive time for young people, particularly girls, because they are so receptive to the criticism of society around them. “Then in the magic of puberty, a classmate said:/You have a great big nose and fat legs.” (5-6). This marks the beginning of the girl not feeling as though she measured up to what the standards of beauty were considered to be.

In the following stanza, we see important information that shows how the qualities that a man might have, such as intelligence, strength and sexual drive, are not considered to be as valuable in a woman: “She was healthy, tested intelligent,/possessed strong arms and back/ abundant sexual drive and manual dexterity.” (7-9). The term “manual dexterity” shows that, being quick and skillful with her hands, she could have excelled at being a surgeon, dentist, mechanic, or even a bomb diffuser (explosive ordinance disposal technician) - all highly skilled and noble professions which would not require one to be especially good-looking or possessing dainty manners and charm. Rather than pursue a course that would have tapped into the strong skills and resources she had, she relied on good manners and sweetness as a way of compensating for what she felt she lacked in society’s eyes regarding good looks, as examined when reading the lines at the end of the second stanza: “She went to and fro apologizing./Everyone saw a fat nose on thick legs.” (10-11). She discarded her own personal worth, because she felt society discarded the other values she had; they were canceled out by the physical features which were more prominent as shortcomings.

She further slipped down a sliding scale of moral ambiguity by trying to become the model perfect “girlchild” inside and out by listening to advice on how to flirt, charm, use feminine persuasiveness and continue to adjust her looks by diet and exercise to win approval rather than on merit of intelligence and hard work. This can be seen in the third stanza in the lines “She was advised to play coy,/exhorted to come on hearty,/exercise, diet, smile and wheedle.” (12-14).

Eventually, she breaks down and becomes the "perfect", lifeless Barbie doll that society influenced her to be, by losing the vivacious personality she likely once had and sacrificially offers up the vilified features she possessed that were unique to her: her nose and legs. “Her good nature wore out/like a fan belt./So she cut off her nose and her legs/and offered them up.” (15-18). Lying in the casket, with full makeup, a doll-like putty nose and a feminine dainty nightie, she finally fit the image everyone had of what she should be like. She possibly killed herself literally or died symbolically by letting the inner fire she had as a unique human being go out.  The very last lines, “Consummation at last./To every woman a happy ending/ (24-25), suggest that the final result was bittersweet, after a painful process and crossing over a boundary that could never be crossed back. Her transformation was complete and irreversible.

When examined closely, it is evident that Piercy shows that she recognizes how important physical looks and dainty manners were for women at that time but how she ultimately throws those values out by killing her main subject.

Works Cited

Piercy, Marge. “Barbie Doll.” Literature: Reading to Write. Ed. Elizabeth Howells.
New York: Pearson, 2010. 233. Print.

EMPOWERING WOMEN: Beauty vs. Intelligence

It is difficult to recall the day I began to think that being pretty was something many considered more important than being smart. I became a film actor around 2005 and officially joined an industry that places heavy value on young, beautiful people. In particular, young beautiful women. Concurrently with my acting career, I have also pursued training and careers in industries where learning and being taken seriously as an academic are important, like mathematics and aeronautics. I have experienced both sides and realize they are both challenging.

My parent’s opposing views of what is considered beautiful influenced my own polarized views. My mother was a fan of Hollywood's Golden Age of screen performers. Her expression while gazing at Vivian Leigh’s lovely visage as Scarlett O’Hara in Gone With The Wind could accurately be described as rapturous. Her praise and appreciation for screen greats like Gene Tierney and Elizabeth Taylor shaped my own perception of what is beautiful. My father, in contrast, was an aging undergrad student of astrobiology who instilled in me a fascination for space and aviation sciences. He passed on to me an appreciation for female astronauts, like Sally Ride who, when compared to a screen gem like Angelina Jolie, could arguably be called “plain” or even “unattractive”. However, in terms of sheer mental and professional accomplishments (a physics degree from Stanford and the first female astronaut to travel in space), she could hardly be called unimpressive. An interesting consideration came to me recently when I realized that, should Hollywood decide to dramatize Sally Ride’s life on screen, there is little doubt that the producers would find an actress who, though talented, would be cast more on the basis of her visual appeal than her physical resemblance to the real Sally Ride. After all, you would want the broadest audience to watch your film. And, it would seem, beauty is easier to recognize than intelligence.

The ideals of what is considered attractive have changed throughout history and civilizations, but there is little debate that physical attractiveness has always had a dominant appeal in society. The practice of enhancing or altering one’s physical features to fit the current standard of beauty has long been prevalent. Cleopatra is noted for using crushed carmine beetles to color her lips (Valdesolo) and Queen Elizabeth I for having thick white makeup applied to cover up the scars on her skin left by smallpox (Skerrett.) Though these were two of the most politically powerful female figures in history, each felt compelled to put their best face forward. A small but curious consideration.

Jumping forward to modern times, we see various pop culture celebrities peering flawlessly back at us from magazine covers. The majority of them share some great levels of success in careers creating and promoting films, music or, in most cases, beauty itself. Yet, each could scarcely represent a larger cross-section of ages and nationalities. For some, it is easy to think of these people, as the cliche goes, as nothing but pretty faces. Such as Natalie Portman, a published Harvard psychology graduate. Or Geena Davis, a long-time member of MENSA. But few of these articles or ads are created to encourage readers to pursue an academic career in psychology or join a national group dedicated to bring awareness to intellectual enhancement, but rather to buy the same cosmetics or beauty tips as each of them have endorsed.

There seems to be a revolution of sorts building in recent years against the use of digital editing, evidenced by celebrities and musicians being more transparent about their skills and techniques. In Meghan Trainor’s hit song, “All About That Bass," she sings “I see the magazine workin’ that Photoshop...c’mon now, make it stop.” To that point, it seems and more celebrities, like Kate Winslet and Jamie Lee Curtis, have begun speaking out against the unrealistic standards of beauty that such manipulation allows. In 2014, Keira Knightley posed topless, sans makeup or hairstyling. Rather, she highlighted her naturally small breasts and rather simple shape. Her point was to cast contrasting visuals to how her body had been augmented and presented so many times in the past (Dokterman.) In a sign of how public opinion may be shifting, the great majority of social and media response praised her for so cleverly designing and presenting an easy to understand commentary about the corporate sales of beauty products, while also expressing the genuine appeal of her beautiful natural form.

In keeping with this shift of beauty vs. brains, there is a growing list of celebrities such as Tiny Fey and Mindy Kaling who are known more for their shrewd intellect and wit first, while also highlighting their attractiveness. Equally, renowned beauties such as Angelina Jolie seem to be taking a genuine interest in promoting their humanitarian and leadership efforts rather than overly touting their interests in beauty. But overall, it is somewhat evident that pointing out such intelligence is meant mainly to enhance and support physical beauty, first and foremost. I think of the media surrounding superstar George Clooney’s wife, Amal Alamuddin. Her impressive resume includes being a human rights attorney, former clerk for a Supreme Court Justice, and fluent speaker of three languages. Yet, a Google Image search of her name results in her top photo groupings being of her wedding dress and her fashion shots. To find any photos of her in her day job (prior to being Mrs. Clooney), one will have to be more specific about their search.

It is refreshing to think that a genuine shift in favor of a woman’s beauty complimenting her intelligence rather than her intelligence complimenting her beauty could in fact take place. Perhaps it could even happen within my lifetime. So much that we are seeing socially suggests it is possible or at least conceivable. However, it is also difficult to conceive a throwback leading man such as Clooney marrying a junior version of Margaret Thatcher. Perhaps this is because beauty is simply something that mentally takes priority when it comes to our own intelligence. But then, it may just be awkward hooking up with a mate who you not only consider smarter than you but that eventually to whom you may have to pay taxes.

Works Cited

Dockterman, Eliana. “Keira Knightley and 7 Other Celebrities Who Protested Photoshop and   Won.” Time, 7 November 2014. Web.
Skerrett, Victoria. “The Death of Queen Elizabeth I." Tudor Stuff: Tudor History From The Heart of England. 3 November 2009. Web.
Valdesolo, Fiorella. “The Red Army." The New York Times, 27 August 2006. Newspaper.
Fey, Tina. Bossypants. 5 Apr. 2011. Autobiography.
Trainor, Meghan. “All About That Bass.” 2 June. 2014. Song.

AMERICAN HISTORY X and PRECIOUS - comparing media to analyze factors contributing to the self-identity of urban youth

Two movies that are useful for analyzing specific examples of the socio-economic factors which shape the formative identity of youths growing up in large cities and how they ultimately are transformed are the independent films, AMERICAN HISTORY X (Dir. Tony Kaye. Perf. Edward Norton, Edward Furlong, Beverly D’Angelo. 1998) and PRECIOUS (Dir. Lee Daniels. Perf. Gabourey Sidibe, Mo’Nique, Paula Patton. 2009.)

An important historical context given in AMERICAN HISTORY X is the Rodney King Riots which happened in South Central Los Angeles, circa spring of 1992, in which ethnic minorities made up the majority of the victims. In the film, we see Danny Vinyard (the younger brother of a skinhead living in a suburban area of Los Angeles) whom he remembers leading a small mob of rioters into vandalizing a business owned by an Asian man who employs Hispanics. In comparison, PRECIOUS (adapted by Sapphire’s novel, PUSH) portrays an overweight black teenage girl named Claireece Jones, (Gabourey Sidibe), who goes by her middle name “Precious” and lives in a low-rent apartment in New York City. They both have been victims of extreme violence (Danny’s father having been killed by a minority while on the job and Precious attacked by young men while she is walking down the street.) With the loss of his brother (who is imprisoned for 3 years due to a hate crime witnessed by Danny) and his mother (Beverly D’Angelo) in increasingly frail health, Danny turns to Cameron (Stacy Keach), the leader of the Neo-Nazi gang his brother formerly belonged to for guidance. When Derek is released from prison, he rescues Danny from a rally, confronts Cameron and then compels his brother, Danny, to leave that way of life by telling him what happened to him in prison (being raped by a gang of Neo-Nazis and befriended by his laundry partner, a black male) which led to his transformation of thinking. The image of the two of them stripping away the White Nationalist paraphernalia that decorates the walls of Danny's bedroom, as though they are removing layer after layer of dead useless skin, is a powerfully visceral one. At the end of the scene, they are both standing together silently staring at the now clean wall with an unknown identity that has not yet been cultivated and, like new skin after an old scab has been removed, both are left feeling uplifted yet more vulnerable as a result.

As for Precious, one of the most moving scenes is also one without dialogue. On her way out to school, she views herself in the mirror and the reflection we see looking back is that of a slender blonde white female dressed identically to Precious, down to the single hair curler resting on her forehead. Precious gazes at this imagined alternative identity, gives a sigh, and then walks out. Her transformation is encouraged by the feeling of love she gets from her teacher (Paula Patton) and the emotional support of her fellow classmates in the alternative school she is sent to, where there is a feeling of solidarity among this talented, albeit misfit, group of young women. She begins to have confidence in her imagination and storytelling skill and knows that if she continues her education and learns to write, she can improve her life and progress beyond her given circumstance. In similarity, both the Vinyard brothers are encouraged by their professor (Avery Brooks) for being intelligent students with a gift for writing and having the right charisma for leadership, which should be used for positive influence.

In the final scene of American History X, Derek’s brother, Danny, is shot and killed by a young African-American male, so it could be reasoned that Derek might revert to his former skinhead way of thinking, but most likely he recognizes his own role in the fallout of these events and can choose to influence the future by his own thinking and actions. Likewise, we see Precious leaving her domineering welfare-abusing mother (Mo’Nique) and walking away, holding her childrens’ hands, determined to continue her education so that she can get a job and provide for them.

Works Cited

“Identity and Inner-City Youth: Beyond Ethnicity and Gender.”
  Heath, Shirley Brice, Ed.; McLaughlin, Milbrey W., Ed
“Urban Youth Culture: Forging a New Identity”
Youth Supplement. Growing Up Urban. www.unfpa.org/swp/2007
“American Politics and Pop Culture”
Lung, Katherine, April 24, 2008
“Socioeconomic Disadvantage and Child Development”
McLoyd, Vonnie C. American Psychologist, Vol. 53 (2) Feb. 1998 185-204
“Globalization, Culture, and Neighborhood Change”
Mele, Christopher. State University of New York at Buffalo