#cinema analysis

1. It’s a science pun

2. His failed potential as an academic

3. Stratt packed that shirt, knowing she was sending him to die

4. The framing of the shot that cuts off the context (an object running out of potential, see below) so to the audience it serves as a grim reminder of his (then) inevitable death

as an aficionado of the crossdressing genre and trans cinema more broadly, there's an interesting massive piece to be written about the ways in which perceptions of (trans) gender in cinema mirrors perceptions in reality. Lots of medical focus, fixations upon the (transgressive) body, narratives (at different times) of serial killers, sad lonely freaks who don’t know what they want, and outcasts.

Something I’m really interested in is “it’s just a phase,” which is a trope related to the crossdressing woman who must do so because of [plot reasons], such as escaping misogyny, chasing a lover, joining the army for her family’s honour, and at least twice because a father desperately wanted a son (hamlet 1921, the secret of the chevalier d’eon 1959).

it may even occasionally be unclear why the person is doing this beyond pure enjoyment, but the thing is that even with external factors that enjoyment is still very much present (off the top of my head I cannot think of a single movie that i have watched in which there is zero pleasure in the rituals, expression, perception, culture etc. of boy/manhood even in those films with initial pushback towards engaging in these -- often of course the enjoyment takes the shape of transfaggotry, which is probably 100% without the filmmakers' knowledge).

stills from Victor/Victoria, Yentl, Sworn Virgin, Mulan... I could go on (also lol at that kick)

However the point of “just a phase” is that it’s just a phase. Characters do not get to be uncomplicatedly transmasc because transmasculinity (as perceived by society) is easily summed up as girls who are upset with misogyny and/or hate their bodies for [reasons] and are mentally unwell in some unconnected way.

Transmasculinity is, fundamentally, not real. Where femme gender expression is legibly transgressive (which has its own host of problems!) even when it’s not described as straightforwardly trans, transgressive masculinity is… a phase. Easily packed back into a box and chalked up to... idk, some kind of girlish exuberance.

And the amount of times this has occurred in cinema appears to indicate that it’s predominantly presumed to be a phase (just like in reality) -- the idea of masculinity as trans just... doesn't cohere a lot of the time or is so up for debate as to be rendered invisible. (this list is more of a taster, i do have a much bigger growing list about cis-perceptions of gender transgressiveness and diversity across the board).

"Lets start with the start,

You have a school system. A prestigious school, bound by rules. The kids there? they arent kids, in welton academy there are only students. You have these rigid moral structures that the students are made to recite and memorise, no real life lessons, a show perhaps to display just how honoured and respected and disciplined they are. The school is a show for churning out lifeless robots who will become "honourable" memebers of a society, The american dream. There are no real lives there.

Todd anderson our main character isnt really the focus of the plot, but its more like we see what he sees. When he meets Neil, Todd sees a companion. Whereas todd keeps to himself and is a nervous wreck, neil doesnt judge him, neil doesnt judge how he isnt a "confident" student and simply tries to help him break out of his shell, which is why their relation is important. Neil is bright, optimistic and caring yet he struggles too, more than he shows.

When neil's father scolds him, we see how each students is bound by these unrealistic expectations of being lifeless and just do well academically. Their dreams are killed by the society. Neil is getting crushed under the weight yet he puts on a brave mask to help.

Here i would say, the school symbolises the real life society, the social-official environment of the whole world. The teacher aka the authorities are the expectations that are placed in a real world just so one can live (like earning a lot even if it means you have to be stressed) and the students symbolise all of humanity where each one has their own dreams and art is to be embraced, emotions are to be lived, not killed by a lifeless environment in this society that we have created. We could say that the school represents a corporate capitalistic society, quite dystopian.

Now in the scene where they teach the students about poetry, You can see that the teacher is restricting poetry to some strict standards which shouldnt be there. Poetry, which is supposed to be pure human expression, where one can paint their words freely, need not be bound by a graph. It cannot be that simple. Poetry isnt supposed to be plotted on a small page. Its much much bigger than that. There is individuality in each piece which cannot be contained in these small mathematical expressions. Poems bleed and the blood will seep through pages, and stacks of it, you cant confine it on a single graph paper

When John keatings comes, He is the rebel. The one who can set these humans free. Symbolising The only sparks in our society, the rebels who expressed freely and rejected society. He makes the students tear their book, stand on the desks, march outside, things which could never be allowed by the school, by strict standards, but he shows the students that human life is beyond their rules. Humans cannot be bound by rules and everyone can express freely. He teaches them the way to live. Shows them the way to life. He is hope. He tears the first page down to reject the suffocating system, to endorse expression.

The sequence where he tells students how essential poetry is, is him enlightening the students. Like he is screaming "There IS MORE TO LIFE!! PLEASE DONT GIVE UP!" . Noble pursuits are one thing but poetry is what we live for, he says, he knows it. Art is essential. Art is the way of human life. A tree of wisdom perhaps. The bodhi tree.

Neil who was bound by the standards especially, sees this, finds comfort in it and embraces it as a whole. Neil embraces it the most because he needs to be freed the most. He sees hope, a way to freedom and his dreams.

He makes todd throw the gift todd doesnt like because now he too screams "THERE IS MORE TO LIFE TODD! THERE IS MORE TO IT! MR.KEATINGS TOLD US!". You dont need to accept what you dont like or find joy in, throw it, break it, reject it!

Carpe diem. Seize the day. They form the dead poets society because now they are enlightened, they will rebel against these systems by not letting their creativity die. They will not follow rules because who is the society to trap beautiful souls in strict standards? they get this and now they recite poems. They wish to suck out all the marrow of life. They meet in a cave, secluded from welton academy, a free space. Home. They are comfortable there, boundless. Unrestricted, freed from the shackles of society

When keatings says this "i wish to suck out the marrow of life" sequence, neil understands, that if he keeps listening to his father, he will never be able to live and he will die knowing he hasnt lived.

Mr.Keatings tells the students to call him captain, because he will show them the way out of this storm. You can trust me he tells.

When todd reads out his poem, he is talking about the truth that one can never achieve his dreams and no matter how much u find it, there is no safety from the truth and all u can do is scream (the blanket is never big enough) With john breaking his shell, we realise that he has pent up emotions which he cant really express due to the rigidity of the system, and guess what helped him? Poetry. Todd was scared of the truth of not being able to follow his dreams, of not being good enough and he says in his poem that he is trying to protect himself. He screams his soul out. Poetry made him bleed.

Then when Nuwanda rebels in a way which harms him (he gets physically punished), we understand that these kids yearn for freedom so much that they can be radical.The school will try to supress rebellions and defiance (the dead poets society who reject their rigid system). They will bear punishments and everything just to feel a moment of freedom, just to sieze the day. The school can supress the fire but the sparks are still there, whats a rebel who cant bear some pain for the cause? Nuwanda is brave, he wont let a little punishment throw him off. But this gets balanced when jhon keatings tells us that rebellion, if done at the cost of hurt might not last long. He teaches students about the way to rebel, to not get crushed trying to free themselves from a cage.Recklessness can get you beheaded.

Now in the last sequences, the scenes get darker (cinematography vise. low exposure). Neil wants to act. His father wont let him. Captain show him the way!, he does. Captain shows him the way. "follow your passion". He tries to convince his father but he doesnt budge, sieze the day, neil will act. Carpe diem. He remembers and he wont let this one opportunity of being free go. He practiced, he worked and he cant just leave eveyrthing! Neil wants to sieze the day, let him act. And he does. He acts. He acts exceptionally well. He knows how his passion feels, how expression feels, how wonderful the freedom of acting is. but this was done by rebelling against his father. He became puck and he was truly happy while acting but now that his father wont let him, his father is disappointed. Neil wont be able to act. What good is there to life now? He has experienced living, he had been free for a few moments, but now he has to live with its absence for his whole life. He knows the taste of it and now he craves it, longs for it knowing he will never get his hands on it. Is it really worth it? is living like this really worth it? Its Not. He cant live in this cage now that he knows how high the sky is. A free death is better. So he wears his crown, as a last act of rebellion and regaining the authority over his life and uses his father's weapon in his father's office, "father you killed me. This is your gun". Or His father's system killed him. He died as his character. He died while he was free. He died doing the one thing he loved the most. He wasnt neil when he died, he was puck. A chaotic and playful forest spirit, not a broken child. "Father you didnt kill me. You killed puck. The actor within me. And without this i am nothing and neil's identity is nothing". His father killed puck, the actor within neil, and without that actor, neil is nothing.

The mourning in the school is shown as a very formal procession like its being done for the sake of it. A student died, not a life with dreams. But Todd and all his other friends know that dreams have been killed. They are in a snow-laden area (which symbolises sadness and buried emotions), and todd tries to act like he is fine without neil who was his guiding light, but he isnt. He throws up, what is he supposed to do without his Captain? Neil, the only one who could understand Todd and help him, he isnt here anymore. Just when Todd was a bit freer.His yawp was for neil, his own captain, his best friend. If neil couldnt bear it and do it, does it mean that no one can?

Neil didnt just kill himself, he rebelled. He dies like a martyr would. He sacrificed himself to show everyone how important dreams are.

John keating re-reads the verse of "to find out that i had not lived at all" and now he wonders, did i push neil too far? He showed them the light, but neil couldnt achieve it. He couldnt live. He couldnt suck the marrow out of life. He knew too much. He could live like an artist but society wont let it happen. He knew. Captain, was it your fault? You were supposed to guide these young minds. But now neil is gone. He couldnt fight. It was too much for him to bear. His father, his school, a rigid system killed him. Killed puck.

The colours of the movie are colder here and more melancholic. The tones shift to blues.

Now the school as a system cant take the blame. It will hurt their honour. Blame it on the captain, How dare he show them the reality? He wasnt supposed to show the students what they can be. Its his fault that they got depressed when we (the school) didnt let the students what they wanted to be, how dare he show them what they could be? They blame it on him. The dead poets society's formation was his fault. The memebers were pressured to blame it on keatings. The monarch knew of the rebellion,and the guillotine was ready. Keatings, you killed a student. "Kids it was just a phase", "He tried to poison your minds" they tried saying. John's teachings misguided them. Our school and its reputation must stay clean. The school shifts all the blame, since the subconscious ways they kill their students isnt really up for debate. Nobody notices those. How dare one oppose the system? How dare he ruin our prestigious school's reputation? He needs to be diminished. The rebels cant do anything now, they are still just mere souls, kids with dreams in a big big society, their captain killed; but now they know what life has to offer. They are enlightened and they will fight for it.

About the romantic subplot i believe that either it could symbolise:

Teen rebellioj through love and love being poetry in itself or

It was symbolic. His love (chris) being his dreams, the other guy (chet) being the fear of failure. He is chasing his dreams (the girl) but its scary, he wont know if he will ever achieve them (not being sure about the girl's answer) and what if society doesnt let him follow his dreams? (the other guy beating him). But he fights with chet and in the end he gets chris (he fights for dreams, physical fight symbolises the fight for dreams. He took the leap of faith and then he achieved his dreams.) A different outcome for someone who chases his dreams too.

And at the last, when the students stand on the desk, its a tribute to their captain.Why did they choose the poem? because in the original poem, the captain showed them the way, everyone cheered for the captain, but the captain lied dead on the ship. Thats John keatings. He enlightened the students. He showed them the way and fought for them. They know the meaning of life. They can fight for it now, But, the captain is dead, he is no longer with them (since he got fired and crushed). They stand above the desks to crush their academic expecations placed on the very same desk. To see the world from above. "But my captain lies dead"

Its realistic, because there is no grand change. One man cant change the system. But he changed people. He changed a handful of lives. He simply got fired, the school was back to its original system but now the students know their capabilities. They know that dreams must be followed, days must be seized. They were left with knowledge. Captain O' Captain, you lie dead but we cheer for you and now we know how to battle storms.

Its not grand but they are thankful. And there, it ends.

some last lines

Knox fought for his dreams (the girl was his dreams) by physically punching the fears (chet). People who have courage.

Meeks fought for his dreams but was scared (how he found the easier way out of blaming keatings). People who back out.

Todd fought for his dreams through neil and poetry and failed when he lost his guiding light. People who need support.

Neil fought for his dreams against inevetability, and it wasnt possible.People who are left hopeless.

Nuwanda is brave and funny and chases his dreams by radical rebellion but he has deep feelings. People who put up a fight even though it hurts and fluctuate."

I remembered in 6th grade lit reading Franz Kafka's The Trial, a story about everything judicial being set in stone for someone completely out of the loop. The bureaucracy behind Josef K.'s fate is never given a cause, no method helps him, and after a year he's at the mercy of a situation nobody said would be fair to him. It was a striking story to me, and lead me into recognizing Sidney Lumet and Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men as a similar yet antithetical story. The film keeps everything in the dark except for the titular jurors trying to piece the case together for a boy expected to get the death penalty. The matter though, is that the defendant's fate was clear from the start and the journey is about getting to that thread's end. What follows is one of the most well written, performed, and staged movies I watched in my entire life and I just wanted to finally talk about it. So, let's talk.

Setting the Stage

It takes three minutes almost exactly for the title to appear. You get the mission statement from the judge, a good scan of the main characters, and a single moment of the defendant's face, basically the only time you ever get to see said defendant for the whole movie. After that, we the audience are locked in the deliberation room where the film starts to shine after the credits role.

For the longest time watching movies, I was so used to big colorful settings, the characters going places even if it's just another place to talk, where it's a gamble if you can memorize those places. Oppenheimer last year became the widely regarded movie that consisted of next to nothing but conferencing in rooms. Even in older movies, things were never shot in the same spot for long. This film was the first instance where they stripped everything and worked with bare bones staging. All it is are the men in that one room. No flashbacks, no cuts to anything beyond the group speaking. The only other places you get are the adjacent men's restroom and the courthouse steps at the film's very end, scenes of which add to less than 4 minutes. And you would think it gets boring, but 'focus' is the keyword behind everything. The fact there's next to no music adds to it having an actually engaging script that doesn't manipulate or go to unnecessary places to get the point across.

12 Angry Men is what I'd call a "dynamic stage play" where you could imagine yourself seeing this in a live theater, but it wouldn't have worked as well without the secret main character that is the camera. This film knows how to prevent things from getting too static; the cinematography is... well-paced in laments terms. Again, in that one room, you're engaged in where it's focused, how it moves with the characters, when it cuts especially when it closes in on the jurors at their most serious. From a technical perspective, it's immersive at its simplest. No juror feels left out even when out of frame and nothing distracts you from the brilliant acting everyone brings to the literal table. After seeing this, I felt like this was the kind of movie I'd want to make. One that can work with so little but feel as tightly coordinated as any other similar to this. Then again, I wouldn't have concerned about this movie on technicalities alone. Let's get to the story.

The Stakes of Uncertainty

The trial is a first degree murder charge where if unanimously found guilty, the defendant would be sentenced to the electric chair. Everything surrounding this film hinges on the one person who votes not guilty, juror 8. Number Eight makes it clear that his vote is not about bias, there's never a hint at him or anyone having a relation to the defendant outside the case. His vote is the biggest gamble dependent of everyone retracing their steps of the details surrounding the trial, and what I love most about this is the fairness.

Eight doesn't know if the boy's not guilty, he never forces anybody to side with him, but recognizes that the defendant's life is a serious matter and shouldn't be as open shut as everyone else makes it in the beginning. The film shows within reason that the trial wasn't as clean cut as it seemed. And I know the movie isn't judicially accurate and everything's circumstantial, assumptive, and so on. If there's any real issue the film has for me is that they never indict Eight for sneaking in the switchblade even though that scene is still a goddamn show stealer.

Henry Fonda excellently portrayed a man who knew how to play the cards right

Then again, the increased flimsiness of the trial made with the uncertainty of the outcome is the point. We never get the sentencing after the men leave that room, it's all about Eight showing the others that the boy's life deserved more deliberation than the others were willing to give him. Hell, it discusses that trials like this can and have existed where measures of the outcome are made beyond the defendant's control. Breaking through the easy decision every other juror had was more valuable, and Juror 8 did that responsibly while never trying to be above anyone. That in turn is what makes this ensemble cast nearly flawless.

The Angry Men

Before ever seeing it, I've seen a couple jokes of this movie's premise of how it was nothing but said 12 men who sure were angry. Having now seen it myself, it's amazing how much we get to know about the jurors yet only two are ever given names. You'd think the film would give them simple archetypes and gimmicks, but even if you disregarded the acting chops everyone brings, the writing was able to balance who they each are relative to the case and each other. You can memorize which juror is which yet that never makes them just a number on the table.

To me, the best part about this film is how the group is able to collectively debate about the trial with individual motives and understandings. Jurors Eight and Three are the focal characters, they're the most opposing, but I don't consider them the main characters. A Youtube video I watched explores this better than I ever could, but everyone is in this together, regardless of how present they are in the movie and you notice this in their behavior. The character writing made with the simple staging does so much while explaining so little.

Juror Four, who reveals himself to be a stock broker, is the most clinical about the details. He does his best in retracing the trial as factual as possible, discussing the evidence in a way not even Eight is able to fight. What makes him crack though is when it came to jurors Eight, Five, and Nine bringing up certain conditions of the defendant and witnesses that he didn't care to notice. Juror Nine is the opposite, concerning about the witnesses' conditions and probable influences which helped reveal factual doubts in their testimonies.

Juror Seven from the getgo is made the most detached of the group. By the way he's dressed, constantly checking the time, while capable of paying attention Seven is the most dismissive of the case for the simple reason of just wanting to leave for baseball. This is where he comes into conflict with jurors Two and Eleven especially. Eleven is expressively respectful toward the judicial due process, mentioning himself being an immigrant, which makes him eventually fed up with Seven's disinterest. He's not somebody who changed his vote easily nor adds a lot to the debate himself, but recognizes Eight's efforts of a fair discussion and naturally confronts Seven about his constant snide attitude towards the case.

One of the film's strongest moments, where the build up was genuine even if you felt it was unexpected

Everyone makes sense with is established about them in the beginning and I could go on about the little things. Juror Nine, being the first to switch his vote, is the only one who meets with Eight outside in the film's end. You can tell by Juror Twelve fiddling with his glasses and concerned of having the info laid out sequentially is the most flippant about his vote. Juror Five being more likely to change his vote out of sympathy, having grown up and is more knowledgeable of the slums given that's the defendant's home. Nothing about this movie or ensemble is complicated, but the through-line behind everyone's choices in this gets to be more complex than realized. Everything about this is encapsulated in my favorite scene of the whole movie.

Pulling It All Back

Juror Ten is the most openly bigoted of the ensemble. From the start he is racially motivated in his vote, but that's not expressed until a little later. Of that point, he's certain of himself like juror Three about the vote being clear while scoffing at Eight's opposition. When the cracks of the case start to show, Ten's arrogance starts to show and his words become charged. He becomes the most hostile toward everyone and especially gets a rise out of Juror Five when talking about "these people". Everything comes to ahead when the vote is 9 to 3 for not guilty. Ten finally has his outburst, his racial rant unspecified but striking all the checkmarks of a man that stuck in his ways. Then it happens.

Everyone put up with his remarks up to that point, but here they finally step away and we get the most striking moment of a man finally alone with his thoughts. After Juror Four tells him off, Ten goes to the corner desk and basically shuts down for the remainder of the movie. This was the film's strongest payoff in every sense. It wouldn't have worked without the buildup just as much as the civility that came with everyone involved. Nobody had to throw a punch or challenge his beliefs, you never know if this changed Ten as a person, all that matters was that Ten knew he exasperated any goodwill from the jury and finally checked out the conversation. 12 Angry Men knew how to make the characters see their errors naturally, never feeling like they played up the drama for everyone to get their moment.

Conclusion

To me, I'm reminded of when in 6th grade, my literature teacher would have these Socratic seminars discussing the books we'd read. You could say it was the most involved I was in that class. This film knew how to capture that feeling, how towrite a roundtable where the stakes are high from the start but doesn't make it sanctimonious. Again, Juror Eight doesn't force or manipulate the others to see things his way. They try to convince him initially, adding up to a tangled but mutual engagement and it always feels like you're with them in the moment. You feel Eight's uncertainty is as sincere as his conviction, the same going for everyone else involved. The fact they're all sitting in sequential, helping you naturally follow who is who, is the cherry on top.

Before watching this, I didn't presume much beyond a simple courtroom drama which I enjoy ever since Ace Attorney. What followed after was just being more than impressed by how concise and thoughtful this was made. No second felt wasted, no detail felt trivial, ALL THIS and not even mentioning it being like a "bottle episode". Believe me, this post is long enough fanboying about a film from the 50s. It earned being the most ergonomic and engaging movies I've ever seen. If this essay wasn't enough, I recommend it at least once in your life as it's free to watch. What else is there to say?

“Always two there are, a master and an apprentice.” - Yoda

“Now there are two of them!” - Viceroy Gunray

कल रात की बात है। मेरे एक दोस्त ने, जो खुद को ‘जेन-ज़ी सिनेफाइल’ कहता है, मुझसे पूछा, “यार तुम ब्लैक एंड व्हाइट फिल्में कैसे देख लेते हो? बोरिंग नहीं लगतीं? मतलब, वो तो ओल्ड हो गईं ना।” मैंने उसकी आँखों में देखा। चेहरे पर वही घिसी-पिटी सी स्मग स्माइल थी, जो हर उस इंसान के चेहरे पर आती है जिसने अपनी सोच को सिर्फ इसलिए अपग्रेड मान लिया क्योंकि स्क्रीन पर रंग दिख रहे हैं। मैंने पलटकर कहा, “तुम्हारी…