Asimow, Michael R., "12 Angry Men: A Revisionist View." Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 82, p. 711, 2007 <http://ssrn.com/abstract=1095488>

 

 

            In this paper, the author, Michael Asimow, takes a very different view of the jury of 12 Angry Men. While it is widely assumed that the jury of 12 Angry Men serves as an example of an ideal jury, the author of 12 ANGRY MEN: A REVISIONIST VIEW argues that instead of supporting the jury system the movie serves as an argument against the jury system. The author bases this on the idea that while the juror number eight is able to poke holes in the evidence, there is still enough circumstantial evidence to find the defendant guilty, and that the jury should find him guilty.
            Michael Asimow argues in his paper that if the son didn't commit the murder then someone else did, but there was no sign of theft or break in at the apartment. Also the father was killed by a very unusual knife, and even though the juror number eight found a similar knife at a local shop, the probability that the killer and the boy had the same unusual knife is very small. The boy also did not remember anything from a movie that he said he saw. Juror number eight explains this by asking a juror about a movie that the juror saw couple of days ago, who was playing in it and its name. The juror remembered most of the information but not all, and so this was used to disregard the idea that the boy was lying about seeing a movie. The juror not remembering the movie he saw couple of days ago in no ways diminishes the fact that the boy remembered nothing. Also the boy's alibi was not confirmed by anyone as no one saw him at the theater. So even if disregarding the evidence from the two eyewitnesses there is enough evidence to find the defendant guilty. This movie is seen by many as a model for a jury, but in Michael Asimow's view it 12 Angry Men should not be viewed as a movie that supports the idea that jury deliberations leads to the right decision.

This book distinguishes itself by giving a through biography of Casablanca’s often forgotten director, Michael Curtiz.  Usually considered to be nothing more than a studio workhorse, Curtiz and his work have often been ignored as merely the cookie cutter products of the enormous studio factories.  In the Casablanca Man, Robertson tries to rebuff this image of Curtiz and investigate the unique elements of Curtiz’s work.  During this investigation, Robertson outlines Curtiz’s life-story and the influence that it had on his films.  Robertson also attempts to discover the man behind Curtiz’s films by researching the director’s view of film auteurism.  In 1917, Curtiz stated that the director’s place in a film could be described as a kind of supreme behind the scenes coordinator.  Throughout his life, Curtiz favored a hidden approach regarding the influence he had on his own films.  Unfortunately, this method has led critics and viewers alike to forget his existence or see his many successful films as merely happy studio systems accidents.  This book is highly relevant to the analysis of Casablanca because it reminds its audience to not forget the work of a director who seems to have put a great deal of effort into being forgotten.  Curtiz’s influence on Casablanca is significant and (as this book reminds us) should not be forgotten.