The term vanilla is often used to refer to the most basic or unmodified version of something. This makes sense if you consider all the different ice-cream choices, but doesn’t really make sense when you think about vanilla itself. Vanilla in its more basic form (often used in cooking) is a quite powerful flavor and isn’t really plain at all.
But an unmodified version of something is also something unique in its own right so I guess it makes sense.
The best way to get better at something is to copy someone who is already good at it. Follow their tips and tricks, but don’t blindly follow everything they say and do. After a while, if you care enough and practice enough, you can eventually get better than them and devise your own methods.
In the movie Cool Runnings, about the Jamaican Olympic bobsled team, the main character idolizes the Swiss athletes. In an attempt to help his team improve their time, they begin their countdown like the Swiss, saying, “eins zwei drei” before their run. They also observe the discipline of the Swiss team and put more effort into their newfound sport. Over time though, they discover that the best method is simply to act like themselves, and not try to conform to the ways of someone else.
When we say that it’s a nice day, we usually mean that it is warm and sunny. I guess this makes sense since having a rainy day limits what you can do. However I think that there is more optimal weather than this, such as when it is cloudy and cool, with a nice warm breeze from the south. You can keep all your “nice days” full of blinding brightness and road glare and I will enjoy the cloudy days.
On the other hand, a lot of people also say how much they enjoy rainy days. They like being indoors while it’s raining, if they had to be outside for more than 30 minutes while it’s raining they would no longer like rainy days.
The best way to eat M&M’s is to arrange them as follows:
 |
| Also, M&M sword fights. |
[If you are reading these posts sequentially backwards because you are from the future, please note that this is the last of a 9-day “series” about the movie 12 Angry Men. Please go back to the first post about the movie and proceed from there. Or just skip this whole section, I don’t say anything life-alteringly important.]
[This post may contain spoilers; please watch the movie here before reading]
The ending to 12 Angry Men really puts everything into perspective. All of the deliberation over the most minute details of the trial and testimony result in a final conclusion, but after that the decision has no real effect on their lives. As the men leave the court building, down the many steps and onto the street below, we see them each heading off in different directions on their own, probably not going to see each other again. They all were chosen randomly, came together for a very unique and dramatic experience, and went along in their own ways, changed by what happened in that room.
The movie shows the positive side of human nature, where we can work together, getting over our differences, helping the lives of others and learning a lot about others and ourselves along the way.
[This post may contain spoilers; please watch the movie here before reading]
12 Angry Men shows the difficulty of compromising. As a great man once said, “A good compromise leaves everyone angry.” The conversation is difficult, and some people just don’t want to cooperate, making finding a solution very difficult. The main character had not only to explain his points very clearly, but also play the politics of the room in order to win over supporters. He often focused on individuals, trying to get each man to side with him, one by one. At times the debate came to a standstill, members on both sides unwilling to make any progress. However, each time they were able to restart the conversation, work out solutions to problems, help each other understand the case from other perspectives, and finally come to a conclusion. This movie shows the power of compromise, and how the judicial system actually can work when properly handled.
[This post may contain spoilers; please watch the movie here before reading]
There are many parts of the movie that I find interesting because they are representative of a culture much different from ours today. Much has changed in America since the 1950’s, and in many ways it makes me feel much fonder of the culture from back then. Besides many obvious technological advances, there are many other slight differences, especially in the actions and behaviors of the men themselves. To start out, all of the actors are white men. This would be nearly impossible for a movie today because of the societal necessity to include minorities and women. However, the group of men they choose does represent an extremely large variety of people, especially for the time period. Next, in an early scene, Juror #7 has a piece of gum, and instead of keeping the wrapper in his pocket or throwing it into a trash can, he simply tosses it out of the open window. Just the fact that I noticed this shows how concerned we as a nation have become about littering, and it shows almost how ridiculous our heightened care is. Same goes for the smoking, it is rare for people to smoke now, especially inside a confined room. Possibly the largest difference is the initial respect all the men have for one another. Although they come from different backgrounds and don’t know each other at all, they have an established respect that a lot of people simply don’t have today.
[This post may contain spoilers; please watch the movie here before reading]
The fact that almost the entire movie is shot in one room, and a small one at that, is amazing. From a cinematographic standpoint, the film is very well done. It uses a variety of camera angles, as well as a good balance of repositioning the jurors around the room in order to keep it interesting. Even though the movie is in black and white and it essentially takes place in a single room, it shows that the script, acting, and plot are far more important than special effects or exotic scenery.
Maybe a movie can be good without lots of explosions…
[This post may contain spoilers; please watch the movie here before reading]
Juror #10 is the most unreasonable, angry man. He is often extremely mad, offending others and laughing about it to himself. He finds fault in almost everyone else, and remains in his strong attitude until the dramatic scene where everyone refuses to listen to him. Obsessed with being important and respected, he eventually loses the respect of everyone. His ironic judgment of others is probably best seen when he says that the immigrant “don’t even speak good english.”
Juror #11 is the immigrant, new to America but excited about its opportunities. Surprisingly, despite his difficulties with english, he knows more about America than the rest of them, and acts in a very polite manner. He is the opposite of the stereotypical European immigrant and proves that he is a very beneficial member of society. Very well behaved and always concentrated on the task at hand, he shows the irony of the hate of Juror #10.
Juror #12 is another form of comic relief, although much different from Juror #7. As an advertiser, he prefers drawing pictures and playing tic-tac-toe over deliberating over the case. His one-liners are particularly funny, and he constantly tries to gain the approval of the others. Although he is very unsure of what he truly believes, he really cares and thinks deeply about the opinions presented on both sides.
[This post may contain spoilers; please watch the movie here before reading]
Juror #7 is the comic relief for this extremely dramatic movie. Obviously distracted by his tickets to the baseball game that night, he refuses to care about the trial at hand, siding with whichever side he thinks will conclude the meeting as soon as possible. Extremely laid back, he makes some jokes at unnecessary times, which I found very entertaining. His personality is in such great conflict with the others’ that he often feels like he is the only normal person in the room, resorting to conversing about baseball to pass the time.
The main character, Juror #8, is the instigator, the one man who goes against the current. Unsure of himself at first, he almost gives up, only to be saved by the vote of Juror #9. In many cases Juror #8 doesn’t really make much sense, and oftentimes the arguments of Jurors #3 and #4 seem to be more valid. Although it is quite obvious from the start what the end result is going to be, the process he takes shows many strategies for conversation and debate. Beautifully setting traps for his opponents, he leads them right in, showing them where they are wrong. In the end, he is respectful of everyone is the room, building the trust of each member one by one until his goal is eventually achieved.
Juror #9 is an old man who has to stand up not only for himself, but also Juror #8. He is distinctively always on the defensive, until the end, during his discussion about the eyeglasses. He represents the older population of America, defending the old man who testified in the court. Although not as physically able as any of the other men, he proves that he can still have a powerful voice and influence.
Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs 