12 Glowing Men

July 30, 2008 9:30 AM

12 Angry Men + Glowing = 12 Glowing Men. An absolutely beautiful film by Martijn Hendriks.
posted by hubs (36 comments total)

Well, it's a beautiful film by Sidney Lumet, made sparkly by someone else.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:35 AM on July 30, 2008 [10 favorites]

What a great movie. Shame about the rainbow crap. Maybe someone could fix it with the wonders of modern technology.
posted by echo target at 9:36 AM on July 30, 2008

Looks like somone has discovered After Effects.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 9:39 AM on July 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

Now I've got to go back and watch that, what a great flick. Yeah, I'd appreciate Sidney Lumet being credited in the title, since, while this is pretty, it's not really his film, but hey, enough with the hate -- that was a cute effect.
posted by cavalier at 9:41 AM on July 30, 2008

If I run that through a filter that adds a halo effect to the sparkles, can I claim I made a movie too?
posted by XMLicious at 9:48 AM on July 30, 2008

It is beautiful, I just wish it were also interesting.

Queuing up the original for watching now. Thanks!
posted by wemayfreeze at 9:48 AM on July 30, 2008

12 Covered-in-Rainbow-Stickers Men
posted by DU at 9:50 AM on July 30, 2008

Looking through his site, I see this is the same guy who removed all the birds from The Birds. That one showed a bit more effort, I thought.
posted by echo target at 9:58 AM on July 30, 2008 [2 favorites]

I just registered 12basreliefmen.com and 12inversevideomen.com .
posted by davemee at 10:00 AM on July 30, 2008 [2 favorites]

Last night I saw film critic commenting on a play that used film footage and how difficult it is to successfully use film in art. I think this (failed) example proves it.
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 10:09 AM on July 30, 2008

Usually I can walk away from something and feel something; while I may not have received the creator's originally intended message, at least I got *something* out of it, personal to me. This is one of those unusual works that is quite simply empty. So empty in fact that I, after one or two minutes, was so caught up in the original (powerful) work, that the visual effect had been completely flattened out by my brain in a way no different than bad television reception gets eventually ignored. Perhaps it is because this is one of my favourite films, and while I can recite that scene by heart, it never fails to move me. Maybe if another film, less potent to me, had been selected something would have happened in addition to the original scene?

I agree with the notion that fearfulsymmetry relays. Film is difficult to use in art for the same reason that film so completely transports us. It dominates the scene. It is like a television in the corner of a bar. No matter how interesting the conversation, you always see people habitually turning their heads back toward it.
posted by AmberV at 10:11 AM on July 30, 2008 [3 favorites]

12 Angry Men + Glowing = 12 Glowing Men.

Your math here is a little flawed. It's:

12 Angry Men + Glowing = 12 Angry, Glowing Men.
posted by dgaicun at 10:13 AM on July 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

Can't beat 24 Hour Psycho.
posted by jettloe at 10:27 AM on July 30, 2008

12 [glowing] Monkeys. Now that's a film I'd watch!
posted by blue_beetle at 10:43 AM on July 30, 2008

If the glowing was in proportion to Mr Hendriks' understanding of a particular person's level of anger at any one time, it would be better. Or at least something.

As it is, it makes me want to link to a picture of the Mona Lisa that's had a Bevel and Emboss done to it.
posted by imperium at 10:44 AM on July 30, 2008

If the glowing was in proportion to Mr Hendriks' understanding of a particular person's level of anger at any one time, it would be better. Or at least something.

That's what I was thinking. I was desperately trying to make sense of the glowing before I realized that it was just somebody dicking around with a computer or a profound attempt to make us confront the utter irrationality of human emotion by forcing the viewer to attempt to correlate a substantiative phenomenon with the human experience and fail, creating a dichotomy wherein the viewer must confront their own lack of reliable indicators for the internal mindscape of others.

On balance I think it's somebody dicking around with a computer.
posted by Shepherd at 10:53 AM on July 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

Original B&W film = masterpiece.
This filtered atrocity (I'm guessing one of the Sapphire FX plugs) = Shit Sandwich.
posted by dbiedny at 11:02 AM on July 30, 2008

It could be an interesting exercise if it had more thought put into it. I thought maybe the glowing would start with Fonda and then gradually appear in others as people turned away from the ranting character.

As it is, it's about as artistic as colorization.
posted by starman at 11:17 AM on July 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

The glowing effect makes me angry.
posted by ssg at 11:35 AM on July 30, 2008 [2 favorites]

This is neither beautiful nor interesting. It's retarded.
posted by decoherence at 11:49 AM on July 30, 2008

I second decoherence. It's retarded.
posted by tadellin at 12:24 PM on July 30, 2008

Hmm. The choice of scene was interesting. It's where the tide turns and the racist guy is exposed. I thought there was something possibly interesting going on when he speaks and everyone gets up from the table and/or turns away.

But yeah, it's sorta random. I have absolutely no idea why it would make anyone angry, though.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:27 PM on July 30, 2008

I take it he's commenting on the aura of reverence we feel for this film's concise, human, dramatic poignancy, and piggybacking on the great theatrical lighting to draw attention to that.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 12:40 PM on July 30, 2008

Also ... Martin Balsam as foreman ... "Fred, baby!"
posted by mrgrimm at 12:40 PM on July 30, 2008

Making glittering rainbows emanate from the single set, flesh and blood, black and white screen contents, by basically cranking up the gain, does sort of create an interesting statement of what we really are dazzled by. In which case, distate is an appropriate response.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 12:47 PM on July 30, 2008

Dibs on 12AngryDramaticHamsters.com!
posted by Greg_Ace at 12:54 PM on July 30, 2008

Call me when The Glowing Birdcage is available.
posted by katillathehun at 2:26 PM on July 30, 2008

Well it certainly got a reaction out of you fellas. Isn't that the point of art?
posted by hellphish at 3:41 PM on July 30, 2008

Would randomly kicking you in the nuts count as art, then? It'd certainly get a reaction...
posted by stenseng at 3:50 PM on July 30, 2008

Hmm. The choice of scene was interesting. It's where the tide turns and the racist guy is exposed. I thought there was something possibly interesting going on when he speaks and everyone gets up from the table and/or turns away.

There was something interesting going on then. Something very interesting.

Ignore all the sparkle crap and you'll see it.
posted by Flunkie at 3:57 PM on July 30, 2008

So the consensus seems to be that "absolutely beautiful" and "by Martijn Hendriks" are iffy, but the central point of the post ("film") is well on the mark.
posted by Wolfdog at 4:15 PM on July 30, 2008

This crap is why I had dreams of tunneling out of art school to escape.

Perxactly.
posted by device55 at 5:52 PM on July 30, 2008

So the consensus seems to be that "absolutely beautiful" and "by Martijn Hendriks" are iffy, but the central point of the post ("film") is well on the mark.

Well now, a traditionalist might argue that this is a video that uses a film for source material.
posted by ssg at 10:17 PM on July 30, 2008

imperium: If the glowing was in proportion to Mr Hendriks' understanding of a particular person's level of anger at any one time, it would be better.

Yes! Add color! Make them turn bright green as they get angry. Also, bigger. More gravelly voices. Furthermore: purple pants.
posted by Pronoiac at 12:12 AM on July 31, 2008 [1 favorite]

This crap is why I had dreams of tunneling out of art school to escape.

Why on earth would anyway pay to go to school to become an artist?
posted by mrgrimm at 8:00 AM on July 31, 2008

This is a solid piece of artistic work. We've all watched that scene a million times, and the artist has added a little something, just the right amount to make it interesting again. Thanks for posting.
posted by king walnut at 4:50 PM on July 31, 2008