Television

Standard of Review: Amy Schumer Brilliantly Skewers 12 Angry Men

Amy Schumer does it again with a take on a legal classic

By  
on

12 Angry Men is one of the best legal films of all time, and is a movie that I would like to review at some point in the future. It has an extremely deep cast, and Henry Fonda gives a fantastic performance as a man who has sufficient conviction in his beliefs to attempt to convince eleven other jurors to vote against convicting a man accused of murder. But 12 Angry Men’s title is extremely literal — all twelve jurors are male, and there is not a single female in the entire film. The film is thus ripe for parody, and the March 5 episode of comedian Amy Schumer’s Comedy Central show Inside Amy Schumer hilariously lampoons it by commenting on beauty and gender stereotypes (this review will contain spoilers for the episode and the original film 12 Angry Men, but I do not have much remorse about spoiling a sixty-year-old film).

While the film 12 Angry Men depicts the jury deliberations of a murder trial, the Inside Amy Schumer parody version (brilliantly titled 12 Angry Men Inside Amy Schumer, a joke that I had to read twice before understanding) involves the twelve male jurors deliberating whether or not Amy is attractive enough to be the star of her own basic cable television show. Those jurors include a murder’s row of actors and comedians, including John Hawkes, Jeff Goldblum, Paul Giamatti, Vincent Kartheiser, Nick Di Paolo, Kumail Nanjiani, and Chris Gethard. The episode is filmed in the same black-and-white style as the film, and contains many of the same story beats.

Hawkes plays the Henry Fonda role from the original film; he is the one juror who initially believes that Schumer might be attractive enough for television. As anyone who has seen Hawkes’s terrifying performance in the 2011 film Winter’s Bone can attest, Hawkes is an unusual choice to be a modern-day Fonda. But Hawkes is perfect in this role; he is convinced that beauty is subjective, and that attraction can change given the circumstances. Slowly but surely, Hawkes convinces all the jurors that Schumer is indeed attractive enough for television, saving her from, as Goldblum astutely points out, either being kicked of television or being put to death immediately (or, even worse, cast on an NBC sitcom).

In doing so, Hawkes’s arguments mirror many of Fonda’s from the original film. The strongest part of the episode is a parody of the film’s famous switchblade scene (in which Fonda produces a switchblade identical to the purported murder weapon). In Schumer’s hands, though, the switchblade becomes a device that I probably should not mention on a family website, but serves a commentary about the ubiquitous nature of a certain purportedly taboo sexual act.

Another terrific scene parodies the glasses scene from the film (in which, prompted by a bespeckled juror, Fonda surmises that one of the witnesses could not have seen the murder). Here, Hawkes convinces Kartheiser that, as he is sitting in bed late at night drinking alcohol, he just may be reasonably attracted to Schumer. Kartheiser, best known for playing Pete Campbell on Mad Men, is the Babe Ruth of line reading (and in writing this paragraph, I watched the YouTube clip of his “Not Great, Bob” line from Mad Men about ten times). Kartheiser does not disappoint here; in response to Hawkes’s question about whether Kartheiser drinks in bed, he masterfully reads the line “every night until I black out, what of it?”

Leading the charge to “convict” Schumer and to exile her from television is Di Paolo, which is brilliant casting for two reasons. First, in a liberal-leaning industry, Di Paolo is well known as perhaps the country’s most preeminent “conservative comedian,” at least on fiscal issues (though his views are probably best described as libertarian). Second, Di Paolo’s mannerisms and looks (at least as made up in this episode) perfectly mirror those of Lee J. Cobb, who is the primary antagonist of the film. In a half hour comedy episode featuring twelve actors, it is hard to give any character much of a backstory, but Di Paolo gets a moment of pathos at the end of the episode, as he breaks down crying over his lost love.

Giamatti is the other primary antagonist of the episode, and is clearly enjoying himself as he struts around the room coughing into a handkerchief and insulting Schumer’s looks with relish. Giamatti gave one of the best performances of the early 2000s in the 2004 film Sideways, but unfortunately never reached those heights again (seemingly all the roles that would have been in Giamatti’s wheelhouse went to Philip Seymour Hoffman). Giamatti’s performance in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was the nadir of Giamatti’s career, as his role consisted of shooting a machine gun wildly and laughing maniacally (though, to be fair, that script did him no favors). His role in 12 Angry Men Inside Amy Schumer gives me hope that Giamatti has a few more more great comedic performances left in him.

Sponsored

I am not a regular viewer of Inside Amy Schumer, but this episode has spurred me to watch it more often (and her Friday Night Lights parody from earlier this season is fantastic). I cannot wait for her next legal parody, which will surely be entitled A Few Good Men Inside Amy Schumer.

Earlier: Amy Schumer Tackles Legal Classic

Harry Graff is a litigation associate at a firm, but he spends days wishing that he was writing about film, television, literature, and pop culture instead of writing briefs. If there is a law-related movie, television show, book, or any other form of media that you would like Harry Graff to discuss, he can be reached at harrygraff19@gmail.com. Be sure to follow Harry Graff on Twitter at @harrygraff19.

Sponsored

Topics

, , ,