12 Angry Men

There are a few wonderful courtroom dramas out there, Anatomy of a Murder, To Kill a Mockingbird and Witness for the Prosecution immediately springing to mind. 12 Angry Men is so brilliant, it could very well be the definitive courtroom drama on film. Sidney Lumet's direction is masterly, and although the action takes place on one set(an actual New York drawing room) there are a huge variety of innovative camera angles and visual set-ups. The screenplay is sophisticated and smart, and the story is compelling and intelligent. The film is also brilliantly made, and the acting is superb. Henry Fonda especially dominates the film, with an integrity that makes his character so wonderful, but the other actors are wonderful as well, Ed Begley, Jack Warden, John Fiedler, Lee J Cobb, Rudy Bond et al. are all impeccable support to Fonda. Overall, brilliant courtroom drama. 10/10 Bethany Cox

Gosh, I don't know how many times I studied this play and performed it in high school, not to mention how many television shows had an episode that was inspired by 12 Angry Men. It was always a great drama because of the raw human emotions that were so true and remain timeless, this play will never be dated. I couldn't wait to see this movie when I saw it at the video store and it was the first movie I slipped into the DVD player. First off, I was incredibly impressed with the credits, we not only had Henry Fonda, we had Lee J. Cobb in the cast! This movie was so well performed and such a treasure, god, I couldn't ever say any words to justify it. I've done this a million times, but here is another summary of what 12 Angry Men is all about.

12 jurors are about to make a decision about a murder case, over all it seems like an open and shut case with tons of evidence that would make any good man look guilty, an 18 year old boy is about to be put to death if convicted. 11 of the men vote guilty, only one vote holds them back and they have to discuss the trial once again due to one vote being not guilty. Jurour #8 refuses to just jump to conclusions and brings up incredible possibilities that can always make a man think of "reasonable doubts", one by one the jurors begin to see the points he is making, except for one stubborn #3 who would rather just pull the switch to the chair himself.

12 Angry Men is a timeless tale that could either be told very badly, i.e. 7th Heaven, or incredibly well and bring out terrific performances like Henry and Lee did. Actually, the whole cast was terrific, there wasn't a performance that was off key, movies like this are so needed in Hollywood today, it was so simple, but added so much for a 30 minute play. Please, if you have any taste, you will truly enjoy 12 Angry Men and have a great appreciation for it!

10/10

This is one of those movies where everything could go wrong. The story is as simple as it can be: 12 men are jurors on a open and shut murder trial, but one man thinks that another persons life deserves at least some thought on the matter and votes not guilty. From this point on we have 12 actors and a closed room. This could be the most boring film ever made. Lumet however is a master of mise-en-scene and provides a tense movie that keeps you locked on from the word "go". The dialogs are great and supported by incredibly talented actors. Joel Schumacher in Phone Booth needed to see this movie and draw a few ideas on how to make a character built, dialog driven movie. A must see for everyone.

A young ethnic kid from a rough area is up on a murder charge and to the jury of twelve men, it all seems a fairly open and shut case. So all are surprised when the votes come back with one "not guilty" in the pack. Juror #8 maintains he holds a reasonable doubt, much to the frustration of the rest of the group. The stalemate forces a debate over the details of the case which sees each man questioning others and themselves for their motivations and decisions. The heat in the room and the passage of time sees tensions rising by the minute.

I'm not a massive fan of the "Movie You Must See" podcast crew because they mostly tend to discuss the events in a film rather than really critiquing or reviewing it (although at times this "mates in a pub" approach is OK). Anyway, one of the advantages of having anyone pointing out "films you should see" is that it reminds you that you should these films. So it was for me as I listened to 12 Angry Men and realised that not only had I never reviewed it but that I had not actually watched it for many years. Of course mentally I knew it was a "classic" but did I really understand why it was? So when it came on television recently I watched it again with new eyes.

The films moves right into the jury room and pretty much this room is all we have for the duration. Initially the script does really well to have the viewer side with the majority because in the discussions the evidence does seem very clear cut and #8's doubts seem so general and non-specific. This is a good way to start because it means the viewer also has to question and we are taken along the journey just like the men in the jury. Gradually we get into the detail and doubts are tweaked out – not to the point of solving the crime because that is not what it is about but it is done in a way that is interesting and engaging. It is not perfect in this regards though because some of the jumps are big, some of the assumptions are stretching and some of the knowledge in the room is a little too convenient. However what weaknesses there are in the material are covered by the fact that the delivery is roundly quite brilliant.

Lumet directions from within the room and makes great use of such a small space. It feels like it could be a play (not sure if it was or not) but Lumet prevents this just feeling like filmed theatre. The camera captures the room, sticks close to characters, moves around, in and out accordingly and it never feels stiff. This aids the sense of tension from the audience point of view as we are not just left watching the room so much as being in it. The ensemble cast are another big factor in this delivery as they all deliver. On the surface of it the characters could easily be labelled "racist", "old", "naïve", "angry" and so on but the actors don't let themselves be that basic and they also do a good job of pacing the building resentment and tension in the room to be convincing. Fonda maybe has "top-billing" but he does have the least showy role, leading those into his corner. Cobb and Begley have good turns as the anger of the room but everyone plays their parts very well. OK Balsam, Webber and Voskovec come out the least memorable of the lot but this is understandable when viewed beside such sterling turns from Fielder, Klugman, Warden, Sweeney and Marshall. There really isn't a weak link in the room.

With modern cynical eyes it is perhaps totally hard to accept the film for its praise of the jury system and I do agree with the "MYMS" group when they made reference to the moment in H:LOTS which is essentially the bitter reverse of this film. However this slightly flag-waving stuff is covered by the delivery being as strong and as well paced as it is. Overall then this is an eminently watchable film and I can understand why it is so well regarded. The material and message may not be note-perfect but the delivery is brilliant across the board and it is one that I could easily return to again and again and still get pleasure out of how well it is all done.

This film deserves to be on anyone's list of top films. My problem is that it is so perfect, so seamlessly polished, it is hard to appreciate the individual excellences.

The acting is top notch. I believe that monologue acting is quite a bit simpler than real reactive ensemble acting. Most of what we see today is monologues pretending to be conversations. But in this film, we have utter mastery of throwing emotions. Once the air becomes filled with human essence, it is hard to not get soaked ourselves as the camera moves through the thick atmosphere. Yes, there are slight differences in how each actor projects (Fonda internally, Balsam completely on his skin...) but the ensemble presents one vision to the audience.

The writing is snappy too. You can tell it was worked and worked and worried, going through several generations. It is easy to be mesmerized by this writing and acting, and miss the rare accomplishment of the camera-work. This camera is so fluid, you forget you are in one room. It moves from being a human observer, to being omniscient, to being a target. It is smart enough to seldom center on the element of most importance, so expands the field to all men.

This is very hard. Very hard, to make the camera human. So much easier to do what we see today -- acknowledge the machinery and jigger with it. Do we have a filmmaker today who could do this?

Ted's Evaluation -- 4 of 3: Every cineliterate person should experience this.