Review No. 1200: 12 Angry Men
Note - For anyone new to this site, I have a backlog of reviews for a previous site that I've been trying to move over. But since that's taking more time than I realised I'm continuing on with my landmark reviews.
*
In the 60+ years since its release, 12 Angry Men has gone down as one of the most important films of American Cinema and one of the best examples of the judicial process and how easily it can be corrupted by laziness. It’s a film I’ve seen a few times now and I feel its central message is as strong now as it ever was.
Taking place almost entirely inside a Jury Room, on the hottest day of the year, 12 men gather together to discuss whether or not an 18 year old boy killed his father during an argument. All seem certain of the boy’s guilt and hope to be let out early, except for Juror 8 who thinks that since the boy will be given the death sentence if he’s found guilty they deserve to have some more deliberation and see if there really is no room for doubt.
While the others Jurors agree most of them are annoyed at the waste of time and argue that everything brought up in Court including two eye-witnesses, the boy’s flimsy testimony and lack of any evidence to indicate another killer all point towards the boy killing his own father. But as the day goes on Juror 8 continually pushes for the understand that they are not looking to prove the boy’s innocence but rather to confirm that he’s not guilty by reasonable doubt, as Juror 8 provides plausible evidence against every argument thrown at him the room starts to split at the seams trying to come to an agreement about the fate of a boy.
This is one of those stories that takes the simple concept of a jury and executes it brilliantly, because we’re shown nothing from the courtroom and everything is shown to us second-hand through the Jurors deliberation it means we have no preconceived ideas about the particulars of what they, as Jurors, have seen. By all accounts the evidence really was overwhelming and the open-&-shut nature was exactly what should’ve happened, but the film is arguing that people aren’t infallible, that mistakes can and do happen and all it takes is one man to make a difference.
Admittedly given the age of the film it’s not perfect, there are certain elements that feel rushed through, in particular Juror 8 bringing in an identical knife to the murder weapon despite it being illegal to buy a switchblade never being touched upon after it’s reveal, and because we never see the actual trial a lot of the evidence brought up later on in the film had an iffy habit of “Just being remembered now.” But I don’t hold those too heavily against the film because its story is so much more about the effectiveness of re-evaluation that how the film chose to re-evaluate shouldn’t factor in too heavily.
Aside from a couple non-speaking roles and one-scene extras, the whole cast consists of these 12 men, and while only a handful of them get the typical character arc due to the length of the film, all 12 of them are well-characterised in their own right. Since they’re all unnamed aside from two of them right at the end the 12 Jurors are set to play as different archtypes of man rather than as individual men themselves, in any other film that might have killed it but putting all these differing personalities in the same sweltering room is what makes the whole thing worth watching.
Juror 1 takes the role of Foreman and tries to maintain order throughout the whole discussion only to struggle once the arguments heated up.
Juror 2 was a quiet and often meek man but found a voice for himself as he started to understand the truth.
Juror 4 is a well-educated stock-broker with a keen eye on facts and believes that the evidence given by the prosecution is infallible.
Juror 5 grew up in a slum similar to what the accused did and doesn’t take kindly to some of the other Jurors blaming the environment as motive for the killing.
Juror 6 often played the tough guy but he had a head for respect and made sure to stand up to the bullies in the room.
Juror 7 was a wisecracking salesman who clearly did not want to be there, even when he started to change his vote it was to hurry up and leave, never really learning a lesson.
Juror 9 was an old man who manages to catch onto certain things the other Jurors missed, he’s the first to join Juror 8 and believe that there was more to discuss than the others were letting on.
Juror 10 was a loud-mouth bigot and clearly didn’t see passed the boy’s heritage as reason enough for being a killer, often putting him at odds with the other Jurors.
Juror 11 was a European immigrant who made a point of speaking correct English and following the law of the USA a country he fought hard to find a place and build a life.
And Juror 12 was an ad-executive who at first seemed quite jovial but lost his confidence the longer the discussions went and the less sure of his own thoughts he became.
Everyone has their role to play with Jurors 4, 7, 9 and 10 all factoring in – Juror 10 being the catalyst for one of the film’s most iconic scenes – but the true conflict of the film comes down between Juror 3 and Juror 8. Henry Fonda’s Juror 8 plays the heart of the film, he doesn’t fight for the boy’s innocence but rather starts off believing that there’s more to be discussed than the immediate dismissal that the others seem to think. Fonda takes an intelligent, soft-spoken approach to the character, he’s not perfect and struggles at the start to make a compelling argument against the angry mob but he perseveres until he gets one person on his side and grows from there, gaining new insights that even he never considered. Outside of butting heads with Juror 3 and occasionally Juror 10, Fonda never makes a point of arguing, there’s already so much antagonism going around that any more isn’t going to help, it’s a role that does so much more by doing much less and has stood time for doing so.
As iconic as Juror 8 as become, I found Juror 3 – played by Lee J. Cobb – to be a more interesting character. As the film’s main antagonist he held steadfast onto his guilty vote as long as possible, believing that the boy could very easily have killed his father and accuses the others of falling in line behind a story-teller. While there is an element of stubbornness around him Juror 3 does initially have a point, Juror 8 is asking them all to forget everything they’ve been told in court and follow his way of thinking, whether or not it’s true, it’s can be difficult to change your believes and Cobb does a great job at making sure that while he is the antagonist he’s never the villain. His final scene where he realises why he’s been so focussed on seeing the boy punished stands out as easily the best acting in the whole film.
The film comes to us from Sidney Lumet and amazingly is his debut feature because the amount of confidence Lumet has in the story is incredible, the choice to film the whole movie inside this one room works wonders for naturally building tension through this slow-burn discussion of a murder case we’ve never seen. Much like Fonda himself Lumet does so much more by seemingly doing very little, there’s absolutely no flash to this film, a couple of long tacking shots are peppered in to emphasis certain scenes with Juror 10’s racial outburst and subsequent silent protest being a particular highlight but for the most part there’s a very dry style to this film
But it’s in that dryness that Lumet makes his mark, the conflict in this film isn’t from personal ideals and beliefs, but rather the personalities of these 12 Men being thrown together and asked to decide whether an 18 year old should live or die. From there Lumet builds into the film with a series of little things from the broken fan to the stiff windows, groundwork to the stuffy, uncomfortable mood that besets the Jurors before they’ve even begun discussing the case, and because we never leave that feeling of claustrophobia seeps in like the sweat off their backs, building and building as slowly but surely everyone picks a side. The cut-and-dry nature of Lumet direction does everything in its power to keep the focus entirely on this discussion and the men having it.
Part of the brilliance of the story is that in truth, there are no sides. Sure you can argue that Guilty and Not Guilty form the basis for opposing arguments but the reasons everyone has for picking each side is widely varied, some go with facts, some go with gut instinct, some go with emotions and some go with plain old-fashioned racism, all 12 men cover such a wide range of reasons that you can easily put yourself into the shoes of at least one of the Jurors and form your opinions around the evidence delivered to you.
As I said at the start I’ve seen 12 Angry Men a few times and I’ll probably see it a few more to catch more and more each time, while there are a few hiccups in the narrative given the age of the film it’s focal point of 12 Jurors arguing over the guilt or innocence of a young man has held steady for the last 60 years and looks to continue to do so. Fonda and Cobb provide great opposing viewpoints of rationality and emotionality with their fellow cast members acting as the medium between the two while Lumet directs with the confidence of a much more seasoned director. A must see.
9/10