Frenchy’s Favorite Flicks: 12 Angry Men
General Info
Title: 12 Angry Men 
|| 
Year: 1957
In Short
A court hearing in New York during the 50s is in its most important phase: closing arguments from both parties have been heard and now the jury has to decide over the fate of the accused.
The crime: murder in the first degree; the punishment: the death penalty; the accused: a teenage boy from the bad part of town.
It’s an open and shut case: the boy is as guilty as hell, but is he? That’s for the jury to decide in a small closed off room in the middle of a heatwave, twelve men decide.
The Movie
Visuals
It’s a Classic Black and White movie; these movies have their own visual aesthetic. That combined with tight shots, great lighting and almost fishbowl close-ups give the movie a great sense of atmosphere.
I must mention another important part of movie: the sound and the movie score are minimalist in setup. Love it!
Originally written as a television play, you almost get this sense of claustrophobia, because almost 98 per cent of the movie happens in that one room.
Plot
The genre of courtroom drama is worked out to the max: what will the jury decide?
The difference is that in this movie we actually see twelve jury members debate to reach a verdict with very dire consequences. We see twelve people talk about another person’s actions and wether or not this will lead to a death sentence.
The plot isn’t about the accused, it’s about those twelve men, that’s what’s interesting. We get to see the interaction between these men and how they reach their decision.
Not wanting to give away a lot about the story: just one man believes that the accused, ehrm.. the boy could be innocent.
Just one man believes that there is reasonable doubt, just that. He’s not like a great hero and defender of the downtrodden, he just doesn’t accept that anybody can be 100 per cent sure of the boy’s guilt. Eleven men disagree and that’s where the Drama starts..
Cast
Please, Henry Fonda dominated the whole movie: the lone and highly principled guy with those piercing eyes that made him such a compelling presence in most of his movies.
If you could give an honorary Oscar for All Time Best Supporting Cast then this would be the right occasion. A very young Jack Klugman as the guy who escaped the slums, the brilliant Joseph Sweeney as the elder and bewildered statesman, and the unforgettable and excellent Lee J. Cobb as the frustrated and annoying father who misses his son.
Conclusion
I was lucky to get the chance to see this movie on a large screen in a cinema this week; this movie is in my Top Three Favorite Movies of All Friggin’ Time.
Seriously, I just love the art that’s put into the film: visuals, sound, plot and cast are all incredibly effective in bringing across the pressure cooker atmosphere in which people are put in and how these people have to confront each other over the choice they have to make.
I have seen quite a lot of movies, but there aren’t many that can deliver so much tension, drama and pause for thought. Me like, me love!
February 29th, 2008 at 1:27 am
I couldn’t agree more. This film was cast so perfectly, there is not one actor in there who seems out of place. What I love most about this film is how Lumet used the small set to visually create the physical tension among the actors. Because they are in such a tight space, the actors reactions become even more explosive. They are wound so tight. The perfect simplicity of a table, chairs and raw emotion. I never get tired of the fearlessness of this film, which I think is a response to Mccarthyism period of the time. Great review again Frenchy!
March 1st, 2008 at 12:52 pm
thx, Eve. Good one about the Red Scare angle, hadn’t thought of it in that way..
March 2nd, 2008 at 11:53 am
This is one of the undisputed classics of cinema. Strangely enough, if you analyse it from a distance, it could be considered a bit shallow. At times I get the feeling that the actors play more types than round characters. The tension comes from this one man (Fonda) going against the grain and the way the camera moves around, especially going for a lower camerapoint as the story progresses. Also great that this is B&W picture where the rest of the movies quickly were becoming Technicolorized.
It also is one of the instances where television made an impact om moviemaking, since the original was a television play bij Reginald Rose.
Not sure I agree with the Red Scare angle though, McCarthyism was already on the wane for a couple of years when this film was made.
But on another note, guess what the Russian entry to the Oscars was this year? Right, a remake of this movie, titled ‘12′.
March 2nd, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Hey Ron, good to read your opinions!
Evelyn, Ron is with movies like Hieronymus and me are with music: a valuable source of of interesting trivia and insightful information
I know what you mean, Ron, about the shallow thingy. I noticed it in the scene where they literally turn their backs at the bigot character, that was a bit too easy, symbolism-wise.
Yeah, the fact that it was a television play really defines the whole setup of the movie; me like!
I think the Red Scare angle still could work, I checked wikipedia and the whole senate hearing thing ended 3 years before the movie came out. Maybe a little kick in the bollocks after the fact? A little morality play, perhaps?
More importantly Ron, when are _you_ gonna start writing a movie blog?
heheh..
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:34 am
I agree Frenchy, I don’t want to mess with Ron.
But my reference to McCarthyism has a little less to do with the actual Red Scare, but more to do with the fear mongering mentality that was at a fever pitch during and after that period. The central theme to me seemed to be the individual who goes against the status quo. A Mob-like mentality and fear mongering ruled central in that jury room, that mirrored the hearings. Follow the belief that your friend or co-worker is a Commie and sell them out or be “blacklisted” in Hollywood; become the voice of dissension in the jury room, when someone is being maligned because racial background and social standing, and risk being the the troublemaker in a room of weary sheep. For fear mongering to work, the “othering” of an individual must take place. It’s interesting to see how the defendant is demonized in a such flippant and how the majority can be sucked into the vacuum of that kind of mentality, based on stereotyping, just because they wanted to get there tired asses home at the end of the day. Mccarthyism was dangerous because of the same kind of reductionist thinking, attend a certain meeting you could be a communist, etc. 1+1=3, Why? Because the Powers that be want you to believe that. McCarthyism showed how easy it is for people to fall into line, for fear of being left outside in the “cold”. The fear of the whistleblower is being left to stand alone. I can’t see how the screenwriters couldn’t have been influenced by what they saw go down during the hearings that they had all experienced and the civil rights movement that was taking root in 1955. Ron, you got me thinking….to repeat ” More importantly Ron, when are _you_ gonna start writing a movie blog??” 
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:50 am
reminds me of the scene from “To Kill A Mockingbird” where the mob is at the sheriff’s office..