12 Angry Men

1957's 12 ANGRY MEN is so esconsed in Hollywood lore it's difficult to know what to write about it.  Reginald Rose's humanitarian, very liberal tale of twelve jurors who spend a day discoursing over the fate of a young man accused of killing his father has been assimilated into cultures beyond the silver screen.  I've read that it is used in training videos to teach employees how to work as a team.  Even Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor cites it as an influence, but is careful to point out the film's numerous eyebrow raising moments as far as "reasonable doubt" is concerned.

True.  As you listen to these twelve men debate what they heard in court, you realize that looking at evidence based solely on facts is just about impossible. Given the unavoidable biases and prejudices we all harbor.  Director Sidney Lumet's film highlights the rants of jurors who seemingly couldn't give a tinker's damn about evidence.  The defendant came from the slums and is surely a product of his environment, so of course he's guilty.  Another juror, himself from the ghetto, takes exception to these gross generalizations and reverses his original "guilty" vote to "not guilty".  Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) hung the jury from the outset with his own not guilty vote, daring to actually step back and examine the the testimonies.  He admits he's not sure of the young man's guilt or otherwise, but he wants to give it all some thought before helping to send him to the chair.

The day wears on.  It's very hot.  The fan doesn't work.  Lumet's camera starts wide but as tensions rise and boil over, the shots get tighter.  The jurors begin repeating themselves, but breakthroughs are made.  Evidence re-examined.  The marks made by the nose piece of eyeglasses prove to sway one previously unrepentant juror.  Sure, the case is made, but it's speculative.  Is that the best we can do?

Yes.  I've served on two juries.  Thankfully, neither was a murder case but one was particularly odious.  Both verdicts were reached in fewer than two hours.  I recall our efforts to sift the info, filtered through witnesses and attorneys.  We never knew how it exactly went down.  We tried to use logic.  So do the twelve angry men.

This film is a master class in front of and behind the camera.  Many of the actors, such as Jack Warden and E.G. Marshall, would go on to great success as character actors.  Lee J. Cobb burns up the screen as Juror #3, a man whose defiance toward everything but his own stone heart leads to a climax that is entirely earned. Everyone is quite good here.  Fonda commands the screen at every moment, with every level headed offering.  He was a true actor and movie star.  Guiding it all is Lumet, in quite an auspicious debut.  This is essential viewing.