12 Angry Men

MOVIE REVIEW OF 12 Angry Men (1957) NOT RATED

Cast
Director:	Sidney Lumet	Runtime: 1hrs 36min ( 96min)
juror #1/Foreman	.....	martin balsam
juror #2	.....	john fiedler
juror #3	.....	lee j. cobb
juror #4	.....	e. g. marshall
juror #5	.....	jack klugman
juror #6	.....	edward binns
juror #7	.....	jack warden
juror #8	.....	henry fonda
juror #9	.....	joseph sweeney
juror #10	.....	ed begley
juror #11	.....	george voskovec
juror #12	.....	robert webber
judge	.....	rudy bond
guard	.....	james kelly
court clerk	.....	billy nelson
the accused	.....	john savoca

WHAT I KNOW

Ominous shot of the defendant. Accusation.

Inside the jury room. Desperation. Characterization. Deliberation. Contemplation. Realization.

Outside the courthouse. Humanization.

Now, that may be pushing the limits as far as my talents as a poet, but it does describe the storyline of this movie from a subjective point, I think, very thoroughly and without spoilers. It's the movie in a nutshell. However, nutshells are usually relatively small. This movie, however small it may seem on the surface, it does not fit in to your average neighborhood nutshell…so I'll try to stuff it into a clam shell.

But even that is better positioned in the What I Think section below. So, without further yapping, I bring you to the plot.

As mentioned above, we begin in the courtroom. The judge is explaining the court procedure to the jury. The camera pans the jury box, and we get a view of the type of characters we will be meeting in the following hour-and-a-half. We see the judge who, through his voice, expression, or lack thereof, and overall countenance tells us that the court is thinking about his return to the outside world.

The jury is instructed to retire to the jury room, and we see the aforementioned ominous shot of the defendant. From here we also retire to the jury room for virtually the rest of the film. As the jury sits, several relevant comments are overheard. These comments are relevant to the movie, not necessarily to the plot.

When everyone is seated, a vote is taken. The results are 11:guilty; 1:not guilty. Juror #8 is the reason for the rest of the movie. One by one, opinions change as discussion, not all cordial, takes place, and we get an inside view of what people sometimes think, but won't say out loud.

The meat of this review lies in the What I Think section below. The jury deliberates and yes, we do find out what the jury decides…this isn't Rod Serling.

WHAT I THINK

12 Angry Men reminds me much of another of my favorite movies, namely The Time of Your Life, which I have also reviewed (see May 22, 2012 below). Both of these movies reflect characters over plot; granted, the plot of The Time of Your Life is virtually nonexistent, and 12 Angry Men has a defined plot and resolution.

My opinion is that this movie is a success not solely because of the actors, but because of the talented director (Sidney Lumet). This is not surprising considering some of the other films Lumet has tucked under his belt -- Network; The Wiz; Murder on the Orient Express; The Verdict; Deathtrap; the list goes on and on. Directorial aspects are obvious. For instance, you would expect this type of movie to be filled with virtual flashbacks. As each juror references something said or brought out during testimony, the movie would recreate the scene with the speaking juror providing voice-over narration. On the contrary, the scene never leaves the jury room. The closest we come is one scene in the bathroom, which is still part of the jury room.

When the jurors first enter the room, a couple head to the windows as another checks out the fan only to find it inoperable. With a little umph. the windows open, but the fan remains stubborn. Jackets are removed and ties are loosened. We get a glimpse of attitudes and characters as we are privileged to random comments from the jurors. These comments clearly show that the defendant (John Savoca) is going to end up in the chair (courtesy of General Electric) simply because someone wants to see a baseball game and another would rather doodle. Fortunately, juror #8 (Henry Fonda) goes against the current with a vote of not guilty.

Throughout the whole movie, the characters let loose some of their true feelings regarding their perspective of life and society. Even as prejudices and harsh words are expressed, and inner characters are revealed, no one reveals his given name. Nor are other characters referred to by name; people are simply the boy and the woman and the old man. Even as the guard (James Kelley) asks one of the jurors (Edward Binns) his name, the juror points to the guard's clipboard and says, that one. This again is reflective of Lumet's directorial approach. (Although I'm sure the writers had something to do with it as well.) Lumet was quoted in The New York Times as saying:

While the goal of all movies is to entertain, the kind of film in which I believe goes one step further. It compels the spectator to examine one facet or another of his own conscience. It stimulates thought and sets the mental juices flowing.

At the end of the movie, this is deliberately contradicted by juror #8 and juror #9 (Joseph Sweeney) leaving the courthouse and introducing themselves by name. I believe this is indicative of the courthouse being seen as another world, one that is anonymous, whereas when you leave the building, you become a person with a personality.

As it seems to be coming down to direction, another point of note is the physical atmosphere of the jury room. As I mentioned earlier, the windows are stubborn and the fan doesn't work. Everyone is breaking sweat, and isn't that the way it should be? I mean this is a murder trial for heaven's sake!

Speaking of murder, they do. Subtly, there are references in the dialogue; for instance, the foreman (Martin Balsam) is telling #8 about his experiences as an assistant head coach at the high school. He recalls a game that was rained out. He refers to the outcome as murder. There is also the nickname killer given to one of the jurors (John Fiedler) by juror #7 (Jack Warden).

Toward the end of the movie, things start resolving; it stops raining, the jurors are noticeably drier, and the fan is fixed.

[Almost] finally, juror #8 is the only one wearing a white suit…denoting the savior of the defendant?

[Truly] finally, as I mentioned, this is a study of characterization. I will attempt to sample the stronger players who the moviegoer's emotions.

Juror #1/Foreman (Martin Balsam):

Relaxed but serious about the case. He wants to make sure everything goes tactically smooth.

Juror #2 (John Fiedler):

If you've ever seen Fiedler in a movie (you are excused if you actually live under a rock), you won't be surprised at the character. A seemingly mousy man, he sees the viewpoint of the not guilty perspective. He questions rather than just throwing contradictional arguments.

Juror #3 (Lee J. Cobb):

The last one to hold on to a guilty verdict. He is sure the trial revealed the obvious guilt of the defendant. Through dialogue, though, it seems he is bitter. His life is a disaster. He is not respectful of those people, referring apparently to the lower class and percepted miscreants.

Juror #4 (E.G. Marshall):

Stoic stockbroker who plays the unemotional quiet man. He is very serious about the trial, but is still reluctant to submit a not guilty verdict.

Juror #5 (Jack Klugman):

Comes from the low-class slums. One of the first few to turn his vote to not guilty. After hearing the reasons of those voting guilty, he realizes that opinions are being formed from perceived prejudices. Having been in the shoes of the defendant, he know these prejudices to be unwarranted.

Juror #7 the omission of juror #6 is recognized (Jack Warden):

Another of the characters to whom you will give a double-take. From the very beginning he only wants to get out of there. Besides, he's got tickets to the game. Yanks and Cleveland.

Juror #8 (Henry Fonda):

The holdout. The reason this movie runs an hour-and-a-half instead of 12 minutes. He isn't sure about the vote, but he believes the defendant deserves to have his case discussed.

Juror #9 (Joseph Sweeney):

Plays the wise sage. He is the first (besides juror #8) to offer up a not guilty verdict. He provides the wisdom of age and experience.

Juror #10 (Ed Begley):

Loudmouth bigot determined that the discussion is a waste of time. Because, you know, A kid like that. He's sick of the facts. He also has a persistent and annoying cough. I'm sure there is a significance to the cough, but I'm embarrassed to say, I can't see it. Any insight? Let me know, please.

I do recognize the omission of jurors #7, #11 (George Voskovic), and #12 (Robert Webber). Although they do contribute to the story in significant ways, these are just not the points I wish to address in this review. And so I present this as another motivation to see this movie.

Editor's Note: Ironically, my love of old movies and my animosity toward remakes starring such actors as Tom Cruise and Steve Martin (why do you do it, Steve? You can be really good. You are hilarious, but I mean, Out of Towners? Are you that desperate? Do you need money? Tom, I admit, you are a good actor, but you need to lose the smug attitude. And come on…Scientology? Really?)…this movie was remade as a TV movie in 1997. Still an all-star cast with Henry Fonda's part played by who else but Jack Lemmon. Other actors in the remake include Courtney B. Vance (Law & Order: CI), Ossie Davis (Grumpy Old Men; The Client), George C. Scott (Patton, The Hustler,…geez, if you don't know him, shame on you), Armin Mueller-Stahl (I don't know him, but he had a part in Amerika [1997], which is a must-see right now -- check it out on YouTube), Dorian Harewood (Amerika as well, Panic in Echo Park…also the voice of Shredder…sing it with me now…♫Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles…heroes in a halfshell -- Turtle Power♫…okay, moving on…), James Gandolfini (The Sopranos), Tony Danza (Who's The Boss, Taxi), Hume Cronyn (*Batteries Not Included, Cocoon, Shadow of a Doubt, again, don't know him? Put down your 9G mobile whatever and soak in some culture!), Mykelti Williamson (Forrest Gump, Con Air), Edward James Olmos (Miami Vice, Blade Runner), and William Peterson (CSI: Crime Scene Investigation). Whew! Now I forget what I was saying…oh yeah, I temporarily revoke my vengeance toward star-studded remakes. This is actually a good, quality movie worth watching!

REMARKABLE DIALOGUE
Finally, a short list of quotes I think are worth repeating. You may recognize some, but these are my own picks, not ones that are particularly famous:

• Juror #7 : What's the difference how long it takes? Supposing we do it in five minutes? So what?
  Juror #8 : Let's take an hour. The ball game doesn't start til 8:00.
• Juror #1/Foreman : Let us know what you're thinking and we might be able to show you where you're mixed up.
• Juror #12 : I haven't given it much thought, but it seems to me that it's up to the group of us to convince this gentleman that he's wrong, and we're right.
• Juror #9 : I'm talking here. You have no right to leave this room!
  Juror #8 : He can't hear you…he never will.
• Juror #7 : You know, I made twenty-seven grand last year sellin' marmalade. That's not bad, I mean, you know, considering marmalade.
• Juror #10 : Bright? He's a common ignorant slob. He don't even speak good English.
  Juror #11 : He doesn't even speak good English. [smirks]
• Juror #11 : I beg pardon.
  Juror #10 : 'I beg pardon!' What're you so polite about?
  Juror #11 : For the same reason you're not. It's the way I was brought up.
• Juror #9 : Hey, what's your name?
  Juror #8 : Davis.
  Juror #9 : My name's McCardle…Well, so long.
  Juror #8 : So long.

RATING

Here is my personal rating of this movie. This rating is out of ten meows.
¹⁰ /₁₀

---

Thanks for Visiting!!!

Please comment below