Title: 12 Angry Men
Release Date: April 10, 1957
Director: Sidney Lumet
Production Company: Orion-Nova Productions
This is another movie I remember watching in high school, having read the play in English class.
Set almost entirely in the jury room of a New York City courthouse, 12 Angry Men is a compelling drama about the deliberations on a murder case. Henry Fonda is the only big-name star in the movie, playing Juror #8, the only juror who feels that there may be reasonable doubt about whether the defendant, and 18 year old Latin American boy, actually murdered his father. But there are excellent performances all around, including Lee J. Cobb as the angry man who is tough on crime, Jack Klugman as a man who grew up in similar conditions to the defendant, Jack Warden as the wiseass who is apathetic about the case, and George Voskovec as a naturalized American citizen who has a deep faith in democracy.
The movie is well-filmed, taking advantage of the confined space to build a feeling of claustrophobia. There is also a slow transition of shots from above to close-up shots of characters’ faces over the course of the film. Keeping the camera on a character who is listening rather than talking is also an effective cinematic technique. Partway through the film a summer shower begins outside the windows and reflects the stormy mood in the chamber while also dramatically affecting the lighting.
The movie does his flaws. Juror #8 visits the neighborhood where the defendant lived and buys a switchblade knife. Not only are switchblades illegal but as a juror he’s doing research which is prohibited (and he somehow brought the illegal knife into the courthouse which would be harder to do today with security screening). No less an authority than Sonia Sotomayor has declared that the jurors actions in this film is exactly what jurors should not do, and the Juror #8’s actions probably would’ve lead to a mistrial. I also feel that it rings hollow that Juror #3’s intransigence is due to his failed relationship with his son.
I found that my experience watching this film changed significantly over 30-some-odd-years. My teenage self saw this as a demonstration of how the American justice system works for good, or at least an idealistic presentation of such. Nowadays, I feel the opposite. The prosecution in this case clearly failed to make a credible case, the defense did even less to protect the defendant, and even the judge seems bored by the case. 11 jurors were ready to send a person to their death and call it a day. In the real world, people like Juror #8 are few and far between and we’ve seen again and again that we can’t count on them to be around to protect justice and democracy when needed
- One of the effects of the COVID pandemic is that it was very unsettling to watch dozen men together in a confined space, especially since at least one of them kept coughing. The amount of second-hand smoke in the room also looked unpleasant.
- I feel this movie would make a good double feature with Do the Right Thing. Both movies are said to take place on the hottest day of the year (and thus have very sweaty actors) and deal with very heated arguments regarding race and justice.
- All through the movie, I felt that Lee J. Cobb reminded me of George C. Scott. It turns out that Scott played the role of Juror # 3 in the 1997 remake. Not only that but Scott took over the role of Lieutenant Kinderman in Exorcist III, which Cobb originated in The Exorcist!
- I also appreciate that two actors ended up associated with The Odd Couple franchise: John Fiedler, who appeared in the movie, and Jack Klugman, who stared in the tv show.