12 Angry Men, released in 1957, directed by Sidney Lumet, written by Reginald Rose, and starring Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Ed Begley Sr. and an assortment of other great actors filling out this awesome ensemble cast.
Synopsis
On the hottest day of the year a jury deliberate the case of an 18 year old boy from a poor socioeconomic background who is accused of stabbing his father to death. Initially all of the jurors vote guilty expect for juror 8, played by Fonda, who has reservations and wants a longer discussion before they come to a final decision. Juror 8 questions the validity of several pieces of evidence and witness testimony. A heated argument ensues between those jurors that are dead set on a guilty verdict and those jurors who begin to doubt if the boy actually committed the crime.
Timelessness
There’s a reason that this movie is shown in law and history classes all of the time, it is not only extremely gripping but it deals with a subject matter that is important and timeless. Timeless is the perfect way to describe this film, whether it’s set in 1957, 1997, or 2020 the themes are still relevant. If anything the themes of racial prejudice and the sanctity of the Criminal Legal System are more relevant today than ever before. Also the movie is set basically all in real time and in a single room so the lack of cell phones or modern technology isn’t really an issue. All that being said I don’t think this movie should be taken as gospel. Some of the actions that Fonda’s Juror 8 takes are ethically murky at best. The film does highlight the importance of reasonable doubt in criminal cases which is an important point to remember.
Performances
This is an all time great ensemble cast but Henry Fonda is the centerpiece and he delivers a pitch perfect performance. It’s not an easy role either, at the beginning of the film he is all alone facing off against the rest of the jury. He has to portray uncertainty and determination all at the same time. As the film progresses and more an more people join his side he’s demeanor becomes more assertive and at some points downright fiery. The strength of his performance comes straight from his eyes. You can watch the entire movie and cut off everything except for Fonda’s eyes and still get his full range of emotions. Some of the credit for this should go to Lumet, who we’ll talk about later on, he lights Fonda in such a way that makes his eyes unavoidable.
The entire cast deliver great performances. Lee J. Cobb plays Fonda’s main adversary and although he is meant to be the movie’s antagonist we as an audience can really relate to his position. In a key scene where Cobb is recounting his strained relationship with his own son he says a very poignant line, “kids… they work your heart out”. He says this same line later on in the movie during his final angry tirade but it’s this first line reading that shines a light on his character. The regret and longing and sadness in his voice at that moment hit hard and underline his actions later on in the film.
Is this the Greatest Movie Premise ever?
This film has the perfect premise, 12 people of differing backgrounds are put together in a cramped boiling hot room and have to argue whether or not to send a young boy to his death. It’s so simple yet so ripe for possibilities. Sometimes films with such large casts can become cluttered and characters inevitably fall by the wayside, not here. Not only are you always aware of each character but the majority of them have some kind of interesting background information. The important part is that each character fall into a specific archetype.
- The archetypes in the film are as follows:
- The Hero– only person to vote not guilty at the start
- The Villain– leader of the opposition against our hero
- The Facts Guy– second hand to the main villain, only cares about cold hard facts
- The Racist– is prejudiced against the accused
- The Gotta get to the Game Guy– just wants to be done with this whole thing
- The Foreigner- appreciates that they are a part of the larger democratic system and takes his responsibilities seriously
- The Old Guy- first person to side with our hero
- The Tough Silent Guy– doesn’t have much of a back story but stands up to the main villain at some point
- The Foreman– the one leading the debate
- The Flip Flopper– in this iteration he works in advertising and just flip flops from one side to the other and back
- The Weak Nerd– bullied by the villain but eventually stands up to him by the end film
- The Quiet Guy– comes from a similar background as the accused and can relate to the them on that level
Sticking to these strict archetypes allows the film to stay tight. This film is an adaptation of a play which makes total sense considering it’s single location setting and heavy reliance on dialogue. Unlike other theater adaptations that can seem like filmed plays rather than actual movies this project is thoroughly cinematic. Sidney Lumet does a couple of really cool things that push this film up a few levels. For one, he really leans into the heat. Throughout the movie the men get more and more wet, they get sweat stains under their armpits until eventually their shirts are soaked. They are cramped around this little table, as an audience member you can feel how uncomfortable that room is so when the rain finally comes and that fan starts blowing and the jury starts moving towards a not guilty consensus you start to get a major release of tension.
Best Moment Worst Moment
One moment that stood out as particularly memorable was when Fonda’s character is examining the murder weapon, a switch blade with a unique handle. The other jurors are insisting that the knife is a one of a kind and just then, Fonda pulls out an identical knife and stabs it into the table. It’s a real turning point in the movie, it’s the first time that there is real doubt that the case is not as open and shut as the jurors initially thought but it is also the first time you see the intense side of Fonda’s character. He went out of his way to obtain this second knife, if you delve into this a little bit deeper it’s not completely ethical. He is actively trying to convince his fellow jurors that the boy is innocent, at that moment his own objectivity is highly questionable. Another notable moment is when Cobbs character is miming the downward stabling motion that the accused apparently used when killing his father. He is pretending to stab Fonda’s character and it’s easily the movie’s most tense moment.
Despite all that praise, even all time classics have flaws. It is noted that E.G. Marshall’s character, the facts guy, never sweats. During a pivotal moment where his convictions are being challenged a single bead of sweat comes down the side of his face and I thought that moment was just the tiniest bit cheesy. I don’t know if the effect of the single bead of sweat was just poorly executed or if I thought the whole thing was a bit too on the nose but this moment just didn’t work for me.
Final Thoughts
The amount of parodies and adaptations of this movie are staggering. Every TV sitcom of the last 60 years has had at least one episode that used a 12 Angry Men style jury duty format. I don’t blame them, it’s the perfect setup for a bottle episode. There have been several other adaptions of this including the 1995 Pauly Shore movie Jury Duty which is a bastardized version where Shore prolongs the deliberation not to save an innocent man from a death sentence but because he wants to stay at a fancy hotel. That example aside, this film has really stood the test of time, I doubt that some of the other films on this list will have aged quite so well. I’m not much into rating movies but if I have to 12 Angry Men gets a 5 star rating from me.
