Intro.
I know I've mentioned those films before that I swear I've seen, but can't remember. Part of that may be due to a film's huge impact on American film history. If there is such a thing as a Hollywood canon of films, 12 Angry Men must be on that list. I was fortunate enough to have it on my DVR and finally got a chance to watch.I learned on TCM that studios did not want to touch this film. Henry Fonda had purchased the rights from the television version, and together with the screenwriter, Reginald Rose, the two personally financed the picture. It was one of Henry Fonda's top three favorite films of his career (the others being The Grapes of Wrath and The Ox-Bow Incident), and it's easy to see why.
Overview
The film opens with the end of a trial - the judge is excusing the jury to go and deliberate the fate of 18-year old Puerto Rican boy who has been charged with first degree murder. If found guilty, the death penalty is mandatory. The twelve jurors file into the Jury Room and begin their deliberation. They take an initial vote and get the result of 11 guilty, 1 not guilty. What most of them thought would be a simple, open-and-shut case becomes a long afternoon debate on the hottest day of the year. The lone holdout is Juror 8 (Henry Fonda). He begins asking simple questions about the trial and asks for one hour to consider the case in exchange for a man's life. Each point of the case comes up for debate. We start to see that the case isn't just about a boy's guilt, but about the process of democracy and at what point you can sentence a man to die. When the final verdict is reached, each man leaves the courthouse changed, yet each one remains nameless except for Jurors 8 and 9, who shake hands.Highlights
The film feels a lot like one of those Hitchcock films that is completely contained in one space - in this case, a jury room. The sweltering heat of the summer afternoon/evening with no air conditioning adds to the heated arguments between the jurors. Even though it's only one room, the camera work and the fine acting keeps the film fresh and interesting. There's a definite line of action - first in introducing each point of the court case and second in the number of men on each side (guilty or not guilty). There are 5 votes in total during the film, and no two are held or filmed the same way. In one, we only see the hands of the voters, in another we only see faces. I feel like I could watch this film over and over and still notice something different. It's a lot of subtle details, but details are what make a story pop.On the surface, the film seems straightforward, maybe even simple in plot. But the subtle undercurrent of deeper problems makes it compelling. All of the acting is superb - these are the finest actors of the day. Henry Fonda made a point of picking actors he admired the most to act in this film. It is full of great talent and a complex web of stories, all of which add to the film's intensity.
I also really enjoyed how well-developed and dynamic the characters were. Even though they remained nameless, each juror had his own personality. It was fascinating to see what they talked about in the breaks between discussing the case and which juror talked to which. It was also interesting to see who changed his vote and what it took. Juror 10 couldn't get past his bigotry, Juror 3's problems with his own son influence his vote, Juror 5 had a similar background as the defendant, and Juror 9 used his age and experience to help sway several members. The level of detail put into each character made this film not just a great courtroom drama, but one of the best character studies in film.
Review and Recommendation
P.S. Thanks to Catherine for getting on my case to watch this film. Catherine, you were right! Definitely a great movie!
