12 Angry Men (1957)

Director: Sidney Lumet
Story: Reginald Rose
Cast: Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Martin Balsam, E.G. Marshall, Ed Begley
Music: Kenyon Hopkins
Time: 96 minutes
Bottom-line: An almost flawless film; a first class courtroom drama

  12 Angry Men is a courtroom drama that brings out the hidden nature of the minds of the twelve men of the jury, when they decide whether or not to send an 18-year old boy to the chair, for murder. As there are 12 men in a jury, here are 12 reasons to see this film.

1) Uniqueness: This is one of the few real time movies made so far. Now making real time films is a huge challenge for the entire crew. The photography has to be good, along with the editing. The actors have to remember all the dialogues correctly, and in 1957, not so many cuts and retakes or voice artists could be afforded. Yet, this film is perfect in this aspect. But the most difficult thing, is to find a situation that can take place within 90 minutes or 120 minutes of time, and this film delivers in that aspect.

2) The setting: Out of the 96 minutes of the film, only three minutes of the film takes place outside the courtroom. The rest of the film is entirely inside the jury room. This is certainly not like modern films, but still, the audience comes to know of all the life-changing events that can occur inside a simple 10 meter by 8 meter jury room.

Fonda as Juror #8

3) The plot: The story starts when the judge announces that the jury can retire and debate over whether or not an 18-year old boy is guilty for murder. The rest of the film takes place inside the jury room. Initially, eleven members seem to think this is a clear case of murder, and vote ‘guilty’. Only one juror (Fonda), votes ‘not guilty’, saying that he would feel bad if he sent a boy to the chair without even talking about it. And so, they talk. Does Juror #8 (Fonda) somehow convince the others that the boy is innocent, or are eleven people too many to convince?

Cobb as Juror #3

4) The dialogues: The dialogues were written by Rose. Through the dialogues alone, we come to know all about the murder scenario and the boy’s life. This is perhaps the best example of a dialogue-driven thriller, along with Rear Window and few other Hitchcock films. The dialogues bring out the different types of human nature. Full credits go to Rose, for creating such tension without using any vulgarity (of course, one, vulgarity was not shown in films those days, and two, I can’t imagine the dialogues if the film is shot in today’s world!) Just like how in a tennis match, viewers turn their heads according to the ball, in this film, the audience turns its head according to the powerful dialogues fired by one juror at another.

5) The pace of the story: The film has a slow start, but after the debate starts, it moves at a rapid pace. It is never slow or off beat after the first 10 minutes. Every dialogue brings out a new side of the murder, which puts forth further questions. As the jurors solve the mysteries one by one, the film moves to a great climax (of course, not an action filled one).

E.G.Marshall as Juror #4

6) The thrills: This is not an action film, nor a thriller. The dialogues are so good, and along with the acting, they make the film almost look like a thriller. In fact, when AFI published their top 100 thrillers of the century (in about 2004), this film took the 88th place.

7) The characters: Rose creates a jury that contains a mix of characters from all backgrounds and with widely differing moral values. One juror is determined to save the boy, one is determined to put him in the chair, one wants to get the meeting over with so that he can go to a baseball game… yet by the end of the film, they all become changed men, whether or not they save the boy. Throughout the film, no character’s name is revealed, except two jurors, that too in the lat minute of the film. This, in my opinion, is an indirect way of showing that a jury should be unbiased: one can be from any background, but at a jury, personal prejudices should not get in the way of making decisions.

A still showing nine jurors

8) The acting: All the actors have acted excellently. Fonda and Cobb bring out their best. Fonda, with his calm attitude, is trying all he can to save the boy. He relies on reasonable doubt to convince others that people make mistakes and that the witnesses could be wrong. On the other hand, Cobb is certain that the boy, though just 18, has enough motives to murder his father. He wants to send the boy to the chair. The acting, combined with the dialogue, make the audience feel the tension as well.

9) The minds of the ‘angry men’: Initially, 11 men vote guilty. But when asked the reason for their vote, only a few have a reason. This shows one aspect of human mind: people want to go with the crowd. ‘All others vote guilty, I hate to stand alone’, may be the thought that is going on in the minds of the people.

Balsam as Juror #1

10) How the jury works: Do jury members use their own logic? Or do they just go by the witnesses and circumstantial evidence? Here, we see both. Fonda also heard the same testimonies as the other jurors, but he alone uses his mind to vote not guilty. Others, especially Juror #3 (Cobb), goes by evidence, which can always be misleading. As Fonda says, about the witnesses, “Supposing they were wrong…”

11) Another aspect of the human mind: Once Fonda puts forth his theories, along with the help of other jurors, the people who first voted guilty also point out things that prove the boy is innocent. This shows that personal backgrounds or other life incidents often block the clear thinking of the mind. This is true for all the viewers. We often use a past incident and show our hatred towards any similar thing.

12) Overall, this film is a must watch for any fan of a different type of thriller. Great dialogues, excellent acting, good camera work and a good inspirational story make this film a must-watch. Join Henry Fonda, as the twelve angry men get ready to have a heated debate.

My Rating: 5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 100%