12 Angry Men

12 Angry Men; legal drama, USA, 1957; D: Sidney Lumet, S: Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Ed Begley, John Fiedler, Jack Warden, Martin Balsam, Joseph Sweeney

An 18-year old is accused in front of a trial of killing his father with a knife. The 12 jury members get the assignment to decide whether he is guilty or not. 11 members pronounce him as guilty, except for one of them, no. 8, who thinks he is innocent because the evidence is suspicious. At first, everyone criticize him, especially the nervous no. 3, but no. 8 is persistent in his theory that the eyewitnesses couldn't have recognized the kid because it was night. Little by little, other members also change their account into "not guilty". In the end, only no. 3 stays with his decision, but in the end also changes his mind.

Legal drama "12 Angry Men" is among the best films by Sidney Lumet. The whole story is extremely static, theatrical, a 'kammerspiel' practically unfolding inside just one room, the jury room, consisting only out of sharp dialogues and heated debates between the 12 nameless jury members, but once the viewers get hooked by their discussions the film ends up somehow fascinating and brilliant thanks to its precise writing. Especially successful were subtly planted little messages about different perceptions of one event, the inability of people to agree upon one truth, the creation of an opinion based on prejudice, or how some individuals become aggressive towards the ones who don't agree with their opinion and even take their little flaws as a pretext to mock them. One of the strongest scenes is the one where juror no. 8 (excellent Henry Fonda) questions his colleague if he can remember what he did yesterday, and then the day before that, and the day before that, until juror no. 7 cynically adds: "When you get to New Year's Eve 1954, let me know, huh?"

Another is the verbal duel between juror no. 8, the "calm" one, and no. 3, the "aggressive" one. No. 3 initially insists that the old man, an eyewitness, must be reliable, and that when he heard the words "I'm going to kill you!", this confirms the defendant is guilty. Later, no. 8 times how long it would take for the old man to reach the door from the bedroom while he limps, and another juror confirms it took him 41 seconds, while the old man testified it took him only 15 seconds. Juror no. 3 instinctively brushes it off, saying: "Ah, what does the old man know!", but then pauses, realizing he contradicted his own premise. Later still, when no. 8 calls him a "sadist", no. 3 loses his temper and runs towards him, shouting: "I'll kill him!", but then again stops and pauses, realizing he contradicted his own argument once again. The characters are so well set-up throughout these interactions that by the end of the film you might already know exactly what someone is going to say, since you now know almost all of them, which is very good writing. At least three jurors feel like extras and get too little character development, yet the story simply couldn't encompass all 12 of them because it would strain the scope of the storyline. There is too much speculation among them, instead of relying on facts, hinting at the clash between the civil law and common law, yet Lumet manages to extract the maximum out of this thin set-up (for instance, wide shots dominate the first third of the film, whereas closer shots with longer focal length dominate the finale, to enhance the feeling of growing claustrophobia, closer walls and discontent among the quarreling jurors).

Grade:+++