12 Angry Men or How to make a movie in One Room

Have I told you the story of how Sidney Lumet became one of my two favourite directors? I must have but lets not assume anything, I will go again. It's little embarrassing but it's one of my favourites. So bear with me and don't spoil it for others if you already know it. So basically, I had no idea who Sidney Lumet was until he passed away in April 2011. Right after his passing, I heard so much about him and how great he was and I had no idea what made him so great? So I checked his page on IMDb. Going down his filmography, I saw The Network(1976) - I love this movie. So I am saying "Great! He directed this." to myself. Then I see The Dog Day Afternoon(1975), which is even better because I like it even more. If I wasn't before, I am very curious now. But then almost at the end of his long filmography, I see 12 Angry Men(1957) and I want to kill myself. How On God's Green Earth Did I Not Know That Sidney Lumet Directed 12 Angry Men? To say this movie blew me away back when I saw it first is understatement of my life. You see, 12 Angry Men is not just a great movie, it is one of my 5 favourite movies of all time and I didn't know who directed it. After the embarrassing epiphany of who Sidney Lumet was, I made a conscious effort to see as many movies he did as I can as the one's I had seen by then were all brilliant. I have seen almost 20 by now and now Sidney Lumet is the director with most number of movies in my Top 100 with 5 movies making the cut. However before I get into any details about it, a disclaimer first. Now since this is a post where I will go into every detail about the movie and there will be spoilers. This movie is more than 50 years old and one of the best that is out there. So there is absolutely no reason why you shouldn't have watched it. But in case you haven't, go and please do so and then read this post.

Lumet opens with a tracking shot starting from the steps of the courthouse to the actual court room where a 18-year-old Puerto Rican boy is on trial for killing his own father. A kinda bored judge explains all the duties to the jurors and they retire into the juror room where 93 of 96 total minutes of the movie take place. From the initial impressions of the jurors, it looks like an open-and-shut case. After everyone settles down, head of the jury takes a preliminary vote and it comes out to be 11-1 against the culprit. Now, they have to talk and come to the conclusion since the decision has to be unanimous. So, one gentleman that thinks he is not guilty has to change his vote or the unthinkable should happen and 11 others should vote Not Guilty. To make it faster, they decide that each one would speak his own mind and maybe then they will be able to find some way out. Juror 2 is inconvincing, he probably would just go with the group. If everyone else said Not Guilty, he might as well have voted that. Juror 3 makes some argument based on facts and fights till the end but is heavily prejudiced, Juror 4 is another one who has his own ideology - maybe it is a wrong one but he does have one and as it later turns out, he makes the most convincing and reasonable argument, Juror 5 doesn't even have an opinion, Juror 6 is quick to believe anything he hears, Juror 7 doesn't care - He has a ball game to attend tonight and his bigger worry is not to miss it, Juror 8 is the one who votes 'Not Guilty' to start with, Juror 9 is a kind old man with an open mind who is willing to accept that he might be wrong and is also the first one to change his vote. No. 10 is the worst one - he has already decided that the boy is guilty because 'His Kind' always is and anyone saying otherwise is just being over smart. Every one of them have their reasons to believe if the boy is guilty or not.

What happens in the next 70 minutes or so is Juror 8 who votes 'Not Guilty' tries to convince everyone that it is not possible to find the boy guilty 'Beyond the Reasonable Doubt' because that is what they have to do to send that kid to the chair. One by one, he brings various things to the front that the defense lawyer should have if he really wanted to save the boy. He, with the help from some others who start to see some point in his arguments, tries to point out that there were multiple loop holes in the case that were left unattended by either side, multiple questions that were never really answered. If they choose not to ignore them like the defense lawyer ignored them, it is not possible to charge the young fella without a doubt. One by one, juries start to see the point in his argument and change their votes until in the end they decide unanimously that it CANNOT be proven beyond the reasonable doubt and hence set the boy free. However, more interesting part here are the side-stories of the juries. As the discussion ensues, everyone's deeper and personal feelings start to surface revealing their very human nature - something as jurors they should be able to keep aside and think objectively. Juror 3 who constantly keeps blaring at everyone and contradicting himself time and again, blames this kid because his own son, who is about same age, wouldn't even look at him. Juror 10 because the kid is Peurto Rican and according to him, they can be nothing else but criminals. No. 7 never adds anything to the discussion but keeps on taunting everyone. He even changes his vote just so they can get out of there quickly. After all, there is a human life that hangs in balance at the other end and most of them aren't ready to look at it that way until they finally are.  

It is ample clear by now that I love this movie to death. It is after all favourite movie made by my favourite director but that's not it. I love it so much that I strongly believe that this is 'THE Best Debut Movie' by any director ever. Sure, Sidney Lumet did work on multiple TV series before that but it is still his film debut. I never thought that a movie that basically takes place in a single room can be so much exhilarating until I saw 12 Angry Men. To amp it further, it creates all the tension, all the atmosphere with the help of dialogues. There really aren't many shocking moments or big moments that suddenly reveal any secret. Well, there is off course that one moment that always makes me jump in my seat - Henry Fonda producing the knife as that is the one that starts the avalanche thereafter. I have seen this movie multiple times but even now, I always wait anxiously for that moment. When watching for the first time, this was the point where I started taking Henry Fonda's Juror no.8 much more seriously. It just keeps on building until the end and slowly but surely, you realize that the tables are turned. With every turn of event, we see that one of the major pieces of evidence being scrutinized as it should have been in the court and couple of jurors joining the other camp. However, I have always found myself analyzing E.G. Marshall's Juror 4 more than others. What attracts me towards him is the poise with which he defends his own stance but even more importantly, he does not hesitate to admit that he was wrong when he is convinced of it. When HE is convinced of it, not because someone else is. His arguments are always valid, pertinent, non-judgmental and he never tries to force his thinking down the others' throat like 3,6 or 10. In my opinion, he is probably the ideal jury.

What 12 Angry Men does the best is through these jurors, it challenges the perceptions, the prejudices of audience. There is a strong underlying commentary on various social issues such as race, class and most importantly, value of human life. Having a power to decide whether another human being lives or dies is an incredibly big responsibility but does everyone realize that? As a director, Lumet was known for eliciting great performances from his cast. We can easily see that he had mastered his craft right from the start. The way he handles all the 12 jurors never fails to amaze me. Every one of them has a distinct personality and quirks and he manages to do that and much more in a very short run-time of 96 minutes. Though Reginald Rose's writing deserves the major chunk of credit for all the tension in the room, some part of it also belongs to the innovative camerawork as well. With multiple and frequent close-ups from various angles to changing to the lenses of longer focal lengths to make the room look shorter, camera does a lot to add to the overall tension and claustrophobia of the movie. In 2013, I will taking part in the Blind Spot Series. If there is anyone who hasn't seen this movie, I cannot think of a better choice to make your list.

Past Favorites:
Notorious(1946)
Rashomon(1950) 
City of God(2002)

Rating(out of 5):