There Will Be Blood or How I loved the outrageous!

This post is 8th entry into my semi-regular feature in which I go through some of my favourite films. Even though all the 7 films I have written about in this series before are some of my favourite movies, most of which fall within #20 in my Top 100, I never touched my Top 3 – Inception(2010), There Will Be Blood(2007) and Pulp Fiction(1994). In fact, the only time I have said anything about them on this blog is when I covered their respective directors in another one of my semi-regular features, Profile of a Director. Probably the main reason behind doing so was when I started blogging back in 2011, it felt like blogosphere was over saturated with conversations about at least two of them and I could hardly find anything original to say that someone else didn't already. I am not sure if I still can add something valuable to discussion but at least now it feels like enough time has passed for people to be ready to talk about them again.

There were so many great films released in 2007 that I am almost certain it is ‘The’ year of 21^st Century so far and even one of the best in the history of cinema. I have always advocated 1957 as my favourite year but if there is one that might pose a serious threat to it, it must be 2007. Back in 2007 when There Will Be Blood was released as well, I was in the last year of my college and even though I did watch more movies than a casual movie-goer, I was nowhere near being a cinephile. My earliest memory of this film is its fierce Oscar race with No Country for Old Men(2007). It would be another two and half – three years until I'll watch either of the two and until then confuse them with each other referring both as 'movies with long names that were in the Oscar race that year'.

Along with Christopher Nolan, I consider director Paul Thomas Anderson to be the defining director of their generation. Only reason I still hesitate calling them ‘one of the best ever’ is both of them have not made many films but they certainly have multiple decades ahead of them to prove us right. In the 15-odd years both of them have been working, they have left their definite impression and I am more than confident will continue to do so. Knowing my adoration for this director, saying this sprawling epic of oil, family, religion and most importantly greed is PTA’s crowning achievement itself is speaking highly. But I will go even further and add my voice to everyone else saying that it is the film that has most potential to be a future classic. Many years into the future I really believe we will consider it a masterpiece, if aren’t already.

I am saying this right away because I know lot of people do not think of There Will Be Blood as the masterpiece that I think it deserves to be and quite frankly, I can easily see how it can rub someone the wrong way. It is not as polarizing as The Master(2012) but PTA doesn’t make it very easy for us to like it either. I doubt if PTA ever did or will. It might be paced laboriously but every once in a while it gets it rolling and; let it be him trying to convince certain community his worth(“I am an Oil Man”), his baptism in the Church of Third revelation(“Louder, Daniel. I am a sinner!”), dinner in the Sunday household(“Do you think God is going to save you for being stupid? He doesn't save stupid people, Abel”) or that beautifully shot and paced oil explosion scene. I can go on and on; he hits it out of the park every single time. I am a novice at best when it comes to scores or music in general but Greenwood’s groovy score and Robert Elswit’s gorgeous cinematography that won his Oscar go long way in elevating to that status as well.

One of my friends believes that the natural acting is the only pure form of acting. His philosophy is if you have to go over the top, you are doing it wrong and I always plead Daniel Plainview as a counter argument to him. Daniel Day-Lewis is at least two feet over the top throughout this performance but it still is the best performance I have ever seen by anyone and that is saying a whole lot. It’s kind of interesting that as much as I love subtle, down-to-earth performance that still manage to catch your eye, majority of my favourite performances are flashy, over-the-top kind that are anything but subtle. Thing with such performances is there is a very little room for maneuvering. If you underplay it a little, it may not make its impact and if you go too overboard, it might get ridiculous. But when someone gets it right, it can be a sight worth seeing and damn me if DDL doesn’t get it just right!

Plainview is at the center of everything here but he gives us every reason to despise him. He is cold and conflicted; a terrible father and proves repeatedly he wouldn’t skip a heartbeat stepping over you if it is for his benefit. All he ever wants is to get filthy rich and is ready to pay any price for that. Any! That greed consumes him in most spectacular fashion. I might despise Daniel Plainview to the core but Daniel Day-Lewis makes it impossible to take my eyes off him for even a second. Once again, I completely understand anyone who can shrug it off as over-acting but his deep, borderline scary voice, formidable body language and even his misanthropy; everything about him fascinates me to no end. Add Paul Dano and his Eli Sunday to the equation and you have a knockout 1-2 punch.

I think it is pretty obvious by now that I will choose There Will Be Blood over Best picture winner No Country for Old Men but you will never find me flaking it for winning over TWBB. No Country is as respectable Best Picture winner as you can find; a rare example of AMPAS doing something right despite getting it wrong. Remarkable thing about either of the two is they are both near perfect films in every aspect. Both can test your patience in parts but when they pick up, they can take your breath away. Both have some of the best performances I have seen, enthralling story, stunning visuals and incredible philosophy behind them giving each as much depth as you are willing to explore.

If I have to choose one aspect of TWBB that makes it so much dearer to me, it would obviously be tour-de-force performances of Daniel Day-Lewis as Daniel Plainview and Paul Dano as Eli Sunday. For No Country, that aspect would have to be its philosophy. As much as I loved everything else, I have often wondered if I would consider TWBB as highly if it wasn't for these two towering performances but then I know No Country wouldn't be what it is without Anton Chigurh and Sheriff Bell or even with anyone else playing them and that is not even what I like the most about that film.

Over the past two and half years of my blogging, one thing has certainly changed for me and that is exhilaration you feel after watching something memorable. Not that I don't feel it anymore but it has certainly become less frequent. I remember waiting 6 months for Inception, watching a late evening show on the opening day and then discussing the hell out of it till 2:30 in the morning in theater parking lot. I remember being in awe of Daniel Plainview and going batshit crazy in bowling alley scene. I remember being stunned by the greatness of Rashomon(1950), by the audacity of making a film in one room of 12 Angry Men(1957) and the beauty of Ingrid Bergman and Notorious(1946). Maybe I have become more cynical or more experienced and ante-up my own game but that rarely happens anymore. Maybe that is what makes these movies special.

Rating(out of 5):

Past Favorites:

Notorious(1946)

Rashomon(1950) 

City of God(2002)

12 Angry Men(1957)

Bicycle Thieves(1948)
Wall-E(2008)
City Lights(1931)

City Lights or How Chaplin made me Cry!

The first time ever I put a Top 100 list on this blog was sometime in March 2012, little less than a month after I got into LAMB. Since the start of this year, I have been meaning to update that list and I finally found an opportune time for it on the second anniversary of this blog in June 2013. A lot changed over the year. Countless many films jumped up or down in the list, many I saw last year made into it for the first time and as a result, some of the earlier entries had to make way for them. However the one that made the biggest lip was Chaplin’s City Lights(1931) which I only saw for the first time last year. It found its way straight into my Top 10 films of all time. I had not added an entry to my ‘Favourites’ feature since I updated the list and so when I thought about doing so, it only felt right talking about one that the biggest splash in that update.

Like all his other films, City Lights is about Chaplin’s tramp and two more people in his life – a wealthy man who tries to kill himself in his drunken stupor but tramp somehow manages to save him and a sweet but blind flower selling girl that mistakenly takes him as a wealthy man. After getting to know her a bit, he comes to know that an operation can save bring her eyesight back. The catch is if she gets her eyes back, she would know that he is not a wealthy man she thinks he is and that may change her feelings for him but on the other hand, she will remain blind. But off course, he sets out to get that money she will need for it and in a typical Chaplin fashion, his path is filled with many gigs. On the other hand, wealthy man he saves feels quite indebted to him for saving his life but seems to forget everything as he gets sober. His butler also seems very suspicious of tramp and his motives and keeps on trying to get him out of the house. This on-and-off nature of their relationship makes for some hilarious moments.

Starting from the very first scene of tramp sleeping on the statue to be publicly inaugurated in the city square to one of the most well-known endings in the history of cinema, City Lights is full of iconic moments that even those who haven’t seen the film might know about. I am sure we all also remember the boxing fight he gets himself into to get the money for girl’s operation or the restaurant scene during one of the drunken spells of his wealthy friend. Scenes like these are filled with many small gigs that he does to perfection and almost certainly, to hilarious results.

I have grown up watching Chaplin; though most of them were shorts or I only saw parts of them, so it felt like shorts. I only got to his feature length films in 2011 but unlike many other of his contemporary comedians, I was at least introduced to him and his work very early in my life. Laurel-Hardy are the only others I can say the same about. I still haven’t seen anything of Harold Lloyd’s or Jacques Tati’s work though films like Safety Last(1923) or Playtime(1967) and Mr. Hulot’s Holiday(1953) are pretty high up on my watch-list. And although I inducted myself to Keaton and Marx Brothers right around the time I got into Chaplin films, I didn’t even know about them until I started this blog. So as much as I love Keaton and others, Chaplin will always hold a dear place in my heart and the more of his films I watch, the more he cements that position.

Chaplin, even though relies heavily on the physical comedy aspect of his films, transcends further than that. There is always something more, something deeper in his films than the obvious comedy we see on the screen. In Modern Times(1936), he comments on the human life getting more and more dependent on machines which is even more relevant now than it was then. In The Great Dictator(1940), while making fun of Hitler and Nazism, he also gives a message about humanity. In The Kid(1921), there is this beautiful father-son relationship at its center. In City Lights, it is unadulterated and undemanding Love.

His tramp, even though almost always at the lowest pedestal of the food chain, is always about hope, about giving, about being more humane. I don’t think it is more apparent anywhere else than it is in City Lights where he gives pretty much everything he can; he gets into the boxing ring, he gets a job in garage, he even goes to jail; just to help out this blind, flower-seller that he loves but who doesn’t even recognize him when he stands in front of her after all this. And this is the prefect segway for me to break into something I love the most about this film.

I rarely cry at the movies. I don’t even remember the last time I did. I don’t mean to brag or flaunt my 'Man' Card but it assures that when I do, the film leaves its impression on me. Bicycle Thieves(1948) did and so did Grave of the Fireflies(1988). Result? Both are very high up in my Top 100. City Lights did too and it also makes the list but there is something even more beautiful about it which makes it even more special. I have always been sucker for the moments that can make you laugh and cry at the same time and this film offers one such moment.

There are moments that warm your heart but what makes some of them extra special is when one sneaky tear slips from the corner of your eye and rolls onto your chick. There is danger in them either being too cheesy or falling flat but when someone gets it right, it works wonders like that last scene when the dejected tramp slowly walks away from the girl. It gets everything Just right. But then she finally recognizes her benefactor and that tear manages to break off the boundaries and roll down. I have seen this film 3 times and it happened every. single. time. Even writing about this right now makes me go “Awwww”. That scene is everything good, nice, pure and innocent about this world personified in one moment. It could very well be my favourite onscreen moment ever. It will never, ever get old for me.

Until Vertigo(1958) took the top seed in the last year's Sight and Sound list displacing Citizen Kane(1941), City Lights was the only movie ever to top that list besides Kane. Over the years, it has gone down up to #50 but is till one of the best films made ever. Personally, with so many iconic scenes and favourite moments, it is not only my favourite Chaplin but also favourite silent film of all time.

Rating(out of 5):

Past Favorites:

Notorious(1946)

Rashomon(1950) 

City of God(2002)

12 Angry Men(1957)

Bicycle Thieves(1948)
Wall-E(2008)

WALL-E or Pixar's most 'Studio Ghibli'-esque film

I am so not a Pixar person. I was and always will be Studio Ghibli guy. I probably don’t know what I am talking about because I have more Pixar movies in my Top 100(3) than Ghibli(just 1) but I am still Ghibli person because I love their traditional style of animation than Pixar’s computer generated ones and also because when I update my top 100, which should be very soon, that Ghibli film will be head and shoulders above every other animated film. In case you don’t know, the film I am talking about is Isao Takahata’s Grave of the Fireflies(1988). There is only Pixar film that had any chance of putting up a fight for that top spot – Wall-E(2008). Off course, it is my favourite Pixar film and one of my favourite animated films but to tell you the truth, I had not seen it since I first saw it in 2008. I really needed to correct that and also see if it does put up any fight to Grave. My ‘favourites’ series also needed a little animated favour, so I decided to take all these opportunities and here we are!

I doubt if there is anyone who doesn’t know what this film is about, because it is one of the best animated films made. But just in case, there is someone leaving under the rock and reading this blog from there – It is a love story of two robots. In the distant future, where Earth is nothing more than a big, glorious dump incapable of sustaining growth of any leaving organism and with everyone worth leaving already gone, Wall-E is a small garbage collecting robot left behind to clean up the place while everyone is gone. He spends his days making the cubes of garbage that is lying everywhere and making some artistic structures with them. His favourite part of the whole process is collecting the trinkets that catch his eyes from the trash. His trailer is full of such junk but that’s his treasure. One fine day while going about his own business, he witnesses a big, fancy spaceship dropping off a small, cute robot. The instant his eyes fall on that robot, he is absolutely swept of his feet. In his own clumsy way, he tries every trick in his book to impress her. Her name is Eve and she has been dropped on earth as a part of routine to check if there is a chance of any life form sustaining on earth. Incidentally, last addition Wall-E made to his treasure is a plant and an instant he presents that plant to Eve, she stores it inside her in secret compartment, sends a signal to the mother ship and becomes completely unresponsive. Wall-E tries hard to get her to talk, he even takes care of her through everything until one day, same spaceship comes back to take Eve away.

Thinking that she is in trouble, Wall-E somehow even gets onto the ship and reaches Axiom, a ship that he always watches on the big screen on his way to work. On reaching Axiom, Eve is supposed to deposit the proof on possibility of sustaining life on earth, the plant she is carrying, which will start the process of bringing humans back to earth. On reaching Axiom, Wall-E sees humans for the first time and they have all gotten so fat due to lack of any movement at all, thanks to all the technology. Eve is presented in front of the captain of the ship who initiates ‘Operation Recolonize’ but ship’s auto pilot system - aptly name Auto - which pretty much has all the control of ship, has some other directives and tries to hinder them. Wall-E and Eve have to put up a fight to do the right thing. Best thing about Wall-E is even though it is portrayed as a distant future, leaving in a current world it is not that hard to imagine us getting there. It’s not impossible to imagine that we humans will turn this earth into a glorified garbage can and neither is us getting turned into big, fat slobs unable to carry their own weight on their own legs due to the over-dependence on all the technology. Another aspect that Wall-E scores handsomely in is personification of the robots. Making the two robots fall in love itself is the most commendable thing about it but that’s not it. The way Wall-E falls head over heels at first look of Eve, his complete absent minded behaviour trying to impress her with his stupidities and most of all, his tendency to hold on to something as insignificant as his trinkets is something that draws out Wall-E as almost human and I really love that about this movie.

When I first heard about a movie featuring love story of two robots, I wasn’t into it at all. I remember passing on watching it in a theatre for that reason. I only saw it later because of the effusive praise I heard from many of my friends. Given this background, it gets a lot of credit for not only drawing me into this world but making me love it. I have seen people calling it an inferior film because it borrows from other films and I don’t get it. It obviously borrows from many movies, probably most importantly from 2001: A Space Odyssey(1968) with similarities between Hal and Auto. I am sure there are many movies that borrowed something from 2001, almost every movie based in space made since 1968 does. But somehow I deny calling it a strike against these films as long as they aren’t outright copying it; I would rather call it greatness of 2001 to inspire so many. Chaplin’s Tramp is another obvious influence on developing Wall-E’s character and Writer-Director Andrew Stanton even agrees to have watched lot of Chaplin to learn displaying emotions without dialogue. I don’t understand how any of it makes it any inferior. For the first half of the film till Wall-E and Eve reach Axiom, there are no talking characters. It is almost like a silent movie except for the electronic voices in which Wall-E and Eve say each other’s names. However, body language of the two characters, background landscapes and music used is so rich, so detailed that they easily set the right mood.

One of the important reasons I say I prefer Ghibli movies to Pixar is besides being entertaining and adorable; they always have some bigger, universal message behind them, usually related to the environment. To me, a good animated film is something that doesn’t come with age-limit. With this warning to the mankind about possible course of future, Wall-E serves the purpose of giving the message(that's why the title!) and even gives something to big kids to think about. To answer the first question I posed while choosing to focus on Wall-E; No, it is no way better than Grave of the Fireflies or at least I don’t think it is. So, the Grave still remains to be my favourite animated movie and I even see Wall-E falling down a bit in my imminent Top 100 update. But it will still remain to be my favourite Pixar as an incredibly adorable and very well executed story with no age-bar.

Rating(out of 5):

Past Favorites:

Notorious(1946)

Rashomon(1950) 

City of God(2002)

12 Angry Men(1957)

Bicycle Thieves(1948)

Bicycle Thieves: My Introduction to Italian Neo-Realism

Those of you following me on Twitter would probably know that I have been dreading this moment. As much as I love Bicycle Thieves(1948) and wanted to write about it, I have been trying to avoid re-watching it for as much as I can. The thing is, it is one of those movies that takes me into a state I don't want to get into, especially on the weekdays - this makes me hate the whole world around us. I mean, there is this normal, poor and honest guy just trying to do an honest day's work, trying to be a good father. If no one can help him in the cause, why can't the world at least let him be? Why do they have to put obstacles in his path and taste him? and make him prove himself? Why? Ok...Ok. Deep breath. I think I am running too far ahead of myself. Let's get back on line and start at the very beginning. So, the other option was Grave of the Fireflies(1988), which turns me into something even worse. I guess the time has come that I don't get the option. I just have to choose the blue pill and go with it. Dramatic much? I will try to keep my emotions in check. No promises though, some times they are bound to get better of you.

Based in Rome just after World War II, it concentrates on the grim realities of regular working Italian people and how even the mere survival has become a struggle. Antonio Ricci, played by Lamberto Maggiorani, is just another one of those regular guys looking for any type of work that can pay so that he can feed his wife and kid. One day, he gets lucky when he gets picked for putting up posters around town but foreman needs for him to own a bicycle. Antonio assures him that he will arrange something by next day, pawns pretty much everything he can to buy himself a bicycle and happily, joins in on the first day of work. It may not pay a whole lot but now, at least he has some income and even a bicycle. Antonio starts this new day with his son Bruno, played rather brilliantly by Enzo Staiola, full of hope of better future. However everything comes crashing down on him when someone steals his bicycle on the very first day. This bicycle is basically their lifeline. Without his bicycle, he won't have a job for another day and without his job, he won't be able to pay his debt. In hard times such as this, there is very real possibility that he wouldn't even be able to put food on their table. So for the rest of the movie, we follow this father-son pair knocking on every door they can to get their bicycle back. And quite frankly by the end of it, it broke my heart so much that I was just sitting in my chair, holding head in my hands for a long time. At the heart of all this is his relationship with his son. With Bruno around all the time, Anotonio is constantly aware of the example he is setting for his son and hence makes those final moments that much more effective, much more heartbreaking.

Vittorio De Sica who directed this movie was probably one of the most well known names related to neo-realism. He does a lot of things right in this movie to make it such a landmark picture, a true masterpiece in every sense of the word. Bicycle Thieves portrays a very vivid picture of how hard life must have been in the years right after war. Even in the small things like bunch of people waiting for announcement of who got the job, he paints the picture of poverty and desperation that must have swept through the whole country. As per the neo-realism guidelines, all the cast members chosen were unprofessional actors but they hit the ball out of the park, especially Maggiorani and Straiola. However the biggest success of the movie is in its simplicity. It's a very simple, straight forward story made even more effective by its brutal honesty. In fact it is this honesty or more correctly, its brutality is what makes it so much memorable. From the start, you see Antonio as this poor but honest, hardworking and likeable guy trying to earn a living. Within first few minutes, I was genuinely happy for him that he found some means of livelihood and was really concerned when his bicycle gets stolen right away. He seems like such a nice guy that I didn't want to get things any worse for him but the whole time conditions never stop getting any worse. By the time you reach the ending where all that is remaining is empty shell of this nice guy and his surroundings give him one final push that will make it impossible for him to redeem himself, I was literally praying for something good, something that will give us that old, simple guy back, to happen to him. But Mr. De Sica had some other plans, I guess.

The first time I saw Bicycle Thieves was about one and half years ago and that was pretty much my introduction to Italian cinema and the theme of neo-realism that was so much prevalent at that time in the Italian industry. Later on this movement even crossed its borders to influence, among many, many other things, Indian Cinema and more specifically Parallel Cinema movement in it which is also referred to as Indian New Wave. Satyajit Ray specifically sights it as one of the two most important influences on Pather Panchali(1955), first of his Apu trilogy movies and a personal favourite. Staying true to the concepts of new-realism which mainly feature stories about the hardships in the day-to-day lives of working class and lower middle class in the post World War II Italy, it was also filmed mainly on location, employed non-professional actors and has a strong focus on Child actors. Even though the films like Shoeshine(1946) and Umberto D(1952) have always been in the contention, I have only seen two movies by De Sica. Other one being Two Women(1960) for which Sophia Lauren won an acting Oscar. Based on these two movies, I feel like De Sica never lets anything good to happen to any of his characters and the looks of either Shoeshine or Umberto D don't help the cause much either. I am not complaining, rather just an observation because I understand what he was aiming for in this movies and he achieves it beautifully.

Arguably, Bicycle Thieves does have moments of humour which again come at the expense of this father-son pair. When Bruno falls in the mud and Antonio doesn't even realize it can be called one such moment. But the moment that I will remember the most doesn't come with such a silver lining, it actually comes at the height of his despair - when Antonio decides to take Bruno for lunch that he can not afford. It shows Antonio's inner conflict so powerfully that I was completely confused as to how to react to this situation. I had this uneasy smile on my face throughout the sequence. I strongly believe that is exactly the kind of reaction De Sica was hoping for and he succeeds time and again in getting it. If you haven't seen it yet, you are truly missing a gem of a movie.

Past Favorites:
Notorious(1946)

Rashomon(1950) 

City of God(2002)

12 Angry Men(1957) 

Rating(out of 5):

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):