← Back to Reviews
in
12 Angry Men (1957)
“12 Angry Men” follows the trail of a young man whose life lies in the hands of the jury, 12 men who each have their own prejudices and preconceptions that influence their voting throughout the process.
Directed by Sidney Lumet and set in his favourite New York City, the film takes place entirely in the court room on what is the hottest day of the year. We do not see the trial take place but it soon becomes clear how the earlier events unfolded.
At the start of the film it appears that from the trial and the facts given the young man is almost certainly guilty. With 11 men willing to immediately vote guilty it is Henry Fonda who goes against the majority, voting not guilty as he is not willing to accept the verdict so easily, convinced that a much better job could have been done by the incompetent lawyer, with many questions that he wants answered.
When questioned over his decision to vote not guilty and whether he actually thinks that the young man did not kill his father, Fonda explains how although it is very likely he did kill his father it is also possible that he did not as he attempts to change the votes of his fellow jurors, explaining that the decision should not be taken lightly and that to vote guilty they must have no reasonable doubt.
Each Juror takes their turn to explain their own view of what happened as it soon becomes clear that the evidence provided in the trial has left many holes, resulting in many questions being asked and causing doubt over the plausibility of much of it.
After watching the film by brother said to me how he would have preferred to know what actually happened and whether or not the young man did murder his father. I disagreed with him, this film is not a murder mystery where there is a given conclusion gained from piecing together pieces of the puzzle. Guilty or Not Guilty, it is still incredibly likely that the young boy did kill his father however this is not the point, as Fonda reiterates throughout the film ‘it is possible‘ that he did not and due to the poor work of the young man’s lawyer there is enough room for reasonable doubt.
Although Fonda is the only ‘big name’ star to appear in the film, each juror is portrayed superbly, all as very different characters. We see the very brave old man, Juror #9 who is willing to support Fonda in the possibility of the young man being not guilty. We see Juror #3 who is adamant of the young man’s guilt throughout with is own personal relationship with his son resulting in an emotional scene towards the film’s end. Then we have Juror #7, a man whom from the start of the film is more concerned over a baseball game than the case itself and is willing to switch his vote that could result in the life and death of a man simply because he wants to speed up the process. A lot of the opinions throughout are based on racist preconceptions as the young man is constantly referred to as ‘one of them’ as his tough upbringing is criticised, we see Juror #10 unleash a racist attack as he votes guilty towards the end of the film, this is to the disgust to the rest of the table who leave the table and turn their backs on the man.
As the film is set entirely in one room, it relies heavily on the visual work of Lumet who uses a variety of camera and lens techniques to attribute to the feel and increase the tension in the room. We see the camera close in on the Jurors as the film goes on, and different level shots used effectively such as the close up view of Juror #9 at the beginning of the film as he tries to express his point to the other men. The film continues many memorable scenes in addition to the breakdown of Juror #3 and the racist rant of Juror #10, perhaps my favourite of the film is the switch-knife scene with Henry Fonda.
The film is unlike many modern films that rely on fast paced, action filled scenes. An extremely intelligent plot with great use of various shooting techniques makes this a very clever and enjoyable film – a masterpiece that is seen by many as one of the best of all time.
RATING:
12 Angry Men (1957)
“12 Angry Men” follows the trail of a young man whose life lies in the hands of the jury, 12 men who each have their own prejudices and preconceptions that influence their voting throughout the process.
Directed by Sidney Lumet and set in his favourite New York City, the film takes place entirely in the court room on what is the hottest day of the year. We do not see the trial take place but it soon becomes clear how the earlier events unfolded.
At the start of the film it appears that from the trial and the facts given the young man is almost certainly guilty. With 11 men willing to immediately vote guilty it is Henry Fonda who goes against the majority, voting not guilty as he is not willing to accept the verdict so easily, convinced that a much better job could have been done by the incompetent lawyer, with many questions that he wants answered.
When questioned over his decision to vote not guilty and whether he actually thinks that the young man did not kill his father, Fonda explains how although it is very likely he did kill his father it is also possible that he did not as he attempts to change the votes of his fellow jurors, explaining that the decision should not be taken lightly and that to vote guilty they must have no reasonable doubt.
Each Juror takes their turn to explain their own view of what happened as it soon becomes clear that the evidence provided in the trial has left many holes, resulting in many questions being asked and causing doubt over the plausibility of much of it.
After watching the film by brother said to me how he would have preferred to know what actually happened and whether or not the young man did murder his father. I disagreed with him, this film is not a murder mystery where there is a given conclusion gained from piecing together pieces of the puzzle. Guilty or Not Guilty, it is still incredibly likely that the young boy did kill his father however this is not the point, as Fonda reiterates throughout the film ‘it is possible‘ that he did not and due to the poor work of the young man’s lawyer there is enough room for reasonable doubt.
Although Fonda is the only ‘big name’ star to appear in the film, each juror is portrayed superbly, all as very different characters. We see the very brave old man, Juror #9 who is willing to support Fonda in the possibility of the young man being not guilty. We see Juror #3 who is adamant of the young man’s guilt throughout with is own personal relationship with his son resulting in an emotional scene towards the film’s end. Then we have Juror #7, a man whom from the start of the film is more concerned over a baseball game than the case itself and is willing to switch his vote that could result in the life and death of a man simply because he wants to speed up the process. A lot of the opinions throughout are based on racist preconceptions as the young man is constantly referred to as ‘one of them’ as his tough upbringing is criticised, we see Juror #10 unleash a racist attack as he votes guilty towards the end of the film, this is to the disgust to the rest of the table who leave the table and turn their backs on the man.
As the film is set entirely in one room, it relies heavily on the visual work of Lumet who uses a variety of camera and lens techniques to attribute to the feel and increase the tension in the room. We see the camera close in on the Jurors as the film goes on, and different level shots used effectively such as the close up view of Juror #9 at the beginning of the film as he tries to express his point to the other men. The film continues many memorable scenes in addition to the breakdown of Juror #3 and the racist rant of Juror #10, perhaps my favourite of the film is the switch-knife scene with Henry Fonda.
The film is unlike many modern films that rely on fast paced, action filled scenes. An extremely intelligent plot with great use of various shooting techniques makes this a very clever and enjoyable film – a masterpiece that is seen by many as one of the best of all time.
RATING: