Film Appreciation of 12 Angry Men (Contains Spoilers)

Title of the film: 12 Angry Men
Language: English
Color: Black and White
Genre: Drama/Crime
Duration: 96 min.
Certification: Approved

Name of Production: United Artists
Director: Sidney Lumet
Producers: Henry Fonda,Reginald Rose
Associate Producer: George Justin
Story and Screenplay: Reginald Rose
Original Music: Kenyon Hopkins
Cinematographer: Boris Kaufman
Editor: Carl Lerner
Art Direction: Robert Markel
Second Unit Director: Don Kraze


Cast (credited):
Martin Baslam - Juror #1
John Fielder - Juror #2
Lee J Cobb - Juror #3
E G Marshall - Juror #4
Jack Klugmann - Juror #5
Ed Binns - Juror #6
Jack Warden - Juror #7
Henry Fonda - Juror #8
Joseph Sweeney - Juror #9
Ed Begley - Juror #10
George Voskovec - Juror #11
Robert Webber - Juror #12

(Unaccredited)
Rudy Bond - Judge
James Kelly - Guard
Billy Nelson - Court Clerk
John Savoca - The accused


The film begins in a courtroom where the judge after hearing the case wants the 12 men jury to pass on their verdict on the case after the necessary discussion. The case is about an 18 year old guy committing a premeditated murder of his father. The jury has to come to a complete majority to have a verdict i.e. 12-0 either guilty or not guilty. And if found guilty the boy will be sentenced to death. The jury members begin their discussion on the case. The jury members are numbered from 1 to 12. The person, Juror #1 presiding over the discussion decides that as in any case let them have a preliminary voting so that they know in which way the verdict is going. The voting ends and the verdict stand as 11 guilty to 1 not guilty. The only person who thinks that the boy is not guilty is the Juror #8 (Henry Fonda). This begins the debate between him and other jury members. With passage of time he is able to convince more and more members that the boy is innocent. At the end of second voting the verdict begins to sway. It’s now 8 guilty and 4 not guilty. The Juror #3 who is in favor of the boy being guilty gets irritated and accuses Juror #8 of being manipulative and brain washing others. The main point against the boy is the evidences provided by two witnesses an old man and an old lady. The old lady being an eyewitness to the incident and the old man heard the heated confrontation between the father and son. And according to him when the father hits the boy, he retaliates back by killing him using a switch knife. Now the debate gets heated up and it turns into a racial and socio-economic confrontation between the jurors. In mean time, Juror #8 points out certain faults in the evidences provided by the old man. This makes Juror #3 go berserk. He tries to attack Juror #8. The reason for him being very much in favor of sending the boy to electric chair is because he too had a sour relation with his son. And as a result of which his son had abused him and left the house. So he is adamant that the boy is guilty.
As the jurors settles down again, a third voting take place. This time verdict is 6 guilty and 6 not guilty. The debate continues and slowly the verdict sways more in favor of the boy. At one point its 1 guilty to 11 not guilty. Only the Juror #3 does not change his stance. When he finds out that he is alone, he freaks out. He speaks against the verdict made by others and abuses others. At the end of his speech he breaks down and pronounces the boy being not guilty. Juror #8 goes and consoles him. The verdict is now passed and its 0 guilty to 12 not guilty. In the end Juror #8 is shown to go out happily from the court.

The film backs the universal belief that the truth prevails in the end. It through the portrait of the Juror #8 shows a dutiful citizen, who was not convinced with the evidences put up against the accused and so debates in his favor. It shows the various human emotions and how these emotions affect other matters in life. This can be best realized in the case of Juror #3, who had a very sour relation with his son and as an act of vengeance he takes it all against the accused. The film shows that no matter how faithful immigrants are to their adopted country, there always exists an iota of doubt against them in the minds of the “true citizen” of that country. This can be well understood between the heated exchange between the Juror #7 and Juror #11. Also how these immigrants have to try hard to prove their loyalty to their adopted country. The film through the conversations between Juror #5 and Juror #10, also tries to show the tension between different economic classes and the prejudices that they have for others.
All these emotional elements are interwoven in the movie with the sole motive in getting to a verdict in the case. It once again emphasize that in a democratic structure, it’s of utmost importance that there should always be a jury in any case involving sensitive issues. And care should be taken that the jury appointed are people from different background so that the case can be studied, discussed and understood from all perspectives before coming to a unanimous decision.
The casting in the film is spot on. With persons from different strata of life, there always exists friction and to enact them without going over the board is commendable. Henry Fonda as the protagonist is calm, thoughtful and quite assertive in what he states. He in the beginning is not sure or rather confused on the case and therefore votes in favor of the boy being not guilty. Lee J Cobb as Juror #3, who is having a troubled relation with his son, portraits how one reacts at the point of utmost state of sorrow. How one loses his emotions and has his feeling affect the outcome of other matters. Robert Webber as Juror #12, an advertising guy shows his way of pleasing others and even during such a serious discussion has that penchant in impressing others with his advertising strategies. John Fiedler as Juror #2, portraits very well the role of a person who is very reluctant to share his views. Ed Begley as Juror #10 acts as a short tempered 50-some man who has always an opinion on any subject and doesn’t bother whether his opinion is right or wrong. The rest of the cast too gels quite well and together they have given a sterling performance.
The peculiarity about this movie is its location. The movie almost entirely is shot in a single room. As a result of this it would have been difficult for the cinematographer to decide on the type of shots. Being in just a room, chances of the shots getting repetitive is more. So he has gone for lot of mid to full shots as the screenplay involves discussion between a group of people. The camera tracks back when a person stands up to show the simultaneous action and reaction. It doesn’t wait to show a reaction after an action. This is felt when the characters lose their temper and barge on someone from the jury. This helps a lot because it shows reaction of not one but many characters. Close-ups are used in minimum but effectively. The usage of tilt down and tilt up shots too is common.
But all these shots are used so effectively with the screenplay that when watching for the first one never realizes its effectiveness. The editing used is quite conventional. The cuts are infrequent. But there are lots of instances of crossing the line. But as said earlier, the screenplay is so fool-proof that on first viewing all these technical anomalies are not noticed.
The director has brought in the best out of the ensemble. When a film has so many characters of equal importance and equal screen time, its very difficult to handle them. Even though the screenplay is fool-proof, one still need to visualize and present it in a way which is accepted by most. And this is exactly what the director has done. And that too in his first movie as a director, it is quite a remarkable feat.