12 Angry Men
With all the controversy over the acquittals in a number of high profile trials recently, itās easy to forget that the burden rests on the prosecution in order to prove guilt BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, and the reason certain people got off was more due to incompetence on the prosecutorās part than by any alleged idiocy by the jury. That mindset is summed up by this timeless 1957 classic, one of the few remaining from that era that manages to live up to its reputation and helped launch the career of director Sidney Lumet coupled with great writing and intense performances from a superb cast of legendary character actors. The plot concerns an (all white male) jury who retires to deliberate on the case of an 18 year old Puerto Rican boy tried for stabbing his father to death in what is described as an open and shut, slam-dunk win for the prosecutor. During the preliminary vote, all but one member of the jury (Henry Fonda) declares the boy guilty, and when pressed, Fonda admits that may be the case, but that they should take the time to talk about it before sending the kid to the electric chair. And thus it begins, 90 minutes of the viewer being part of that one room of people as they discuss and hash out the evidence, circumstantial though it may be, while Fonda encourages them to look deeper and ask themselves, is it really enough to convict? As said, the script by Reginald Rose and the acting of the twelve principals leaves nothing to be desired and is flawless in every way, a good thing considering the concept, made even more so by the fact that NONE of the actors can be considered a glorified extra and each and every one pretty much gets a chance to shine. Fonda as Juror #8 is basically the bedrock of the cast, and he IS great, but it is Lee J. Cobb as Juror #3 that arguably is the most brilliant, refusing to budge almost until the very end when we get his heart-wrenching final rant, which is such an emotional piece of acting work that itās a shock that Cobb was overlooked for an Oscar nomination at the time (though he was nominated for the Golden Globe). And the rest of the ensemble is awesome as well, and deserve to be mentioned, as they include Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, E.G. Marshall, Jack Klugman, Edward Binns, Jack Warden, Joseph Sweeney, Ed Begley, George Voskovec, and Robert Webber, all of whom bring their characters to life and bring their own little bits of business to the table, each with their own reasons for holding out, ranging from indifference (Warden) to racism (Begley) to being overwhelmed (Fiedler) or to being one who just tries to accept the facts of the case at face value (Marshall). The beauty of it is that Fonda does NOT spend the whole film giving grandiose speeches, as his character is shown being open-minded and respectful of the othersā thoughts and opinions, and yet calmly explains to each one that their reasoning is not definitive proof of guilt, while still the possibility remains open that the boy COULD be guilty, but perhaps the over-reaching prosecutor would have done better to try him instead on a second degree murder charge (hmm). Other brilliant moments come when Voskovicās European immigrant confronts Warden about changing his vote to Not Guilty (even though he has voted the same way) because he wants to make sure that Warden really feels that way and is not doing it so he can get out of there quicker, or when Begley goes on a prolonged racist rant about Hispanics that causes the other jurors to get up from the table and turn their backs on him, leaving him isolated and alone in his hatred. Just brilliant, inspiring writing and incredible, transcendent acting, and certainly one film that should be shown in every screenwriting class forever more to teach film students the dynamics of character development and interactionā¦
10/10