12 Angry Men - Movie Review - 1957
Classic Film Starring Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb and E.G. Marshall
Jul 14, 2009
True, 12 Angry Men, starring Henry Fonda and directed by Sidney Lumet is considered to be one of the quintessential courtroom dramas but it presents an interesting dichotomy from the outset. Courtroom dramas are generally focused within those very confines but with 12 Angry Men, the courtroom appears in the opening frames and it is never to be seen again. Specifically, this classic film is exactly what its title indicates; a study amongst a group of men, discovering in turn what in fact triggers each one's anger, how those points of view have shaped their characters and ultimately the very fabric of their lives.
The Drama of the Courtroom
Until the last few moments when we learn the names of Jurors #8 and 9, assigned numbers are all the identification provided. These men aren't interested in social endeavors. They are content to build walls of mistrust and thinly veiled suspicion with arrogance and impatience.
Only Juror #8 (Fonda) feels secure enough within his own self to find a break in the wall and ask the question no-one else has the temerity to raise: "Supposing we're wrong?"
One Juror's Angry Crusade Opens Eyes and Wounds
Reginald Rose's brilliant manipulation of the characters through his masterful script has you rooting for some, incensed by some and simply annoyed by others. Every role is pivotal in its own way but while many would choose the holdout, Juror #3 (Lee J. Cobb) as being the straw that tested the proverbial camel's back, that distinction goes to Juror #4 (E.G. Marshall).
Thinking himself to be intellectually superior to all in the room with only a begrudging respect for Fonda's crusade, Marshall eventually becomes converted with precisely the approach he himself used to insist on the defendant's guilt. Once convinced, however, he is just as stoic for the defense as he was for the prosecution.
As it turns out, Marshall's character has no personal axe to grind as one might have first thought. He has the strength of his integrity to stand by his convictions and is fair enough to admit when he's wrong, no matter how taxing it may be.
The Tension Builds as the Men Fight Each Other
Marshall's character is the only juror not to shed his jacket or loosen his tie throughout the entire deliberation. When a neighboring juror asks, quite bluntly, "Don't you ever sweat?", he is met with a flat "No, I don't."
Later it is while challenged to remember a similar chain of events the defendant couldn't initially recall that he is observed wiping his brow free of perspiration. He is forced to admit to not remembering details even though he, unlike the defendant, was not under 'great emotional stress'.
Lumet's crisp direction and clever use of camera angles successfully accentuates the gravity of the task and the tension in the air. The black and white film wonderfully heightens every sensation: the heat of the day, the smoke-filled room in the dimming light, the close proximity within which they all sit, the raised voices despite the fact the receivers sit only inches away.
The Jurors Fight to be Heard as They Become Angry with Themselves
While Fonda, Cobb and Marshall have the most dynamic roles, each character adds an important link in the chain toward the eventual outcome. One Eastern European juror questions the air of discord in this land of democracy. Another slum-raised juror disagrees with the angle of the wound and how it didn't match the knife fights he witnessed as a child; still another appreciates the charge towards innocence but privately points out to Fonda the possibility, if not probability, that eleven of them could have been correct from the start.
The jurors know that whatever their decision may be, they are holding the very life of a young man in the palms of their hands. As 12 Angry Men, they come dangerously close to casually tossing out a verdict without preamble, discussion or thought.
Aside from being on many a classic movie buff's top ten list of black and white or color film favorites, this tightly wrought gem makes a commanding statement about society and the tenuous hold it has on self-proclaimed power. Power in the sense that one has the ability, but more specifically the right, to vote guilty or simply say, "I just wanna talk."
 |
