Film Review: 12 Angry Men

Director: Sidney Lumet

This 1957 film was adapted from a play written by Reginald Rose, it is based around the 12 man jury in a murder case as they deliberate the guilt of the defendant. Similarly to a play, the film is almost exclusively based in one room which is the jury room as the jurors argue over the facts and testimonies given during the trial. This is the genius behind the film, how can a movie based in one room which purely features men (whose names you don't know) arguing and discussing the events of the trial be so fascinating. 

The jury room where almost all of the film takes place

We very quickly learn the personalities of some of the more outspoken characters within the group and a shot after the judge reads his final statement shows the young defendant. Instantly there is prejudice within the group towards the defendant, even by the judge who seems almost bored when summing the case up at the end of the trail. but that isn't the only issue. There are two eye witnesses claiming the defendant stabbed his father and then ran down the stairs out of the building. It seems that it is a simple case for the jury to decide but juror #8 (Henry Fonda, identified as Davis at the end) votes not guilty which sets off the rest of the film. Davis claims that there is reasonable doubt in his mind that the boy might not have committed this crime despite his flimsy testimony and the evidence stacked against him.

The principle of reasonable doubt is what the film hinges upon; it starts with juror #8 claiming that there is reasonable doubt in his mind. The aim of the jury is not to solve the crime but to decide whether an 18 year old Puerto Rican boy should be sent to die. A key quote from juror #8 is "We're talking about somebody's life here, we can't decide in five minutes". This sets off the arguing, questions and re-enactments that take place in the court room as every shred of evidence is analysed and debated. Some arguments presented have the jurors themselves contradicting their own opinions.

The 12 Angry Men

It is well over 50 years since this film was made and jury duty doesn't seem to hold the same pride it used to, being judged by your fellow man. Many people try everything they can to escape it and I personally think anyone selected for jury duty especially in big cases should be made to watch this movie. A heck of a lot can be learnt from this film about human nature and conflicting personalities. People from all walks of life and varying personalities are displayed from hot-headed characters to quiet thoughtful people to the easily convinced (juror #12) on a jury and this one is no exception. Some of the jurors are so stubborn that changing their minds seems to be out of the question purely because of a sense of pride; only weak people will give in and change their verdict on the accused.

Little touches within the film just add to the intensity in the room, the fact it is a boiling hot day and the fan in the room is not working for most of the movie cranks up the tension as the men struggle to deal with the heat. Meaning people's tempers fray much quicker and are prone to more irrational thought.  It is certainly a film that I think benefits from being in black and white (although not in the way a film like Hitchcock's The Birds does). The cinematography is incredibly sharp in showing the sweat on the men's brows and the slightest hint of what people are thinking through the expressions on their faces, Sidney Lumet is technically brilliant in the way this film is shot.

4/4 Fascinating and clever film, still has relevance today.