Flipside Movie Emporium Forum Index Flipside Movie Emporium
Discussion Forums Locked & Archived for Browsing
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

12 Angry Men - Perfection?

 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Flipside Movie Emporium Forum Index -> Movie Talk
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
The Third M?n
Studio Exec


Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 575
Location: Chasing Stef around post-war Vienna

PostPosted: 01.11.2004 7:24 pm    Post subject: 12 Angry Men - Perfection? Reply with quote

12 Angry Men(1957) Dir: Sidney Lumet

12 Angry Men is one of the finest suspense films I have ever seen. Tightly wound, unforeseeable and densely atmospheric, Sidnley Lumet's debut supposes a milestone in minimalist filmmaking. A flop in its initial release [despite its almost non-existent budget -- $343,000], it was nominated for three Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Director.

A 12 man jury is sent to begin deliberations in the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year-old slum kid who is accused of stabbing his father to the death. What at first sight appears to be an open and shut case, because of the defendant's weak alibi -- a knife he claimed to have lost is found at the murder scene; a nearby woman says she saw him do it and an old man heard screaming and saw him flee the building -- instead turns into something much more difficult. Eleven of the jurors instantly vote guilty; however, Juror #8 says that there is still much room for supposing and that the accused can be indeed innocent. He then must convince the jurors that beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant is guilty.

With the exception of some of the earlier scenes and the ending, the whole film is set in a claustrophobic New York jury room during the hottest day of the year. The location, partly due to the fact that it was based on a play [and indeed, there are many stagy elements to be found in the film] solely serves to excellently augment the intensity and suspense that is crafted by the director. One would have thought that the scenographic limitations could, one way or another, harm the film, or make it tedious. Needless to say, those assumptions would be totally wrong, because 12 Angry Men is a film that turns its restraints into its most superlative assets. During its entire running time, there was not a moment where I was not compelled to what was going on, where the constant debates between the men did not interest me; rather, the film gets you hooked from the very beginning -- but it is as the opinions on the culpability of the kid are altered that the grip gets tighter and tighter. It strikes me as amazing [and odd] that the film remains thoroughly captivating, even though all but three minutes of it was filmed in the same room. 12 Angry Men is what theater is all about -- acting. It is the full-male, twelve men cast who, with their fleshed out characters, different psychologies and varying ideas, keep the film afloat. The film, no doubt, is an ensemble piece at its core -- and an astonishing one, at that -- whose vast majority of the actors, surprisingly, were not incredibly experienced prior to the making of the film, though the painstaking rehearsals did last a fatiguing two weeks. At the end of the film, one really feels as though we got to fully know each and every one of the men who occupied the room their feelings, opinions, sensations, philosophies on life and whatnot are all magnificently illustrated here, and the script by Reginald Rose uses them all to point out and analyse human weaknesses. We get to know where they work, their back stories, where they're from and their personal prejudices. They are all nameless [except for the two who introduce themselves in the film's final scene], yet that does not keep them from being exceedingly well drawn.

Juror #8, superbly played by Henry Fonda, is the only person who stands firm to his ground and does not change his opinion. He's a liberalist, an individual who thinks that, despite all the given evidence, the death of the kid can still be avoided. As he persuades the weary jurors to re-think it, the psyche of each one slowly flourishes until it fully emerges and becomes visible for the viewer. Juror # 1 [Martin Balsam, who played detective Arbogast in Psycho] is a high school sports coach who'd rather keep things in order than stir up a conflict; not even once in the film does he make a useful point, however. Juror #2 [John Fiedler] is the bank clerk with the bizarrely squeaky, almost Porky Pig voice; at the beginning, he's a little doubtful about the entire thing, but eventually decides to speak out after remembering some pivotal evidence that was nagging him, thus making some very good points. Juror #3 [a towering Lee J. Cobb], a hounding big man, thinks that the kid should be put to the chair. According to him, every single thing that came out in that courtroom says he's guilty. He's also the one who, like Juror #8, stands true to his opinion until the very end, if only for more than personal reasons. He's the angry man, and refuses to believe that there is any chance of the kid being innocent. Juror #4 is played by E.G. Marshall, a just man and a good observer, who clearly follows the evidence but in the end realizes that it's completely the opposite; Juror #5 [Jack Klugman] a mumbling and sensitive man who was also born in a slum background, thinks the kid should not be getting the prejudices he's obtaining, because he knows what it is to live in such poverty. Juror #6 [Edward Bins] is a man willing to listen to everyone's opinions, with an ability to recognize his own strengths and weaknesses and to defend the insulted, such as Juror #9 [Joseph Sweeney], the older man out of the bunch who possesses a strange skill to reflect upon the facial aspects and temperament of some of the witnesses; he makes his comments with clarity and unrivalled attention to detail and often gets shouted at by Juror #7 [Jack Warden], probably the most reluctant of the men; he wants to get out because he has tickets to a baseball game and every once in a while throws wisecracks at the people he thinks inferior to himself. Juror #10 [Ed Begley] always makes his remarks in a more than menacing manner -- he's a bigoted man who doesn't care about the viewpoints of others. Juror #11 [George Voskovec] is a polite European watchmaker who migrated to the United States, with a fine way of speaking and a fair treatment of the people, he thinks the Western system is a shame; and finally, there is Juror #12 [Robert Webber] an advertising executive, familiar with reunions of this sort, he cannot cease his pride by telling the people next to him just how wonderful his job is.

One of the main messages of 12 Angry Men is that the judicial system [at least the one that was used then] is a flawed one. It criticizes it with subtlety, while at the same time cleverly exploring the dialogue and motives. In such a small room, so many things can occur, so many things can be said -- and the life of someone depends on them. Pride, jealousy, fury, frustration and prejudice all emerge in this film, and it seems as though it's inevitable. However, the film underlines all this by saying that sometimes oversimplification of the methods is a bad thing; just because there is some apparent evidence doesn't mean he or she is really guilty. Through a careful investigation of the facts, the impression of the guilt of a person can easily be reversed, thus making us think that in fact, he is not culpable. The very tagline of the poster sums up how judicial workings can often be catastrophic: Life is in their hands - Death is on their minds!

If there ever was such a technically flawless film, then this is it. Boris Kaufman's dazzling cinematography, with its prolonged takes and constant close-ups, makes a particularly astute way of using the black and white to strengthen the growth of the plot. You will notice that, at the beginning of the film, eleven out of the twelve men are wearing dark costumes [mainly suits], save for Juror #8, who wears a light summer suit which is most likely much more appropriate for the time the film is set in. As the film progresses and Juror #8 convinces the rest of the jury, it is clearly visible that each of them takes off their dark jackets to reveal light shirts underneath. The concept of using tone to hint at a light [as in good, open-minded / narrow-minded, dark and evil] is further on backed up when the majority vote leaps from guilty to not guilty. At this precise moment, a thunderstorm begins outside and it becomes much darker, forcing them to turn on the lights inside. So at this point the jury room and those inside it have become lighter than the ones outside. The idea continues at the end of the film, as it culminates with all of them wearing light colours, and as they leave the courtroom they can be seen carrying their jackets instead of wearing them, as though they've left their prejudices behind. This is an extraordinary piece of symbolism that is put to great effect in the film and helps to fortify it even more.

The tension that is weaved in the film is incredible. Because we don't know whether or not the kid is truly guilty; because we, like the 12 men, are not aware of whether what's being said is the truth or not, the more unexpected that it gets. The film does not spend time in showing us the trial beforehand -- rather, it opts for showing us what we have to see: the 12 men battling it out, and at the end it is us who have to decide if they have been just, regardless of whether the kid is guilty or innocent. As the course of the film went on, it is said that Sidney Lumet gradually changed to lenses of longer focal lengths, so that the backgrounds seemed to close in on the characters, creating a greater feeling of claustrophobia and, besides, the close-ups got even more continuous. This was said by Lumet in Making Movies, where he discussed the visual strategy of 12 Angry Men. "In addition," he writes, "I shot the first third of the movie above eye level, shot the second third at eye level and the last third from below eye level. In that way, toward the end the ceiling began to appear. Not only were the walls closing in, the ceiling was as well. The sense of increasing claustrophobia did a lot to raise the tension of the last part of the movie." For the last shot of the picture, he says he used a wide- angle lens "to let us finally breathe."

The men's sweat can almost be smelled, their confusion can even be touched; all the situations in the film remain plausible yet ever fascinating, and at the end everything is masterfully tied. 12 Angry Men is a film so unique and special; it provokes, it criticizes and it explores. Almost forty years later, its power to enthrall is intact and the questions it raises are still as timeless. Visually unmatched, it is an engrossing and profoundly engaging film that rightly deserves its place amongst the best of all time.

[96]

Reviewed by The Third M?n, 2004
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
The Third M?n
Studio Exec


Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 575
Location: Chasing Stef around post-war Vienna

PostPosted: 01.12.2004 1:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No love for this film? No discussions?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Danny Baldwin
Studio Exec


Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 1354
Location: San Diego, CA

PostPosted: 01.12.2004 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm very sad to say that I've seen the made-for-TV version twice, but never the real version. Crying or Very sad . It's on Netflix, though.
_________________
Danny Baldwin

View My Reviews
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
matt header
Studio Exec


Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 623
Location: Milwaukee, WI

PostPosted: 01.12.2004 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's been a while since I've seen the original "12 Angry Men" - when I was 15, I think - but I remember being really compelled and impressed by it. Lee J. Cobb's and Fonda's performances are really stunning, and I like the way that brief shots of the actual courtroom serve only as bookends for the intense jurors' arguments. I should see this one again. Nice review, Mr. Lime.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
beltmann
Studio Exec


Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 2341
Location: West Bend, WI

PostPosted: 01.13.2004 12:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, Fonda and Cobb are both terrific. I like Lumet's version a great deal, and the single-setting never feels like a gimmick. It just feels like the natural way to tell this particular story about the vulnerability of justice. If the politics are a bit bald-faced, well, at least reason is on its side. Could we argue, perhaps, that it's actually a horror movie? It might support liberal justice, but doesn't it also illustrate how easily a smart, wily individual can sway a crowd, whether justice is on his side or not? Bone-chilling.

Eric
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
GimmickAccount
Camera Operator


Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 87
Location: IW, dneB tseW

PostPosted: 02.02.2004 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hay beltmann: I actually saw this movie.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
beltmann
Studio Exec


Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 2341
Location: West Bend, WI

PostPosted: 02.06.2004 4:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GimmickAccount wrote:
hay beltmann: I actually saw this movie.


Government and Law, eh?

Mr. B
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
GimmickAccount
Camera Operator


Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 87
Location: IW, dneB tseW

PostPosted: 02.18.2004 3:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the statute of limitations just expired.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fred C. Dobbs
Director


Joined: 11 Mar 2004
Posts: 201
Location: New York

PostPosted: 03.12.2004 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

***** (of *****)

I completley agree with your excellent review. Even though I love Fonda, I wasn't sure that a film which all takes place in one small jury room would be able to keep me interested. I was proven wrong. A very tense film, which you can almost feel the heat of the hot summer, just like Spike Lee's masterpeice, Do The Right Thing.
_________________
"Pino, fuck you, fuck your fuckin' pizza, and fuck Frank Sinatra."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
beltmann
Studio Exec


Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 2341
Location: West Bend, WI

PostPosted: 03.12.2004 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
I wasn't sure that a film which all takes place in one small jury room would be able to keep me interested. .


Actually, that gimmick was one of the things that most interested me as a kid; I was curious about what Lumet would do inside the self-imposed limitations. This is also a large reason why I'm always excited to see pictures like Russian Ark and Lumiere et Compagnie, and why I'm dying to see Von Trier's Five Obstructions.

(These days, though, I'm less interested in the formal exercises of 12 Angry Men and more interested in what it has to say about racism, moralizing, swaying, and following: Like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, behind that liberal sheen is a condescending movie with fascist underpinnings.)

Eric
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Erickson
Camera Operator


Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Posts: 81

PostPosted: 03.15.2004 12:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This was the greatest movie I have ever seen shot in one room. I didn't care for some of the ways the people reacted to what someone else would say, but I don't know of a reaction that would have been better. I would try to explain myself, but I doubt I am capable.

*continues to work on Am. Lit. outline*
_________________
I hate quotations; tell me what you know
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Flipside Movie Emporium Forum Index -> Movie Talk All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001-2007 phpBB Group