12 Angry Jurors and you're Juror 13

Rating: Null/10 (16 April 2013)

Imagine that you were put into an anonymous jury of everyday men, and your decision would determine the fate of an 18 year old Puerto Rican who allegedly murdered his own father. The substantial evidence prosecutes him. Then after reaching the verdict, you shine your shoes, shrug your shoulders, and return to your everyday life. 12 Angry Men is a compelling courtroom drama that isn't even in the courtroom. We never solve the case. We're not supposed to. Instead we're subjected to a tense conversation among jurors who dissect and unfold fragments of the case that we didn't see in court. What happens next is a moving drama about prejudice, bigotry, and ridicule among working class American men--and it's all piloted with masterful direction by Sidney Lumet.
This is the second Sidney Lumet picture I have seen, the first being Dog Day Afternoon. I can infer that Lumet is a realist. Like Dog Day Afternoon, 12 Angry Men dramatizes a single event in one single setting. It allows for unprecedented drama and character development in ways which are typically battered down by other courtroom dramas. The film originated as a play and it's definitely easy to recognize the influence with Lumet's picture. But Lumet succeeds as a director by translating the "stage scenario" into one believable setting for a feature length film. I can't help but recall the numerous past occasions where I was confined to a room for two or three arduous hours. 12 Angry Men has a way of illustrating that claustrophobic headache.
Another pivotal earmark is its dissection of not just the case (which we never witness) but of humanity itself. While twelve men are put into one room to bicker about the inconclusive evidence or the reasonable doubt, the more they bicker the more we become attune to their fallacies. These are not just fallacies or mistakes from the case; these are sociological imperfections. One man is a raving pedantic racist.Another lets his estranged relationship with his son fuel his bias. The impetuous Yankees fan hasn't a say in anything but sports--a poignant example of the way he feels about the rest of life, no doubt. And then there's the immaculate doubter, played by Henry Fonda, who questions not only the case in-and-out but his own sensibilities. Fonda's character openly states his discomfort for sending somebody to the "chair" in such an insouciant manner; he only wants to talk about it (via review) with his fellow jurors to justify that "Hey, I'm about to give the OK to kill somebody!" At first, the eleven opposing jurors (and audience) look to Fonda's capricious demeanor as burdensome. But his "rocking of the boat" is not meant to upset the majority rule. It's meant to weed-out and expose the levels of human decency and moral that hide beneath the faces of the same men. And it's all exploited in a confined room. No names are uttered. Hardly any benevolence is found. Instead we're given only a slim portrait of these men which expands into a stunning social statement on America altogether.
I suppose that after the decision (as is seen in the film), the men all return to their labors. One has a baseball game to catch. Another will return to his wife. What occurred in the room mattered only in that room. 12 Angry Men held me at a genuine surprise, for I was uncertain of how a courtroom drama would handle a large cast of characters. Most courtroom films just replay the drama; 12 Angry Men immerses you right in it. Leaving the bedroom, the theater (wherever you saw it), you feel, in some ways, like the 13th juror.