An Excellen Film that Uses Little to Say Much

Rating: 10/10 (18 December 2008)

With 12 Angry Men, director Sidney Lumet makes so much out of so little. All of the men are wearing white shirts and ties, and when we first see them they all appear to be as simple as their clothes; they make small talk before casting the first vote, and we make the mistake of feeling like we understand them. But as Henry challenges their decisions, we learn that they each have a complex set of beliefs and motivations.
We soon learn that evidence is not the only thing that's influencing many of the juror's decisions. Some vote guilty because they don't trust teenagers, some do it because they don't trust the young man's ethnicity, which is never made clear (but racial stereotyping certainly is), some do it because it just "feels" right, and some do it to escape the boredom or oppressive heat. These factors, together with the evidence, make it seem obvious that the man truly did murder his father, but Juror No. 8 (Henry Fonda) refuses to let him die without being absolutely certain that he is in fact guilty.
Fonda's character reminds the men of two very important things that they either forgot or didn't take into consideration. The first is that a young man's life is in their hands, and whatever conclusion they come to is going to profoundly affect him. Although this is never discussed, it's possible that none of the jurors have ever had to make such an important decision and are not used to taking the kind of precaution such a situation requires (in fact, Juror No. 12 appears to treat it like a routine board meeting). Fonda is fully cognizant of the severity and tries to get the others to feel the same way. He also reminds them that a guilt verdict must be made free of any doubt. According to American law, a man is innocent until proved guilty, but the men consider it to be the other way around. It is through close examination of the evidence that the men are able to reach a verdict clear of any doubt or outside influences.
Of course, the road from small talk to their final verdict is not a smooth one, and never has there been so much drama in one single room. Although Lumet keeps them in the same room, which has no interesting features, for the great majority of the film, he manages to pull of some subtle yet incredible cinematic effects. In the beginning, the camera is placed towards the ceiling and we are looking down at the jurors, a visual metaphor for our mistaken feeling that they are simple men. Later, it is placed toward the floor and we now look up at them and perhaps even marvel at their complexity. Lumet has challenged our conception of the average man, showing us through camera and dialogue that he or she can indeed be very intricate.
Lumet also uses different lenses to great effect. As the film progresses, he uses lenses with longer focal lengths to make the room seem smaller. The tension is greatly increased as the walls seem to close in on the men, and this can be seen as different metaphor: as Juror 8 dismisses the stereotypes and prejudices, the only thing left is the evidence.
12 Angry Men is a masterpiece and can be the subject of endless analysis. It can be viewed from a political and a sociological perspective, and would be great for a prospective cinematographer to study. If nothing else, the acting and dialogue are superb and make for an entertaining experience.