1954 vs. 1957

Rating: 10/10 (28 November 2008)

The Archive of American Television has finally come out with a DVD version of the original Studio One teleplay, "12 Angry Men" by Reginald Rose, directed by Franklyn J. Schaffner, who did many Studio Ones and much later was the director of "Patton". I can now compare it to the famous movie version, starring Henry Fonda, which was directled by Sidney Lumet three years later. A lot of the things Lumet gets credited for in some of these reviews are already present in Schaffner's staging, including starting with the high camera angle and ending with the close-ups.
A key difference is that the TV version is only an hour long, (actually only 50 minutes due to commercials), while the film uses 96 minutes to tell its story. Some of the lesser characters suffer as a result. In the film Robert Webber's nice-guy businessman wants so much to go along with anybody else that he changes his vote simply to be part of the majority when the tide turns. In the Teleplay, we never learn why Will West changes his mind. Edward Binns as juror #6, is very protective of "the old man", Juror #9, (played by Joseph Sweeney in both versions), in the movie. He clearly sees him as a similar to his own elderly but beloved father. In the teleplay, Bart Burns is little more than a spectator, except for one key moment that has nothing to do with the old man.
But the big difference is in the lead actor, Robert Cummings, (He was "Bob" in a comedy, "Robert in a drama"), vs. Henry Fonda in the film. Fonda is, of course, an actor of much greater repute but Cummings was much underrated. He was a thoughtful actor in dramas, carefully weighing his words and inviting the audience to think along with him. As Juror#8, Cummings portrays a man who is not sure of himself as the beginning but wants to answer some key questions before he makes a decision. In the film, Fonda seems like a man who has already decided to vote "not guilty" from the beginning and is trying to figure out how to loosen up his fellow jurors from their stances so he can draw them over to his view of things. A key point is that fact that the lady who "saw" the murder through the windows of the train wore glasses. In the film, Fonda divines this by noting how E.G. Marshall, as juror #4 rubs his nose to deal with the irritation the glasses cause. It's the final piece to the mosaic Fonda is trying to create. In the teleplay, it is Burns' juror #6 who makes this point after watching juror #2 and this seems to be the final piece of the puzzle for Cummings who for the first time, has become firm in his decision to vote not guilty.
His two antagonists are jurors #3 and #10. #10 is Edward Arnold in the teleplay, Ed Begley in the film. Both are good. The scene where #10 is ranting on about "people like that" is more effective in the film. It's just a matter of timing. On TV, the jurors get up and begin to walk away as soon as he starts talking. In the movie they do so more slowly, each one making the decision on his own. Franchot Tone, another underrated actor, (he started out playing charming men about town and wound up playing garrulous old timers), is just as strong and forceful as Lee J. Cobb. His true motivation, his resentment of his own son, is hinted at early but is not part of his breakdown at the end. In fact, he doesn't break down at all. He simply surrenders. He doesn't become Cobb's "shell of a man".
As to the other jurors, Martin Balsam has more to do than Norman Fell as juror #1, the foreman. Martin's a nice guy who just wants everybody to get along. We don't' know that much about Norman. John Beal's role as juror #2 just calls for him to use his watch to time Cummings' performance as the old man walking and to wipe his glasses clean at the right time. Marshall came through a little stronger than Walter Abel as a relentless "logic machine" who can't think outside the box. Lee Phillips is solid as the shy young man, somewhat ashamed of coming from a disadvantaged background. Burns has little to do besides noting the significance of Beal's glasses. Paul Hartman is OK as the guy who wants to leave early, (he has tickets to the theater, not a ballgame). Much of the additional dialog in the movie goes to Jack Warden's version of this character. Sweeney and George Voskovic are the only two actors in both versions and both are fine, with Voskovic underlining the significance of this procedure to someone who came here to experience freedom. Missing though, is his empathy for the defendant as an outsider like him, which is emphasized in the film. West, as indicated, is a non-entity in the teleplay.
On the whole, I'll take the movie over the TV original but it's a close thing. But the TV version, which was "missing" for many years, is certainly worth seeing.