One Room Powerhouse

Rating: Null/10 (26 January 2014)

Making a movie of a stage play is difficult enough. After all, movies are supposed to have many scene changes, whereas plays typically have only a few. This one, however, has basically none, except for a brief opening and close. Besides, most movies have eye appeal, usually good-looking people, especially girls. This one, however, has none. Just 12 ordinary looking guys, without a girl in sight. So how do you hold audience interest with such a spare format. Above all, you better have darn good actors and a darn good screenplay. Good thing the movie does.
I like the way director Lumet keeps the jurors moving around in the little room. That way there's some action, and often the movement is expressive of how the juror feels about the deliberations. No doubt about it, the cast is a powerhouse of familiar faces from that period. Some low-key their performance, like Fonda, Balsam, and Klugman; others are familiar loud- mouths, like Begley and Cobb. So is the kid guilty or not. If so, it's 10,000 volts in the Big House. Besides, it doesn't help the kid that he's a poor minority, at least in the minds of some jurors. No doubt about it, for better or worse, there's a basically liberal sentiment at work in the screenplay.
As the script shows, most of the guys just want to get back to their routines even though a lot's at stake. Besides, the evidence appears open and shut. So, on first ballot, it's 11 for guilty and just 1 for not (Fonda). What is he, a trouble-maker or something. No. He just thinks the evidence is not as damning as first appears, and they all need to examine it more closely. Good thing he's not running for office. Showing how the 11 get eventually whittled down to 0 is what the movie's about. In the process, some like Begley and Cobb reveal a lot about their private selves, while others are simply open to the doubts that begin to open up.
The deck is somewhat stacked in terms of likability. The biggest holdouts for guilty are the least likable, except Juror #4 (Marshall) who operates on logic alone. Fortunately, Fonda's low-key, reasonable manner is not off-putting as a know-it-all; instead, he's mainly a catalyst sparking contributions from others. I guess my only reservation is with giving the jury only two choices—"guilty" or "not guilty". Seems to me, on the basis of the evidence, the proper conclusion would be "not proved", since the kid may well have done it. However, the evidence does not prove that he did, at least not beyond the metric of "reasonable doubt". All in all, a nice plot twist.
Anyway, the movie's a showcase of ensemble acting that rivets audience interest despite the limitations in staging. Too bad it wasn't recognized at the time as the classic it is.