1000 Words Is Not Enough

Rating: 10/10 (6 February 2007)

This movie has been more influential than any other in the way I see the world. Any person who watches it and is later called to jury service cannot help but have visions of themselves fighting for justice. A true ensemble piece, each actor has a chance to truly shine in what must be considered one of the finest courtroom dramas ever made. It is certainly the finest courtroom drama ever made where we only see the courtroom for a minute and a half.
Each of the jury members is almost a stereotype. Each of them is an aspect of ourselves: Juror number one. He seems to let his duties preoccupy him somewhat, and in fact puts more interest into them than in the actual reason he is there, blinded by the system.
Juror number two is mild mannered and good natured. However he is unlikely to ever make a stand himself. He is the everyman.
Juror number three is an emotionally damaged father. He has become a revenger, seeking to punish the defendant because of the anger he has towards his son.
Juror number four is rational and logical. However his devotion to logic is pointless, as he has not been passionate enough to discover all of the facts. Rather than questioning, he accepts.
Juror number five comes from a violent background. A young man, he reminds us that just because a person lives in a certain neighbourhood that is no excuse for breaking the law or violent behaviour.
Juror number six is a working man. He is strong, but respectful and also highly principled. This character is the 'Working Joe', the people who just get on with their jobs and do them.
Juror number seven is ambivalence personified. One might almost call him the id. Continually throughout the movie he makes jokes, at the beginning his wise-cracking nature is amusing but it soon begins to grate. He is more interested in satisfying his own petty desires than doing a good job.
Juror number eight is decency. The lone dissenter. The only person who initially questions all that they have been told. Throughout the movie he pushes his fellow jurors to see past what has been so easily presented and to search for the deeper possible truth.
Juror number nine can be summoned up in one word: Understanding. While number eight may be the first person who questions, without number nines support he would have failed. It is nine that, more than anybody else, truly empathises with the witnesses. It is his initial insight into the human condition that sways a number of jurors, including juror number four.
Juror number ten is blinded by his bigotry. Unlike any other jury member he seems to have no real endearing qualities, having an annoying way of speaking, a rude manner, even an intrusive cough.
Juror number eleven is an immigrant. He has come to America because of all that it represents. Because of this it is ironic that he is the one who seems to remind others of what it means to be part of a democracy.
Juror number twelve represents hesitant behaviour. He is the only jury member to change his mind more than once.
Within these twelve characters there is a lot of symbolism involved. Juror number eight falters only once. When talking with six he is forced to question the full implications of allowing a guilty man to go free. Despite all of the passion and and reasoned arguments given by other jurors, it is this simple man who is the only person who makes number eight question himself. Juror number twelve, the unsure character, actually works in advertising. Though he can tell others what to want he is unsure himself. Juror number nine, who supports number eight more than any other, is also seated next to him. The most symbolic figure is, of course, number eight.
Unlike any other jury member he does not offer a single piece of personal information about himself throughout the entire movie. Anything we do learn about his personal life or background we learn because other jury members have asked him. He is concerned only with finding out what is relevant to the case. He is an architect. He is a man who helps others realise their dreams, helps other build something great. Of course he is also dressed in white, like a lone paladin, a night in shining armour slaying the evil dragon. Fonda played Wyatt Earp in My Darling Clementine, a role he was deservedly famous for. Who better than a mythological law man to fight for justice now? We know right is on his side.
However it is not just the acting that shines. The direction is superb. Initially Lumet cleverly places the camera above eye level, using a wide angled lense. Throughout the movie this gradually changes until we are finally seeing the action from low down with the focal length of the lens having been increased. This leads to a greater feeling of claustrophobia, with tight zoom-ins causing sweaty, angry faces to fill the screen. The most notable exception to this is the scene where all of the jury distance themselves from the racist views of number ten. Here we see him isolated and alone, and indeed it is the one time we see the entire room on the screen, further enhancing the feeling of his loneliness.
In the end only juror number three is left voting guilty. He is put in the same situation as number eight was earlier. However, unlike number eight he does not have the conviction of his beliefs and so quickly crumbles, unable to stand against the other eleven.
12 Angry Men remains an important, much beloved movie. It shows us many facets of humanity, the highs and lows, and also what one man can do if he truly believes he is right.