The nature of prejudice

Rating: 10/10 (10 January 2007)

12 Angry Men is excellent! Its probably the best film in the careers of all concerned. Yes, its better than Lumet's Dog Day Afternoon, just as good as Fonda's Ox-Bow Incident, and almost equals Lee J. Cobb's The Man who Loved Cat Dancing (just kidding about Cobb!!!). This is NOT a court-room drama but instead concentrates on the jury deliberation process. We have 12 angry men - all familiar faces giving ace performances - stuck in a hot courthouse room with an out of order fan on the hottest day of the year. The humidity is killing them and they have to decide whether or not a Hispanic teen from the slums is guilty of a murder. The vote has to be unanimous or its a hung jury. Juror #8, Henry Fonda, is the only member of the jury who wants to question the evidence before sending the boy to the gallows. For the rest, including the audience. its a cut-and-dry case.
In his Western classic The Ox-Bow Incident, Fonda is a bad man who over the duration of the night learns to shed his prejudice. The audiences knows he is wrong and feels relief when he makes the right choice in the end. What is interesting when comparing 12 Angry Men to Ox-Bow is how roles are reversed. Fonda is the only truly good and decent man in the jury and does not have a prejudices to shed. In fact, I as an audience member made the journey from someone convinced that the teen was guilty - based on the overwhelming evidence against him and my own hidden biases - to a person who realizes he has pigeon-holed someone into a mold which may not be accurate. The way this taut drama engrosses the viewer while raising awareness on important social issues is nowhere more evident than in the final scene at the steps of the courthouse where you really feel revitalizes after having spent a few hours in a small claustrophobic room. One of the best examples of films that can truly be said to elevate cinema to an art form, 12 Angry Men is unmissable!