Sixty years later and still better movie hasn't been made

Rating: 10/10 (17 February 2017)

I wanted to take a while before writing anything about 12 Angry Men. Before I saw this movie I had been thinking about how can a black & white movie, made in the 50's and shot almost entirely in one room, be fifth on IMDb? Now, after seeing it, I'm thinking about why is it not rated even higher. In this review I'm going to try to explain what makes this movie so brilliant.
First, have you noticed how this movie feels so natural? Not even once was I feeling bored or exhausted. Everything runs so smoothly, constantly making you more interested in what had really happened. One of the factors which makes this so is interrupting serious debate with brief and sometimes longer scenes which don't contribute to understanding the topic. Nothing is omitted. This dynamic (which Hollywood nowadays doesn't utilize) serves as a mean to present that humans don't operate as computers. We are intrinsically flawed and able to enjoy, be serious or disdain certain situation. Recall, for example, scene in the bathroom, talking about sports, playing with fan, etc. This gives viewer some space and time to think about what had been said. You can make your own judgment and defragment all information. Viewer thus becomes a sort of a "13-th juror" actively participating in a conversation.
Second, this movie raises serious questions about how can we know anything about historical events. How do you evaluate and interpret given evidence? There are two schools about the topic: first claims that one can never objectively construct sequence of events because of our subjective nature; second claims that we can objectively assert what really did happen. This two approaches make much sense in 12 Angry Men. Some jurors are unable to objectively asses the evidence because they are very restrained by their own feelings or prejudices. The way they interpret the material is thus very biased (Juror #8: "It's always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth.") The point is that every one of jurors (including the viewer) is biased but they take different approaches to the problem. This leads us to third point.
Everything said above lead us naturally to the problem of jurisdictional decision making. The most important thing here is the term of reasonable doubt. Some of the jurors don't actually understand what does that mean so they can't handle the problem well. It somewhat scary thinking about how can twelve men from different backgrounds, of which some don't event understand or care about the case, make a decision about someones' life. If the juror is not convinced beyond reasonable doubt (not any doubt!), than he's obliged not to accuse defendant guilty. Reasonable doubt is the highest burden of proof one has to surmount if he's to accuse someone guilty. That's an important difference between exact sciences and law approach as one of the jurors notices (Juror #12: "Oh, come on. Nobody can know a thing like that. This isn't an exact science.") So we see jurors one by one changing their belief when their certainty drops below reasonable doubt. This takes us to the next point.
Let's take a closer look on the particular order each of the jurors voted not guilty. First you have a guy who just wanted to take a closer look at the evidence. He lit a spark. Then you have an old man wanting to hear why others think the accused is guilty. One by one the change their minds. The last ones where a guy who had prejudices about "street children" and the juror who was shouting all the time. This was done intentionally. People who had personal problems with something or someone are always hardest to engage in objective discussion about the issue. Forgiveness is a cure, not turning back on it. Nobody convinced the last juror to change his mind; he convinced himself after seeing a picture of his son. It's like his heart (not mind as with others) couldn't take it anymore. Juror before him had general prejudices. Those people can have a hard heart but are more easy to engage than those with personal problems. He realized his mistake after everyone had started to ignore him. Those with personal problems must confront them by themselves; those with prejudices must confront with others. So the conclusion is that it's harder to confront with someone whose problems lie in their heart than with those whose problems lie in their mind.
Closing remarks: Table has always been an important component in our western culture. It's a place where all important decisions are made and where people get to eat and drink and know each other. That's why one the last shots is camera smoothly running over the table jurors where sitting at. Someone was there and something happened. It's a contrast to the last scene where we see Fonda leaving the building and disappearing into the crowd. Twelve men, who had never seen each other previously and don't even know each others names, with completely different backgrounds and profiles, accidentally sat together and did something important. Now they continue on, probably never seeing each other again. But table stands as a witness.
There are many other elements left to be analyzed. It's better to speak about them sitting at the table discussing with other people than reading a review. I hope this general description of the movie mechanic helps someone understand what lies underneath the hood or makes her or him approach this movie with more scrutiny.