a tight ball of male-dominated classic cinema

Rating: 10/10 (6 March 2006)

It's tough sometimes to translate a stage production- which 12 Angry Men essentially is- into a feature film, with in this case one cramped room and a dozen characters with totally varied ideals. In a way this is like the textbook example, however, of how to do a film like this. You see how the situation unfolds into something more, about the act of telling a story and finding all the pieces. That it has such a powerhouse of an ensemble doesn't hurt it at all, and the little surprises in how the casts acts and reacts works great on repeat viewings. The basic premise only needs brief mention, as the 12 men (totally angry may be disputed by some, though I'm sure not one is left without raising their voice), all white, are judging the case of a Hispanic charged with killing his father. The deliberation room becomes a kind of boiler room where Henry Fonda's juror #11, the only un-sure one, sets the stage for a something more to be revealed- human nature when on a judgment day, with all its intelligence, ignorance, hate, and seeking objectivism.
Sidney Lumet, on his very first feature-film, does a really professional (in a good way) job of directing the picture, by which a) letting the actors, who among the great lot include Lee J Cobb, John Fiedler, E.G. Marhall, Martin Balsam, Jack Klugman, Ed Begley, and in maybe the most under-rated role of the 'old man', Joseph Sweeney, just do their work and try to just make sure no one over-steps their ability in their strengths; b) using the atmosphere to high effect. Like he would later do with Network, Lumet uses the camera to add some level of subjectivity to the storytelling, being careful with choosing close-ups but using them very wisely (i.e. a surprise close-up on Sweeney), and here and there making it feel like the walls are just closing in a little more. But, at the same time, Lumet's making a studio picture, with the all-around good-guy Henry Fonda (in one of his best roles), and dealing with a story that's, when it comes down to it, just the details of a crime examined over. But the real strength of the film comes in a quality that it shares with Rashomon (different in structure to be sure), that the idea of looking for the truth is just a guise in a way to examine the people who are looking at what the truth is. It's a nifty movie that has deservedly stayed firm through the decades, not showing its age bad at all.