12 Angry Men (1957) ***1/2

Rating: 9/10 (29 September 2004)

For viewers out there who don't like "old movies" or "black and white," please give this gem a try. I think you'll find it completely engrossing. It's a masterful piece of work, expertly directed by Sidney Lumet and contains no sex, explosions or special effects, not even a single female (it's still worth it!). Flawlessly acted by fine performers: Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, E.G. Marshall, Ed Begley, Jack Warden, Martin Balsam, Jack Klugman, etc. The simple setup involves only 12 jurors in a little juror's room, nothing else. It's the power of the story and the interaction between the varied personalities of these men that keeps you riveted. It's why less can be more when it's done well.
SPOILERS AHEAD:
It's perfect symmetry the way these men each have a personality all his own: the liberal, the bigot, the wise man, the jerk, the haunted man, the immigrant, the hard worker, the know-it-all, etc.... During the course of this film we get to know them all, maybe can identify with one or two. There's an air of Political Correctness which tends to favor the liberal side, painting the "guilty" voters as racists, loudmouthes with personal agendas, or ignorant sports fans. It's because of this (and more objections) that I'm hesitant to award the movie a complete 4-star rating. It's a "great" film, but I just cannot call it "excellent" when I can't seem to side with Fonda's noble cause. From the moment we see Fonda (Juror 8) in angelic white, he's a "do-gooder". He "says" that he does not really know if the young defendant is innocent of killing his father, but his facial expressions and sighs of relief tell me he had his mind made up to free this boy all along. Fonda even goes out of his way to buy a knife - BREAKING THE LAW IN DOING SO - just to plead innocence for the kid. He constantly asks jurors: "isn't this possible?" but the same could be asked by other jurors and their ideas. Our justice system is a scary mess. because I believe ANY murder case can have "reasonable doubts" raised in them, if someone wants them to. So no witnesses are ever to be considered reliable? Luckily for the kid here, one of the jurors wearing glasses scratched his nose, so there's an instant case for "reasonable doubt" because a juror recalls that a female witness also rubbed her nose (maybe she wore glasses).
There is a lonely old juror who observes that an elderly witness seemed lonely and ashamed. So this juror "relates" to him and decides that the old witness may have wanted to "appear important" and so maybe his testimony was unreliable! A truly guilty man could get released by this! Whenever Fonda wants something to fit his agenda for "not guilty," he believes the old witness' every word; when it won't help his cause, he dismisses his feeble testimony! There's a crude re-enactment where Fonda hobbles around to determine if the old witness was able to get to his door in 15 seconds as he testified - it actually takes 41 seconds - but is this as conclusive as Fonda claims? Maybe the man was mistaken when he said "15 seconds"; maybe the man said "50" . Fonda doesn't care; this is one of those times he'll trust the man's testimony if it proves his agenda! He sure works awful hard to ignore anything the other jurors suggest.
The boy claims he was at the movies when the murder was committed, yet one hour later cannot recall anything about the films he watched. How does Fonda chip away at this evidence? He tests juror E. G. Marshall by asking him if HE recalls what HE did last night. When Marshall easily replies, Fonda goes back to the night before. Marshall still doesn't miss a beat, so Fonda goes back a couple more days (why doesn't he just go back three years?) until he's back to a week. Naturally, Marshall eventually can no longer remember, so a "point" is supposedly made (um, not really). Is Fonda correct that some of his points are feasible? Yes - but so are the others'. "Juror 8" won't give up until the kid's life is spared, it seems. Even when the "guilty" voters suggest to "have a hung jury," Fonda will not accept. It's not good enough for him. Here's the key to me that Fonda's not interested in a "fair verdict": Jack Warden votes "not guilty" with all the others, just because he doesn't care and wants to get out. If Fonda was so self-righteous, he should have gracefully said: "11 of us have now voted 'Not Guilty'. But I cannot accept the 12th vote, as this man is only voting for whatever verdict will let him get out of here". But Fonda will take it -- the boy's free, even if he had to get one "fake" vote to achieve it.
We have to give the benefit of the doubt. I don't want an innocent man executed. But nor do I want guilty predators freed because a witness "had lines on her nose," or "maybe that witness lied to feel important." When Fonda says "this isn't a game!", it seems to me the jury system IS a game - who can think of a twist the fastest, who has the best lawyer. I think Fonda plays a "game" very well and won - even if society lost. Because when he marches out of court at the end, thinking he's a hero, I can't help thinking he let a killer fall through the cracks to satisfy his own conscience. Still, I wish I could side with him. I think this is a more fulfilling film for those who do, and I believe we're supposed to. Either way, this is a very powerful piece of cinema. That's the main thing.
***1/2 out of ****