Effective and gripping

Rating: 9/10 (23 May 2005)

It takes a particularly effective film to remain compelling even when one has seen the film multiple times, or at the very least, knows the outcome of the story. Sidney Lumet's 1957 film "12 Angry Men" fits this definition to a tee in that I have seen this movie literally dozens of times over the last twenty years of my life and yet, when I watched it again last night, I found myself in the same state of tension and awe as I did the first time I saw the film.
The story is simple; 12 men are thrown together because they sit on the jury for a trial that involves an 18 year old boy from the slums of New York who is accused of murdering his father, who had beaten him all of his life. The boy pleads not guilty, but because of two eyewitnesses, the jury convenes to the deliberation room strongly convinced of his guilt; except for one man, played by Henry Fonda. At first, he is ridiculed for his stance, until he slowly is able to convince some of the others that perhaps there are some aspects of the case that cast some doubt on the certainty with which they all began. Because, like most juries, there are many differences in background, social standing, etc. among them, tensions rise to a crescendo many times throughout the film, causing some of them to look introspectively at themselves and each other in order to truly deliberate the fate of this young man.
The brilliance of "12 Angry Men" can be explained in three parts. First time director Sidney Lumet, at the time a television director, simply does everything right in this film. The setting is simple; most of the action takes place in the jury room, with the exception of some establishing shots telling the viewer where they are, and the plot is pretty straightforward. It is something that happens daily, multiple times, all across the United States. But there are some wonderful elements that he introduces into the scene to further the claustrophobia and tension: He makes it the hottest day of the summer, and for most of the film, the fan doesn't work, so you can literally see the sweat pouring off of these men and soaking through their shirts. He also uses some tight close-ups of the actors at times, particularly when they are giving dissenting opinions or are in a state of emotional discomfort.
Secondly, the film's script is absolutely first-rate. Not only does the story come together like a thousand (very small) puzzle pieces, but also the clever way it does this never fails to astonish me. One would think that sitting and watching 12 guys talk about a court case while getting in each other's faces for an hour and a half wouldn't be compelling, but the intricacies of each juror, the way each of their backgrounds and prejudices are revealed is fantastic. There is nothing corny in the script, no placating moments where someone just suddenly "sees the light"  every time one of the jurors changes his vote, it is because there have been solid questions, answers, etc. have been revealed. In other words, no one gets from point A to point B without sufficient effort.
Finally, "12 Angry Men" features what is probably one of the greatest casts ever assembled. Henry Fonda, who usually plays a pretty good guy (with a few exceptions) plays a quiet hero in this film. He doesn't preach, he just simply is the only man in the beginning to say "I don't know." His obvious relief nearly every time another juror is swayed is conveyed with a simple look that clearly shows admiration for said juror. The antithesis of Fonda's character is Lee J. Cobb's juror. He is a loud, crass man who refuses to even consider that the defendant may be innocent, even when he is faced with facts and being in the position of the minority. I merely single those two out because they are probably the most central, but every single actor in the film did a brilliant job, and really managed to give their roles depth and character, something that is not easy when you're sharing screen time with 11 other great actors.
There is really absolutely nothing bad to say about the film "12 Angry Men", a film that has been praised by critics and the public alike. It holds a very high place on the IMDb Top 250 list (I believe it was #20 the last time I looked), which is extremely encouraging to me. When the movie going public is rating films like the Lord of the Rings trilogy over films like "Seven Samurai" and "Citizen Kane", it is great to see that a "small" movie like this is met with such esteem and recognition. "12 Angry Men" definitely holds a place on my short list of "Films I Think Everyone Should See" because I think it really teaches the audience something about first impressions and the concept of justice, not from a lawmakers standpoint, but from the perspective of public in general. 9/10 --Shelly