Perfect within it's own confines

Rating: 10/10 (30 August 2011)

What can be said about Twelve Angry Men that hasn't already been said before with more eloquence. Sidney Lumet's first and arguably best feature has entered into the annals of film history and has been picked apart ad nauseum by critics, industry professionals and academics alike. Twelve men walk into a jury room eleven say guilty, the one played by Henry Fonda says not guilty; etc. etc.
There is a reason for this however; not the least of which is the films enduring timelessness made all the more impressive by its subject matter. Made during the decline of the studio system, the film was an oddity onto itself. A tiny black and white film at a time of Technicolor, a principle cast of character actors at a time of A-list credit cramming, and a director who up until then stuck to television and stage. Still Twelve Angry Men was far from conventional and in many ways ushered in a new age of cinema. It can be reasonably argued that Lumet paved the way for Robert Altman, Sydney Pollack and John Schlesinger among others to make the jump from TV to features.
Within its own confines, the movie is flawless. Most of the film takes place in a single room and most of the information pertinent to the case is told second-handedly. Despite this, the film has the tension of a modern day thriller and then some. The dialogue is so innately organic though never rambling and the characterizations are rich and detailed. The camera moves through the room effortlessly making enough cuts to keep things interesting without being distracting. Many large lugubrious epics wish they could keep things this interesting! The inspired script written by Reginald Rose is so fluid that it has been open to interpretation not all of which are good. Many argue that Fonda's Juror #8 manipulates the other jurors and is less a fleshed out character than a symbol of ivory tower intellectualism. Additionally the points he raises range from valid to a bit sketchy and he takes "beyond reasonable doubt" to extremes. I wouldn't put it quite in that context. I think just like everyone else in the room, Juror #8's choices are made based on his personal perspective. He feels compelled to push and push because no one else will. It's a character flaw that may not be admonished like the racial ramblings of Juror #10 (Ed Begley) but isn't legitimized by definitive answers either.
However you interpret the film, Twelve Angry Men still remains a taut emotional roller-coaster, a thoughtful introspective and a brilliant character piece. I didn't even mention the wonderfully nuanced work of Lee J. Cobb, E.G. Marshall and Jack Warden. It launched the career of a brilliant auteur and helped define an era in filmmaking that became the norm until the age of the blockbuster. Out of all the films of the period, this courtroom drama is with little doubt the most deserving of its reputation.
http://theyservepopcorninhell.blogspot.com/