What an excellent film!

Rating: 9/10 (22 May 2000)

It seems as you grow older, you can appreciate older films more. That does not mean that when I hit the age of 65 I will appreciate a film like Citizen Kane, but now that I am in my late 20's I have a desire to see some of the greats from years past. Just five years ago I was too narrow minded to want to even try to appreciate older cinema and some of the screen greats. But today I rented the 1957 classic, 12 ANGRY MEN and was not only pleasantly surprised, but I truly liked it and thought it to be quite a good film.

What's quite fascinating is to see the change in political and social climates since the days of black and white film. In this film, there were no black jury members, no women, and no swearing. This was also, to be fair, probably the worst handled case in the history of trials next to the Warren Report. Questions that today would be common place were avoided like the plague. Evidence was not handled properly, very little effort was put forth by the defense to come up with a defense at all and witnesses were never thoroughly interrogated or cross examined to refute what can only be regarded as flimsy testimony. But, not only was I not around in the 50's, I have no idea what the North American justice system was like back then, and perhaps that is what makes this film so interesting. So I can only say that it is possible that a case could be handled this poorly, given its circumstances. You would have to compare and dissect what society was like back then to get a true appreciation of what was and wasn't possible.
To talk about the film, yes it was very enjoyable. It was a great film that unwound piece by piece all of the apparent infallible theories that pointed to the guilt of this kid. The writer should be given a lot of credit for that. But having said that, a film like this would never see the light of day with today's fickle audience that would rather see a film like Con Air than High Fidelity. I am not critisizing today's audience for that, just pointing it out. But the 40's and 50's were different. Spielberg and Lucas and Don Simpson and Joel Silver were just little tykes then. It was a different time. A film that only talks and has no action was perhaps a possible sell back then with a cast like this. Lee J. Cobb and Henry Fonda and Jack Warden must have been at the height of their popularity so that immediately leant credence and respect to the project. But it wouldn't matter who did this film in today's age, it would not work. Again, not a critisism, just an opinion.
I think it is important to go back to the roots of cinema every once in a while to view some of it. You come across gems like this and you learn to appreciate them. 12 ANGRY MEN is a fascinating film and it is one that serious lovers of film should watch every now and again to feel the aesthetic of film before special effects started to replace a good script and a good director. Tarantino would appreciate something like this. In his version of 12 ANGRY MEN, the 12 jurors would probably have names of colours and at the end they would all have grabbed Henry Fonda's knife and tried to kill each while uttering the F-Word in, but a film that prides itself on dialogue more than action is what he is all about. This could be a pioneer of a Tarantino film project.
12 ANGRY MEN is a great film and it is one that HENRY FONDA should have been proud of. A wonderful experience! And it is great to see some of his work, other than On GOLDEN POND.
9 out of 10