..

Rating: 8/10 (13 March 2020)

A film whose action takes almost completely in the deliberation room of a jury may sound as if it's going to be awfully dry or uninteresting, but on the contrary, '12 Angry Men' is powerful and stirring, with real tension, fantastic characters, and great dialogue. It probes into the American judicial system, and in a larger sense, the human condition. I couldn't recommend it more highly. As a jury of twelve retire to reach a verdict in a murder trial on a sweltering day in New York, it's clear that most - in fact, eleven of them - believe the evidence against the accused is overwhelming. To me it's notable that early on, the lone holdout (Henry Fonda) isn't making all sorts of arguments as to why the defendant isn't guilty: he simply wants to make sure they proceed carefully and talk it through. He empathizes with the defendant's difficult upbringing not because he thinks it's relevant to the charges or a defense in and of itself, but because he's a decent guy who senses a rush to judgment, and perhaps most importantly, senses a bias in the room against one of "those kinds of kids" from the slums. What follows from there is a tour de force in critical thinking, rational discourse, and civility - all of the best things about mankind, and which save us from injustice and the mob. While the film is taut and focused on this single trial - and only this aspect of the trial - it has a number of larger messages. First and foremost, it tells us that wisdom never needs to shout. Patience and silence are powerful. There are such lessons here in how to interact with others in calm, respectful, and yet assertive ways - even when tempers flare, things get personal, or when one has to stand up to a bully with a big mouth. In one of my favorite moments, when a bigoted juror (Ed Begley) is going on about "those kind of people" in clearly prejudiced ways, his fellow jurors quietly get up and turn their backs on him to show their disdain, and even those who agree with his vote do not support him. In another great rebuke, when Begley asks the immigrant watchmaker (George Voskovec) why he's being so polite, he responds "For the same reason you are not; it's the way I was brought up." The film also affirms the importance of the American justice system, and by extension, other countries with trial by jury in one form or another. Flawed though it may be, the concept that one must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of one's peers, and that the decision must be unanimous - that it's better to let a guilty man go free than to convict an innocent man - is fundamental to a functioning democracy. How fantastic it is when Fonda's character states these points so simply and clearly. However, with that said, the film shows that this system only works when it's 'run' (or participated in) properly. Justice and democracy require thoughtful participation, and are not things to be dismissed quickly so that we can resume our lives, and in the case of Jack Warden's character, get on to the baseball game. It's a wonderful moment when Voskovec, otherwise relatively quiet, chastises him for his backward priorities while another man's life hangs in the balance. From these moments we can infer that the film is a criticism of those who avoid jury duty by pretending to show bias or conflict, and though it may be a stretch, you can apply this to other important civic duties as well, such as voting. It's to the film's credit that while there are a few who spew bigotry and bully others, everyone makes valid points about the evidence they've heard, including the loudmouths, and that's part of what makes it so gripping. Sifting through these points and reaching consensus is a big part of the film. The flow of the discussion is intelligent, with the natural questions or responses to an argument vocalized by one character or another. There is such rawness and realism in the dialogue, and we wrestle with the facts ourselves, and feel the weight of it all. We see the importance of rational, careful thought, but also the importance of understanding others, and not just the defendant or witnesses in the case, but the jurors themselves, who all have their own backgrounds, and in some cases, their own baggage. If all of this sounds too heavy or moralistic, I apologize, because it really isn't. The performance are natural and brilliant across the board. There are powerful emotional moments, but there is also humor peppered throughout the film. When Fonda's character queries Marshall's own ability to recall events from past evenings, we hear Warden quip in the background "When you get to New Year's Eve 1954, let me know." Before the advertising man (Robert Webber) puts forth an idea, he says "Let's throw it out and see if the cat licks it up." These types of lines not only make the characters more interesting, but they also add realism. It's telling to me that while Lee J. Cobb comes across as the 'rival' to Henry Fonda, and he is quite bombastic in several emotional moments, it's really the cold, factual juror (E.G. Marshall) who really needs to be swayed at the end, and it's a discussion of reason against reason. Cobb is the last juror to change his mind, but the final discussion is really between Marshall and Fonda. Marshall admits that Fonda has "made some excellent points", but then reminds him of the eyewitness testimony, and then says "what do you think?" Civility and decency are triumphing, and it's a metaphor for the only hope for man. The ending is absolutely brilliant, with the jurors returning into the streets to head back to their twelve separate lives, having performed their civic duty. Director Sidney Lumet shows incredible restraint to not then cut to 'what actually happened' on the night in question, or to a plot twist, or to some outcome good or bad (e.g. some of type of feel-good fanfare with the young defendant weeping tears of relief, or a horrifying realization Fonda has when he somehow finds out that he's let a killer go free, etc). There's none of that, and quite simply because they've done what they're meant to do, and justice has been served