A young ethnic kid from a rough area is up on a murder charge and to the jury of twelve men, it all seems a fairly open and shut case. So all are surprised when the votes come back with one "not guilty" in the pack. Juror #8 maintains he holds a reasonable doubt, much to the frustration of the rest of the group. The stalemate forces a debate over the details of the case which sees each man questioning others and themselves for their motivations and decisions. The heat in the room and the passage of time sees tensions rising by the minute.
I'm not a massive fan of the "Movie You Must See" podcast crew because they mostly tend to discuss the events in a film rather than really critiquing or reviewing it (although at times this "mates in a pub" approach is OK). Anyway, one of the advantages of having anyone pointing out "films you should see" is that it reminds you that you should these films. So it was for me as I listened to 12 Angry Men and realised that not only had I never reviewed it but that I had not actually watched it for many years. Of course mentally I knew it was a "classic" but did I really understand why it was? So when it came on television recently I watched it again with new eyes.
The films moves right into the jury room and pretty much this room is all we have for the duration. Initially the script does really well to have the viewer side with the majority because in the discussions the evidence does seem very clear cut and #8's doubts seem so general and non-specific. This is a good way to start because it means the viewer also has to question and we are taken along the journey just like the men in the jury. Gradually we get into the detail and doubts are tweaked out not to the point of solving the crime because that is not what it is about but it is done in a way that is interesting and engaging. It is not perfect in this regards though because some of the jumps are big, some of the assumptions are stretching and some of the knowledge in the room is a little too convenient. However what weaknesses there are in the material are covered by the fact that the delivery is roundly quite brilliant.
Lumet directions from within the room and makes great use of such a small space. It feels like it could be a play (not sure if it was or not) but Lumet prevents this just feeling like filmed theatre. The camera captures the room, sticks close to characters, moves around, in and out accordingly and it never feels stiff. This aids the sense of tension from the audience point of view as we are not just left watching the room so much as being in it. The ensemble cast are another big factor in this delivery as they all deliver. On the surface of it the characters could easily be labelled "racist", "old", "naïve", "angry" and so on but the actors don't let themselves be that basic and they also do a good job of pacing the building resentment and tension in the room to be convincing. Fonda maybe has "top-billing" but he does have the least showy role, leading those into his corner. Cobb and Begley have good turns as the anger of the room but everyone plays their parts very well. OK Balsam, Webber and Voskovec come out the least memorable of the lot but this is understandable when viewed beside such sterling turns from Fielder, Klugman, Warden, Sweeney and Marshall. There really isn't a weak link in the room.
With modern cynical eyes it is perhaps totally hard to accept the film for its praise of the jury system and I do agree with the "MYMS" group when they made reference to the moment in H:LOTS which is essentially the bitter reverse of this film. However this slightly flag-waving stuff is covered by the delivery being as strong and as well paced as it is. Overall then this is an eminently watchable film and I can understand why it is so well regarded. The material and message may not be note-perfect but the delivery is brilliant across the board and it is one that I could easily return to again and again and still get pleasure out of how well it is all done.
