seen from United Kingdom
seen from Türkiye
seen from China
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from Belgium
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from France
seen from United States
seen from Spain
seen from Belgium
seen from China
seen from Malaysia
seen from Italy
seen from Russia
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Russia
seen from Italy
seen from China
Hang'Em High 1968
12 Angry Men; AFI #87
The next film on the AFI list was the courtroom drama 12 Angry Men (1957). This was the directorial debut of Sidney Lumet and starred Henry Fonda. The film garnered nominations for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Adapted Screenplay. There was little chance for the film to win anything as it went up against The Bridge on the River Kwai, but the nominations are signs of critical acclaim. The AFI gave the film recognition as the 88th most thrilling, Henry Fonda as Juror 8 was 28th best hero, it was 42nd best cheering movie, and number 2 best courtroom drama. It didn’t get the box office recognition it deserved, but it is theorized that it was a black and white drama filmed in one room and that was not interesting to an audience that wanted Technicolor and Panavision. Apparently even the best of stories could not compete against vibrant color and cinematic landscapes.
Speaking of stories...SPOILER ALERT!
The story is very simple since almost the entire movie takes place inside a jury room during the deliberation of a murder trial. The very beginning has a judge explaining the idea of reasonable doubt, then he tells them that there is a mandatory death sentence that comes with a murder conviction. There are 12 jurors, all men, who argue about the guilt or innocence of the 18 year old who has been accused of murdering his father. There is a lot of evidence that would suggest the boy committed the murder and eleven of the jurors initially believe he did it. One juror, #8 played by Henry Fonda, doubts some of the evidence. This is exasperating to the others because they all want to go home but the one juror wants to talk out the details of the case before he agrees to send a boy off to die. The jurors discuss the different aspects of the case (murder weapon, witnesses, testimony) and many of the jurors start to doubt the certainty of guilt.
The accused is Hispanic and lives in the slums of New York. He had a fight with his father and was reported to have bought a switch blade and went back and killed his father even though the boy says he went to the movies. There were two witnesses that were nearby that claimed to have seen the boy at the scene of the murder, one saying she saw the boy commit the act. Juror 8 points out many flaws in the testimony and questions the interrogation of the accused. The crux of the story is that some of the jurors are convinced of the boy’s guilt, not based on evidence, but based on prejudices they have in their personal life. Some notable members of the jury are the foreman played by Martin Balsam, the very brash and biased Juror 3 played by Lee J Cobb, and the super racist Juror 10 played by Ed Bagley
It eventually becomes painfully obvious that there is not enough solid evidence to convict the boy of this crime and all of the jurors are able to move through their own issues and vote not guilty. The jurors all leave and go separate ways and that is the end of the movie.
The director, Sidney Lumet, had only directed television shows and off-Broadway plays before this film and the influence is apparent. The focus is on the acting and the story with very little reliance on props with the exception of a few small things (like a play). The film is very short and doesn’t really have the standard three act narrative, but more a situation with a resolve (like on TV). The movie was also extremely inexpensive (something like $350,000 which translates to about $3 million today) and completed very quickly (about three weeks). The only cinematography of note was the use of wide shots of the room and actors at the beginning of the film and the progression to tight close ups of individuals towards the end of the film. It was all very “small screen,” but that did not hurt the quality of the finished product.
There is something positive to be said in that I don’t hate this movie, which I actually should based on other movies in the genre and the topic and setting. I do not like courtrooms. It seems to be a place of drama and a place where seemingly reasonable people are on their worst behavior. As far as jury duty goes, the idea of being locked up with a bunch of pushy, over-opinionated blowhards and forced to discuss sensitive topics gives me anxiety. There is no real action, no explosions, no beautiful vistas. There is a complete lack of diversity in the room and the jurors. It is just a bunch of men arguing and sweating in the same room for 90 minutes. I should hate this film.
However, this story is so intriguing that it wins me over every time. I love the scrutiny of the evidence. I love that cool heads prevail in each argument. I love that even the most biased member of the group is made to see reason. I love how the camera work controls the intensity of the group. I love the examination of what it means to be certain beyond a reasonable doubt. The film is incredibly entertaining and it is rare that I go through a movie without checking the time at some point, but I always am surprised how quickly the time goes with this one.
There are a couple things to nitpick about the procedure. The murder weapon is given to the jurors to examine towards the beginning of the movie. I guess that could make sense, but the knife is given over without an evidence bag and no gloves are used. Everybody is just handling the murder weapon in a homicide case. To make things worse, Juror 8 has an almost identical switch blade knife to compare to the murder weapon. There is no way he would be able to get a knife into a courtroom, much less the jury room. Also, there are some sweeping conclusions made by the jurors that all people with nose indentations have glasses, all people with glasses are blind without them, all women are vain and don’t want to wear their glasses, and nobody wears glasses when they go to sleep. There was also fighting in the jury room. It seems like all of these things are grounds for a mistrial more than a not guilty verdict.
Maybe the most interesting aspect of this movie is how easy it is to copy. You only need some actors and a big room with a big table and chairs. Any kind of crime mystery could be put into this outline with only the clues present. If you can’t afford to create a scene or don’t have a location, just have the actors describe it or show a picture labeled “Exhibit A.” Anything that needs explanation need only be discussed on the guise of “clarification.” It is no wonder that this layout has been parodied or copied in dozens of TV episodes. It is the template for making a quick, cheap, easy episode while still relating a compelling story.
All-in-all, this movie is fascinating in that it looks at what is likely the least interesting aspect of the US court system and somehow makes it absorbing to watch. Sidney Lumet did a great job directing and the actors really exuded the claustrophobic feeling of a contentious jury room. The film has the intricacies of a detective story, the dramatic acting of a stage play, and the budget of a TV show. For all of this, I believe it deserves a spot (albeit a lower place) on the AFI list and I would most assuredly recommend it to anyone.
