thingsyoucantelljustbylookingatherblog

12 Angry Men follows the deliberations of twelve jurors, sweating in a stifling jury room anybody summer afternoon as they have a go to draw the guilt or innocence of an 18-year-lasting put accused of stabbing his originate to dying. At the outset, eleven men accept in his criminality, with Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) stationary alone in reasonable qualm. The dramatics develops as the facts, eyewitness testimony and evidence are revisited and discussed; questions are raised, and votes change as prejudices, counterfeited certainties, and human errors are revealed.

I often think of 12 Angry Men as one of the start with “modern” movies. By 1957, Lee Strasberg’s “method” compare with to acting had found various adherents, and the vapour benefits visibly from the stage cycle then judgement its modus vivendi = ‘lifestyle’ into Hollywood. Reginald Rose’s naturalistic parley is ably handled by a stellar shipwreck throw off including Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Jack Warden, Ed Begley, E.G. Marshall, Martin Balsam, Jack Klugman, John Fiedler. Every line sounds genuine, complete with throat-clearing and word stumbles, and the collection dynamics are flawless in timing and execution, no mean deed when dealing with twelve major characters who rarely consign the jury room. The characters are typed but not stereotyped, and all are credible human beings in troublesome but completely realistic circumstances.

Departed boob tube director Sidney Lumet made his feature debut here, and his insinuate camerawork effectively communicates the claustrophobia, heat and intensity of the debate at hand. He opens with a brief courtroom furor in which a guarded judge casually gives the jury the normal instructions in a bored monotone, a nice choice that raises the stakes for the following deliberations. When the action gets underway, he knows when to let his actors simply front, segueing into quick-cut editing and dramatic camera angles when the significance calls for a more visual approach. Lumet succeeds in creating visual assortment and action on a one-room set, without proper gimmicky or losing the emotional immediacy of the rapid-fire dialogue.

I don’t want to distribute away any plot details, and I’m perpetual out of superlatives here, so I’ll clog up. If you’ve not in a million years seen 12 Angry Men or deceive acquaintances who don’t believe a Negro-and-silver shoot sans foul language from 1957 can be intense, retard this one out. A masterpiece in every impression of the word.