[.ca] 12 Angry Men (Widescreen)

Amazon.com Essential Video:
Sidney Lumet's directorial debut remains a tense, atmospheric (though slightly manipulative and stagy) courtroom thriller, in which the viewer never sees a trial and the only action is verbal. As he does in his later corruption commentaries such as Serpico or Q & A, Lumet focuses on the lonely one-man battles of a protagonist whose ethics alienate him from the rest of jaded society. As the film opens, the seemingly open-and-shut trial of a young Puerto Rican accused of murdering his father with a knife has just concluded and the 12-man jury retires to their microscopic, sweltering quarters to decide the verdict. When the votes are counted, 11 men rule guilty, while one--played by Henry Fonda, again typecast as another liberal, truth-seeking hero--doubts the obvious. Stressing the idea of "reasonable doubt," Fonda slowly chips away at the jury, who represent a microcosm of white, male society--exposing the prejudices and preconceptions that directly influence the other jurors' snap judgments. The tight script by Reginald Rose (based on his own teleplay) presents each juror vividly using detailed soliloquies, all which are expertly performed by the film's flawless cast. Still, it's Lumet's claustrophobic direction--all sweaty close-ups and cramped compositions within a one-room setting--that really transforms this contrived story into an explosive and compelling nail-biter. --Dave McCoy

Gripping courtroom drama:
This is a courtroom drama with a difference. Apart from a very brief scene in the courtroom itself, the film takes place in the jury's deliberation room. The whole film revolves around the deliberations of a jury in a murder case in which a guilty verdict will lead to the death penalty for the accused. Initially it all seems very clear-cut with an all male jury having decided on a the young mans guilt before they have even sat down, all that is except for one man (Henry Fonda). Although he believes the accused may have possibly committed the murder, his values and ethics won't allow him to agree with his fellow jurors without thrashing out all of the evidence. Gradually he forces the other men to confront the evidence in front of them and to admit the situation is not as clear cut as it seemed. At the same time they are brought face to face with their own prejudices. Filmed in black and white and shot almost entirely in one room, this film allows the viewer to concentrate entirely on the dialogue with nothing to distract from the story. It is a credit to the acting skills of the cast and to the direction of Sidney Lument (in his directorial debut) that the film remains gripping throughout. This is drama at its best and still one of the finest, if not the finest, courtroom dramas to be found.

A great movie about epistemology:
It always pisses me off when people give The Matrix as a philosophical movie, when there are so many much more rich sources of artistic exploration. 12 Angry Men is one such example, a great movie about epistemology. During an unseen trial, a young man of a negatively-seen ethnicity (which is never specified) is accused of the murder of his father. It is an "open and shut case", and all the jurors agree that he is guilty, except juror #8, played by Henry Fonda. In 95 minutes, almost shot in real-time, we observe as the jurors' prejudices and emotions churn and crash in mighty waves, as each piece of evidence is examined and examined again, as every actor plays against the others. In the process, we witness an object-lesson in epistemology : what is doubt, what is evidence, how do we prove or disprove a proposition, and how people in groups act in group dynamics that sometimes are not conductive to the truth. Politically speaking, 12 Angry Men is a testimony against juries and capital punishment, but that is not the point of the movie. It is a movie about how we judge events and how we filter the truth. And that's something that you won't get from any action movie.

A Masterpiece:
What can I possibly say about this masterpiece? It is surely one of the greatest movies, a work full of layers of meaning, of symbolism, of psychological and artistic subtleties. You can wach this movie an infinite number of times, because each time you discover something new. I would just like to bring up one often neglected point. For me, this movie shows the shift in acting styles after World War II - a shift towards more naturalistic approach close to "method" acting. Many of the younger members of the cast - such as Martin Balsam and Jack Klugman - seem to belong to this new school. Just watch such things as Klugman's slow reaction when it dawns on him that Cobb is yelling at him, or the foreman (Balsam) as he "gives up" and sulks in the corner. The movie is full of wonderful and telling details such as these. I also think that the style of this film bears some relation to Italian Neo-Realism of the 40's and 50's (eg. stark setting, realistic dialogue, and filming in "real time", including seemingly mundane actions). And has anybody noticed that this movie obeys the "unities" of classical Greek drama (of time, place, etc.)? And to those cynics who think that this is a movie about a clever man who manages to convince eleven men that a guilty youth is innocent - think again. I have actually lain awake at night worrying that the young man probably is, after all, guilty! But for the purpose of the film it doesn't matter. This is not a whodunnit; it is about human character and human behavior, the law, how our backgrounds color our attitudes, and countless other themes. And of course it is a showcase for twelve SUPERB actors. (But please, who wrote the text on the back of the video cover? "Eleven jurors are convinced that the defendant is guilty of murder. The twelfth has no doubt of his innocence." WHAT?!! Did this person even watch the movie?!)

An excellent case study in negotiations, influence, team building... Every manager/leader must watch this.:
I watched this movie last week as part of my coursework on Influence. This film is often used at business schools as a case study in negotiations, conflict management, team building, persuasion, etc. The story is about twelve jurors who need to decide whether a teenager accused of killing his father was guilty or not. A guilty verdict would result in a death sentence. The preliminary vote is eleven to one in favor of guilty. The only juror who votes not guilty is an architect played by Henry Fonda. He is unsure and proceeds by asking probing questions. The rest of the movie takes you through their decision making process. I will not spoil the story for you but will elaborate on what you should look out for while watching the movie. Pay close attention to the 12 characters. Each has a unique personality, influenced by their prejudices. Observe how they interact and how the coalitions are formed. Be aware of when public voting and private voting are used. Observe how Henry Fonda remains calm and impartial throughout the process and attacks issues and not people. Overall, observe how interpersonal and procedural tactics influence group decisions. The 12 jurors - referred to by juror number and seated in clockwise order on the table: 1. The foreman - an assistant football coach 2. Bank teller - has a high-pitched voice and wears glasses 3. Businessman - who is aggressive and has a broken relationship with his son 4. Stockbroker - arrogant, self-confident and driven by the facts 5. Man from the slums - quiet and self-conscious, dressed in a suit 6. House painter - strong physically, stands up for his principles 7. Salesman - wears a straw hat and cares primarily about a baseball game he might miss 8. Architect (Henry Fonda) - calm, impartial and rational 9. Old man - weak physically but with a strong sense of justice 10. Garage owner - aggressive person who harbors a prejudice against slum people 11. Watchmaker - of European origin, speaks with an accent and has a strong ethical obligation to do his duty as an American citizen 12. Ad executive - sits on the fence and contributes more fluff than substance. This movie is on my list of the five greatest movies ever made. Great script, direction and acting. I highly recommend it, especially to managers and leaders.

Addendum:
Here are two subtleties in 12 ANGRY MEN which I don't know if anyone else has remarked on. At the end of the movie, as Henry Fonda leaves the empty jury room, he looks back at the table and an odd "laughing" or braying motif plays in the music. Is Fonda inwardly "laughing" at the eleven people whom he has "put one over" on? Then he steps out of the room with a rather sinister or secretive air, looking rather like - get this - like someone LEAVING THE SCENE OF A CRIME! I believe the movie is posing the question: "Who is the real criminal, here?" Maybe that's is a little farfetched, but I think there is a reason for everything is a work of art, especially in this very subtle and psychological film. My second observation: in the opening moments of the film, we see a series of people walking by outside the jury room. First, a young man with a suitcase and the air of a stranger, then a scholarly looking fellow, then a jovial young man congratulating a bunch of people on the happy outcome of a case, and finally a guard trying to quiet the people down. I believe that these figures are meant as types or mirror-images of Henry Fonda, E.G. Marshall, Robert Webber, and Martin Balsam.