12 Angry Men- By Michael Carlisle

Title: 12 Angry Men
Director: Sidney Lumet
Year: 1957
Country: U.S
Language: English

I remember seeing To Kill A Mockingbird in an English class in Grade Eight. Despite it being billed as a "thrilling" courtroom drama I was anything but thrilled. I decided to search for a courtroom drama that would make me think as well as entertain me, I came across 12 Angry Men. What astounded me most about 12 Angry Men was the fact that it was set in one room. It was unique to me at the time because I had not seen a film where every scene and every action took place in one room. Revisiting this film the other day, I still enjoyed it, but was not as entertained.

On paper 12 Angry Men would seem like a very simplistic courtroom drama. It's about 12 men, stuck in a small room until they decide whether the suspect in question should be charged as innocent or guilty. However, the film is much deeper than that. It is about the idea of reasonable doubt. Innocent until proven guilty. Do we have the right to send someone to jail, or to their death, if we aren't 100% sure that the individual commited the crime? "It's an open and shut case!" one of the men exclaims. They take a vote, 11 men say the suspect is guilty, one man, Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) claims he is innocent. Thus begins an argument heated by dialogue and personality conflicts

"Suppose we're wrong" says Fonda. Pleading with jurors who have all different personalities, backgrounds and emotional boundaries. Fonda's main argument is that they're playing God, they will be sending a boy to his death when they haven't even bothered to talk about it. The vote begins at 11-1. Then increases gradually as the discussion moves farther. We hear so much about the trial that we almost feel like we were at the trial and heard both prosecutor and defense's arguments. Some voting negatively are portrayed as racist old men. Others are portrayed as people who are decent and honestly believe the person in question is guilty.

 A unique aspect of 12 Angry Men is that we don't actually see the trial. We don't hear the defense, prosecutor, attorney or bailiff. We hear the judge, who sounds as if he has already made up his mind. The evidence is second hand, and we only learn the details about the crime and suspect from the Jury. The other unique aspect is that the film is shot in one room (with exception of the first and last 2 minutes), which makes us ask; How can you make an interesting film that only has one scene. The answer is great lens technique and camera work. By changing the camera lens he can make the room seem longer or smaller and claustrophobic. By using certain camera angles he can favor certain people's positions or attitudes, he can also increase the tension within the room. There is a lot to be learned about camera technique from 12 Angry Men.

In Conclusion, 12 Angry Men is a surprisingly intelligent study on Justice and the ideology of innocent until proven guilty. It was a controversial film in the 50's that seems tame today, but still very important. There is a lot to learn from 12 Angry Men for filmmakers and casual film goers alike. I wouldn't say that it's one of the greatest films of all time nor is it the most entertaining, but it's certainly worth a viewing or two. Praise it! 3.5/5