12 Jurors + 12 Great Performances = 1 Superlative Movie!

How many times have you seen the "One juror holdout" theme played out in movies and (especially) on TV shows? Probably quite a few. But none done so well and so very convincingly as the 1957 classic, "12 Angry Men". Henry Fonda's arguments attempting to persuade his fellow jurors of the defendant's "possible", but by no means "certain" innocence plays out exceptionally well in this film. This is due in no small part to Fonda's fine portrayal, as well as each of his 11 cohorts. For me, in addition to Fonda, the standout "jurors" are Lee J. Cobb and Ed "Ya Know What I Mean?" Begley. I've always wondered where this was filmed. All we ever see here is the jury room....drab, old, hot, high ceiling, big (sticky) windows, et al! Perfect setting! Very realistic looking....right down to the rickety electric fan that Jack Warden just can't seem to get started! Buy this video; you'll have to love it!

Quibble about VHS version ......... If you own the VHS version of this film, perhaps you've noticed something odd about it (I certainly did). .....

It's being played at the wrong speed! It's running too FAST !
It's not all that annoying, except in a few places where the dialogue is definitely noticeably sped up. (Particularly when Lee J. Cobb or Ed Begley are speaking. Their deep voices seem higher pitched than they ought to be.)

To bear out the above minor complaint, we can check out the running-time statistics on each package. ..... VHS running time is only 92 minutes. But the film SHOULD run 95 minutes. (And I'm almost certain nothing has been cut out in the video print.)
So, for some reason, the video makers saw fit to compress the 95-minute movie into 92 minutes. Most curious.

I'm getting the DVD version soon, which Amazon claims has a 96-minute run time (1 minute LONGER than the whole film). ??
I'm hoping this is accurate, and the DVD has been slowed down to the proper speed. Having this great film in widescreen will be a major plus as well!!

Human nature on trial in the jury room.

Most thrillers focus on the drama that happens in the course of a murder, or the drama that happens in the courtroom afterwards. In 12 Angry Men, all the action occurs in the closed doors of the jury room after the murder and after the court-room theatrics. It might be hard to imagine how a black and white movie shot virtually entirely in one jury room might be dramatic, but "12 Angry Men" certainly achieves a level of drama achieved by few other movies. There are no special effects, no elaborate settings, and yet it's a movie with more power and passion than most contemporary multi-million dollar productions.

Much of the initial drama revolves around the murder case that the twelve jurors have to decide on. Is the accused young man guilty or not-guilty of murdering his father with a knife? Eleven of the twelve men are firmly convinced that he is guilty, and only one has doubts. It is here that the real drama begins, as the jurors discuss the case, breeding personal conflicts as the lone juror (acted by Henry Fonda) pleads his case. This is the movie's real strength, as it portrays vivid and brilliant characterization of the jurors. They become frustrated and angry, with varying emotions and temperaments. But one by one they begin to break under the burden of "reasonable doubt." As the evidence is weighed in increasing tension, the jurors begin to change their guilty verdict to not-guilty. The tension is shared by the viewers, because we don't know whether or not the accused is guilty, and like the jurors need to weigh the evidence as it is presented.

Is the accused guilty or not-guilty? In the end, what happens in the jury room isn't so much about murder mystery, but about personalities, personal pride and egos. The sweltering heat and enclosed jury room proves to kindle emotions of anger and rage. In fact, in the end we still don't know the final answer about the accused's guilt, who really did it and how. Nor does Fonda's character argue that the defendant is innocent, but merely that there is not enough proof to determine his guilt. But the fact that the question about guilt remains an open question at the end of the movie really doesn't matter. It is the conflict of personalities that makes the movie so powerful: the 12 angry men in many ways represent ourselves. Just as in the real world, these 12 men are composed of an assortment of personalities and people: such as the sports fan, the slum dweller, the mathematical thinker, the business man, the logician, the prejudiced emotional thinker, and the nerd. The emotions and personal interaction are brilliantly portrayed, and amongst these 12 angry men many viewers will recognize themselves. Not only is this movie a portrayal of logic in action, but ultimately it is a portrayal of aspects of our own human nature, including our own prejudices and personality flaws. This is especially evidenced in the concluding scenes, where two jurors shake hands and introduce themselves by name. It is only then that we realize that although the individual personalities of these 12 men are now so well-known to us, we don't even know their names.

If you are getting the idea that I was wowed by this movie, you're absolutely right. Even though it is nearly fifty years old, it has to be one of the best movies I have ever seen. If there is a weakness, it would be that it seems rather remarkable that the jurors uncover things not found in six days of trial. But it is completely free of profanity and indecency, and is tremendously powerful in its portrayal of human emotions, personalities and conflicts. The acting is superb. It's a masterpiece. Very highly recommended! Go watch it. And again. And again...

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.