OLD COMFORT RECS: 12 ANGRY MEN

Year Released: 1957

Runtime: 96 minutes

Directed: Sidney Lumet

Produced: Henry Fonda, Reginald Rose

Starring: Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Ed Begley, E.G. Marshall, Jack Warden

Oscars: Won: None – Bridge on the River Kwai swept and I’m not mad Nominated: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay

IMDb Plot Summary: A jury holdout attempts to prevent a miscarriage of justice by forcing his colleagues to reconsider the evidence.

12 Angry Men as a Comfort Rec

The Story and Characters of 12 Angry Men. Most of us think of this as being adapted from a stage play, but 12 Angry Men was originally conceived as a teleplay that was aired live on CBS in 1954, and was quite successful; naturally, a film adaptation was next. Henry Fonda used his status and some of his money to get the film produced and recruited a director from television named Sidney Lumet to helm the project. The film was shot for a small budget over the course of three weeks, but the result is something undeniable due to the rich themes and performances.

Thematically, this movie asks an awful lot of big questions, and forces the audience to consider how their own biases – just like those of the characters – might play out in everyday life, not just the exigent circumstance this movie takes place in. It executes on the conceit of on juror holding out due to a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused so incredibly well, as we dive through all the evidence of the off-screen case in thorough detail and dive deeper into the characters as people, and how who they are as people affects how they vote. The fact that it plays out in real time prevents the audience from ever catching their breath, keeping us invested in the process. Some of the character’s xenophobia only plays all the stronger in 2021, at a moment when we’re struggling to reckon with how we do criminal justice in this country and how biased individuals making critical decisions can still cause harm. However, this is a “Comfort Rec” because of Juror 8’s crusade, and the subsequent winning over of every other juror. It makes us think that intelligence, compassion, and belief in the democratic way will win out; an idea that feels quaint, yes, but never outdated.

This is one of the ultimate ensemble films, requiring one of the ultimate ensemble casts – all playing essentially unnamed characters. Everyone is terrific, but I want to especially praise Lee J. Cobb (Juror 3), E.G. Marshall (Juror 4), Henry Fonda (Juror 8), Joseph Sweeney (Juror 9), and George Voskovec (Juror 11). These characters are so indelible that the audience is the most rapt whenever they are speaking, and their characters feel the most lived-in, with the heaviest dramatic moments and most influential scenes as it pertains to the other jurors. The frequent close-ups of Sweeney, inviting us into the mind of a forgotten old man, are among the most memorable images the film offers. But it’s Henry Fonda’s Juror 8 who holds the screen best and immediately wins the audience over to his side. The anonymity of this character mixed with the all-time good guy charm of Fonda is one of the more iconic roles of the entire 1950’s making a movie about a murder trial a comfort rec almost all on its own.

Technicalities. With a script this powerful, it’s important to make sure that any filmmaking flourish – be it camera angle, movement, sound design, music, or edit – adds to the story instead of distracting. Then little-known director Sidney Lumet seems to make all the right choices, employing long tracking shots to introduce our characters and establish relationships, as well as film from a distance in the beginning before moving progressively closer and in sharper focus with close-ups as the tensions start to rise. Even with this, the cameras just continue to roll, capturing the remarkable performances that everyone is giving; when we do cut somewhere else, we can sense the purpose behind it, as a new piece of information is being introduced. The sound is natural, there is no music and therefore nothing for the audience to escape to, but rather than this being an off-putting experience, we believe so much in Juror 8 and his crusade that we wouldn’t want to miss a second of it.

The Legacy of 12 Angry Men. Despite playing a terrific villain in Once Upon a Time in the West, it’s Juror 8’s optimism, courage, and belief in doing the right thing that became the defining traits of Henry Fonda’s screen presence in a legendary career. Sidney Lumet went on to become a very acclaimed director responsible for Dog Day Afternoon, Network, Prince of the City and The Verdict. You’ll have seen plenty of the other jurors popping up in supporting roles in other films during this period, making 12 Angry Men a very special film in the history of supporting performances. It has been reproduced countless times onstage in the past 60 years, and I suspect that we will continue to see it. That would be enough to ensure that this film was at least a historical footnote, but its power, resonance, and ultimate optimism will never fade from viewers’ consciousness. In my research I learned this wasn’t a hit upon release – likely due to the growing demand for color films – but that it found its core audience after its release to television. Beyond inspiring generations upon generations to certain career paths, it continues to serve as a source of comfort and a reminder of our nation’s ideals in an age where so many have transparently forgotten them. Our social media feeds may be filled with Juror 3’s, 7’s, and 10’s, but as long as Juror 8’s continue to stand up for their fellow man, we ought not despair.

John’s Highlight Reel

I’ll be doing these a little differently this time – since the whole movie plays out as one extended scene, I’ll be praising some specific motifs rather than any specific scenes.

• Human Interactions. The non-argument interactions between the characters are terrifically written and woven into the story. You’ll hear the jurors discuss their families or their work briefly, and two jurors who might have just passionately disagreed with each other on the evidence drop their “acts” and relate to each other as people – something that feels quite foreign in today’s environment. As the story progresses however, we understand that who these men are as people absolutely affects how they cast their initial vote, and what it may take to get them to change their mind.

• Presenting the Evidence. As the audience, we don’t see the trial in question; we only hear secondhand what the Jurors thought of the witnesses, the evidence, and the lawyers. However, we do so piece by piece, meaning that we as viewers have to put the trial and the prosecution’s case together in our heads at the same pace that the Jurors onscreen are taking it apart in theirs to find the gaps. Delivering exposition naturally is one of the hardest hurdles to clear in storytelling, and it’s so rarely achieved by even the best filmmakers that to see it happen here is just terrific.

• Consensus Building. Understanding the previous highlight is crucial to Juror 8’s actions throughout the film. When he understands that someone he is trying to persuade will attach to logic, he presents logic; when it’s emotion, he presents emotion. The other jurors’ interactions with each other also become crucial here; Jurors 5 and 6 seem to understand each other on a deeper level as humans, and so it’s no coincidence when they change their vote at the same time. Across all the Jurors, save the last few holdouts, there is a momentary joy and levity that seems to come with having changed their vote; they understand that they are potentially saving a life, and that by changing their vote to do so they are becoming a part of something greater than themselves. After that, it’s back to serious business.

• Tirades. These can feel a little uncomfortable, particularly Juror 10’s very prejudiced tirade that occurs late in the film, but they are dealt with swiftly and effectively in a way that reassures the audience that everything will work out for the best. This particular tirade is also staged and filmed brilliantly; in one long take, the camera pulls further and further out to make Juror 10 appear increasingly small, and each Juror leaves their seat to physically turn their backs on him. Then, in the same take, Juror 8 explains that keeping personal prejudice out is key to understanding and voting on the facts of the case, as the camera pulls back in and the Jurors return to their seat. At no point throughout the whole film does Juror 8 let anything get under his skin, and as the consensus grows and grows, different Jurors’ will leap to each other’s aide. In a brilliant stroke of writing, it is often these tirades that cause several Jurors to change their votes just to vote against someone they now understand to be prejudiced.