12 Angry Men (1957)

12 Angry Men

Call No: PN1997 .T82 2001

I need to start this review by saying that 12 Angry Men is my favourite film of all time, so I have a bit of a bias. I’ve lost count of the number of times I have seen it. I promise that this isn’t going to become a “Drop everything and see it now!” kind of review. Nor do I guarantee that this movie will change your life. It won’t. You’ll be the same person when you finish it. It won’t rattle your worldview or shake your ideologies or make you want to run out and save the planet. But if some of you see it, and I hope you will, you will be, at the very least, enjoying a good film.

The premise of 12 Angry Men, based on the play of the same name by Reginald Rose, is fairly simple. A boy is being tried for murder for stabbing his father. In order to pass a verdict of guilty, everyone must vote the same. Except that one man votes not guilty. As the eleven try to change his mind, evidence is reviewed, prejudices come to light, and it soon becomes evident that the verdict isn’t as simple as everyone thought.

There are a number of things that make this film unique. One of them is that almost the entire film takes place in the one jury room. There are no exotic setting locals or dramatic changes of scenery. There’s a table, a closet, twelve chairs, a bench and a fan (and an attached bathroom that is shown briefly). The cast is all older men. Not to mention that the film is in black and white. The setup couldn’t possibly be duller. But when you add the characters, the clashing personalities, the suspicious trial and the series of short fuses, the background and colour become irrelevant.

Another interesting aspect to the film is that we pick up the story after the trial is already over. When we step into that jury room with the men, we have little to no idea what has happened. With the help of a strong and exceptional screenplay, we are soon caught up on the highlights of the crime without being force fed, or bored by, excessive details. This is a story where everyone can keep up. The drama and suspense comes from reactions and interpretations, not miniscule details and illogical plot twists.

Two jurors discuss evidence and the importance of a matter
of seconds that a boy's life depends upon.

The final thing I will say about the film is how multi-faceted it is. There are layers and layers of interpretations in this film, with dozens of conflicts and ideas that can be studied. Every time I watch the film, I look for or notice something new. Anyone could watch this film for a number of reasons or to find a number of things. One friend watched it in a class to study the conventions of both the hero and antihero archetypes represented in the film. The high school law class at my school watched it to study the use of persuasion. One film class watched it as a demonstration of “backward storytelling”, in which all the action has already happened and we’re starting at the end (another film that does an amazing job of this is The Usual Suspects, which I will review later). The characters in the film clash over differing opinions. They clash on an ethnic level, over differences in class stature, over their backgrounds. You can’t possibly pull everything out that the film has to offer in one viewing.

If you haven’t seen the film, then try it. Just once. Once you’ve seen the film, you’ll be able to understand the power that can come from that phrase. All it takes it one.