Rrrrrright well it has been quite a while since I last did a post on this blog so I thought while I have some time get around to doing one just now. So I've decided to do a movie that is one of the old classics of the Hollywood system and the film in question is 12 Angry Men starring Henry Fonda.
So with that let's get in that sweaty juror room, start debating and look at this classic....
And yes a few SPOILERS ARE AHEAD!!!
STORY
So the story begins in a New York city courthouse where an 18 year old boy from a slum background is on trial for allegedly having stabbed his father to death where he awaits the outcome of his trial which could see him get the electric chair if he is convicted. And the jury for the case retire to a room where they can discuss the case with the majority of the jurors believing that the boy is guilty except one, Juror 8 (Henry Fonda). Juror 8 tells the others that he feels there is too much at stake here for the boy to be sentenced without them discussing it properly first. However Juror 8's decision annoys some of the other jurors particularly Juror 7 (Jack Warden) who is anxious to get to a baseball game later and Juror 10 (Ed Begley) who thinks that all people from slums are liars and dangers to society. After some more deliberation Juror 8 get's nowhere with changing their minds so he decides that they should have a private ballot and if the others all vote guilty then he will go along with their decision however if one of them does vote not guilty then they will stay to talk it out. And after the vote it is revealed that one other juror has changed their vote to not guilty much to the chagrin of Juror 3 (Lee J.Cobb) who accuses Juror 5 (Jack Klugman) of changing his vote out of sympathy for slum kids as he himself grew up in one. However it is revealed that Juror 5 didn't change his vote but it was in fact Juror 9 (Joseph Sweeney) as he felt that Juror 8 raised some good points which merited further discussion. And its from here the men continue their discussion raising different points with some heated arguments also as they must decided on a verdict....
THOUGHTS
Based on a teleplay by Reginald Rose, 12 Angry Men to this day is still a great film which despite its limits to being purely set within the courthouse it makes for a fascinating and gripping watch. The film also has a firm realistic setting and the it does very well at drawing each of its individual characters with the Juror 8 being the voice of reason while Juror 3 acting like the judge, jury and executioner. And the film's setting during a humid hot day in New York also helps the film's atmosphere as the men suffer in the heat it helps build up the tension as their tempers fray and some of the men expose their own personal prejudices whereas others show more compassion to the situation.
PERFORMANCES AND NOTABLE SCENES
As for the performances well it would a lie to say they were all crap! ;-) So no 12 Angry Men features a top notch cast of actors all of whom put in excellent performances. I won't go over all 12 men but I will pick out some of the most notable jurors starting Henry Fonda who is great as Juror 8 who is the first man to vote not guilty and he spends the rest of the film trying to argue his case with the other jurors. Fonda has his share of good scenes in the film such as the one where Juror 4 holds the knife from the murder and says to Juror 8 "Take a look at this knife" and he stabs it into the table "Its a very unusual knife. I've never seen one like it, neither did the storekeeper who solid it to the boy. Are you asking us to accept a pretty incredible coincidence?". And Juror 8 argues "I'm just saying a coincidence is possible" and Juror 3 steps in saying "And I'm saying its not possible" which prompts Juror 8 to produce an identical knife from his pocket which he stabs into the table leaving the other jurors amazed. And Juror 4 asks "Where did you get it?" and Juror 8 tells him "I went out walking a couple of hours last night. I went through the boy's neighbourhood. I bought this from a little pawn shown just two blocks from the boy's house. It cost six dollars". And Juror 4 says "Its illegal to buy or sell switchblade knives" and Juror 8 says "That's right I broke the law". Then there is the scene where Juror 8 becomes angry when he tries to discuss the case further and sees Juror 3 and Juror 12 play a game of noughts and crosses on paper, which prompts Juror 8 to tear up the page and say "This isn't a game!".
Another great scene from Fonda comes when Juror 3 becomes angry and yells "What's the MATTER with you guys? You all KNOW he's guilty! He's GOT to burn! You're letting him slip through our fingers!". And Juror 8 looks shocked and says "Slip through our fingers? Are you his executioner?!" and Juror 3 says "I'm one of them!" and Juror 8 says "I'd bet you'd like to pull the switch!" and Juror 3 angrily says "For this kid, you bet I would!". And Juror 8 looks disgusted and says "I feel sorry for you. What it must feel like to want to pull the switch! Ever since you walked into this room, you've been acting like a self-appointed public avenger. You want to see this boy die because you personally want it, not because of the facts! You're a sadist!". And this makes Juror 3 go apeshit as he hurls himself toward Juror 8 yelling "I'LL KILL HIM! I'LL KILL HIM!!" but is held back by the other jurors and Juror 8 calmly says "You don't really mean you'll kill me, do you?" after which Juror 3 turns away angrily defeated.
Then there is Lee J.Cobb who is also great as Juror 3, who is hot tempered and somewhat stubborn and opinionated and he remains firmly of the opinion that the boy in question is guilty. Cobb also has some great moments where he rants loudly at the others such as the scene where after the secret ballot someone else has voted not guilty much to the annoyance of Juror 3 and some of the others. And Juror 3 accuses Juror 5 of changing his vote saying "Brother, you really are somethin'. you sit here vote guilty like the rest of us, then some golden-voiced preacher starts tearing your poor heart out about some underprivileged kid, just couldn't help becoming a murderer, and you change your vote. Well, if that isn't the most sickening - WHY DON'T YOU DROP A QUARTER IN HIS COLLECTION BOX???!!". Then there is the scene where the jurors argue over the timing of the old man in case hearing the sound of the dead body and the time it took for him to get to the door of his house. And in the scene Juror 3 yells " How does he know how long fifteen seconds is?! You can't judge a thing like that!" and Juror 9 says "He said fifteen seconds. He was pretty positive about it" and Juror 3 yells "He was an old man! Half the time he was confused! How could he be positive about anything?!!!!" and he stops and realises what he has said as Juror 9 (who is an elderly man) looks shocked.
Another good scene comes when Juror 3 quietly reflects near the start on his own son and how they no longer speak to each other "I got one. Twenty-two years old. When he was nine years old he ran away from a fight. I saw it; I was so embarrassed I almost threw up. I said, "I'm gonna make a man outta you if I have to break you in two tryin'". And I made a man out of him. When he was sixteen, we had a fight. Hit me in the jaw - a big kid. Haven't seen him for two years". And lastly there is the last scene (SPOILER!!!!!!!) where all the other jurors have changed their vote to not guilty and Juror 8 demands that Juror 3 give his reasons for still voting guilty. And Juror rants loudly to the others and is disgusted by their decision "You lousy bunch of bleedin' 'earts... You're not goin' to intimidate me - I'm ENTITLED to my opinion!". And he then looks at the photo of his son angrily and says "Rotten kids, you work your LIFE out!" and he proceeds to tear up the photo but then realises what he has done and breaks down in tears "No...! Not guilty.... not guilty!".
E.G. Marshall is excellent as well as Juror 4, the calm, self-assured and rational stockbroker who for most of the film argues capably his case as to why he thinks the boy is guilty. Marshall also has some good scenes such as the one where he shows the knife from the murder to Juror 8 and flicks it open saying to Juror 8 "Now you try to tell me that this knife really fell through a hole in the boy's pocket and someone picked it up off the street, went to the boy's and stabbed his father with it just to test its sharpness?!". And then there is the scene where Juror 10 (other shouty one in the film) rants and raves about how the boy is no good and the other jurors quickly become fed up with him and get up and turn their backs from him. And Juror 10 becomes more desparate and he says to Juror 4 "These people are wild. Listen to me!" and Juror 4 calmly and firmly says "I have. Now sit down and don't open your mouth again!". Another good scene comes when one of the jurors comments on the humidity in the room and he asks Juror 4 "Tell me something, don't you ever sweat?" and Juror 4 says "No I don't!". Then there is the scene where Juror 3 tries to make an excuse for his outburst against Juror 8 and he says "He was just trying to bait me" and Juror 4 says "Well he did an excellent job". And lastly there is the crucial scene where Juror 4 removes his glasses and rubs his nose which prompts Juror 9 to ask why and Juror 4 says "Well if its any of your business I'm rubbing because it bothers me". And Juror 9 then makes the great revelation about how one of the key witnesses who apparently witnessed the boy stabbing his father, kept rubbing her nose as well in court due to the same reason of her glasses bothering her which suggests she didn't wear her glasses to bed and that it brings her eyesight into doubt. So when Juror 8 asks Juror 4 again "Do you think he's guilty" Juror 4 says "No...I'm convinced. Not guilty" and Juror 3 angrily says "What's the matter with ya?!" and Juror 4 says "I have a reasonable doubt now".
As for the other cast members Joseph Sweeney is also great as Juror 9 the elderly man of the jury who first offers his support to Juror 8 when needed. And he later on provides a key piece of information that could change the verdict of the case as he asks Juror 4 about his eye glasses he says to him of how the glasses bother him after a while "Oh that must be irritating. I've never needed glasses myself. 20/20!". And as he successfully makes his point Juror 9 says to Juror 4 of the marks on either side of his nose "Could those marks be caused by anything other than eyeglasses?" and Juror 4 says "No". Jack Warden is also really good as the wisecracking Juror 7 who is impatient to get to a baseball game later which he has tickets for and he later get's impatient and decides to change his vote and says "I don't know about the rest of 'em but I'm gettin' a little tired of this yakity-yack and back-and-forth, it's gettin' us nowhere. So I guess I'LL have to break it up; I change my vote to "not guilty."
George Voskovec also provides a fine performance as the polite Juror 11 who has some good moments as well such as the scene where he picks up the obnoxious Juror 10 for his English as Juror 10 says of the boy "Bright? He's a common ignorant slob. He don't even speak good English!" and Juror 11 corrects "He doesn't speak good English!". And he also has another good moment where he confronts Juror 7 for changing his vote and he says to him out of disgust "If you want to vote "not guilty", then do it because you are convinced the man is not guilty, not because you've "had enough". And if you think he is guilty, then vote that way! Or don't you have the guts to do what you think is right?!".
As for the other cast members they are also excellent which I won't say too much about to save time on typing but Martin Balsam (Juror 1), John Fiedler (Juror 2), Jack Klugman (Juror 5), Edward Binns (Juror 6), Ed Begly (Juror 10 the loud mouth shouty one) and Robert Webber (Juror 12) all provide solid performances and I could type up a bit more about their scenes but it would take that bit longer so I won't! (sorry guys!).
DIRECTOR AND MUSIC
Finally getting onto the director and music paragraph, Sidney Lumet does a great job here as the film's director he perfectly paces the film out and the confines of the private jury room make for an almost claustrophobic atmosphere which works very well throughout. Lumet also keeps the pacing of the film pretty tight as well as just over an hour and a half long it never lags. The film itself was also Lumet's first directorial debut on a Hollywood film as he had previously worked on TV films. Lumet would then go on to become a very successful director as he directed other classics such as Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon, Network and Murder on the orient express. As for the film's music score by Kenyon Hopkins it isn't too bad and while its nothing overly special its sparseness in the film works pretty well and its dramatic themes work well enough when they come into play.
FLAWS
As for 12 Angry Men's flaws does it have any worth moaning on about???? Well not too many given that it is such a good film however there are still one or two niggles and for starters one thing that bothered me is the justification for Juror 7's decision to change his vote to not guilty. And the reason I feel this doesn't work so well is basically because Juror 7 has no real reason to change his vote other than boredom and wanting to get out of the courthouse to get to his ball game. And while Juror 11 is rightly outraged at Juror 7's decision he decides to ultimately relent on his pushing Juror 7 for a definitive answer as to why he changed his mind, which suddenly seems a bit pat for me and too convenient that they let it go. And you could also aim that argument at some of the other jurors as well as their reasons for changing their vote aren't made overly clear as they just seem to go with the flow after a while once Juror 8 and the others debate the testimony. This is also clearly the case with the foreman, Juror 1 (Martin Balsam) who seems to quickly change his mind during a later vote in the film and even Juror 12 chops and changes his mind later on as he is virtually coerced to by Jurors 3 and 4.
Another issue I have with the film also comes from Juror 8's decision to purchase a switchblade knife and take it into court, yet how did he manage to bring it into court in the first place?!! I mean surely at a courthouse they would search people before they go in rather than let me wander in with knives! Its a great moment in the film of course when Juror 8 suddenly produces the same identical knife to the murder weapon and sticks onto the table but it can't but help make you ask that question. And in the scene Juror 8 admits that he broke the law by even purchasing the switchblade and by doing so surely he also broke the law by brining it into court but again this is never raised as an issue in the film.
And lastly while most of the characters in the film are well drawn out the only one that I thought was not as good is Juror 10, the bad mannered, impatient, loud mouth (Ed Begley) who basically spends most of the film ranting on about the same thing. And that thing is just how all slum kids are "no good!" and he keeps on saying the same thing over and over! So all we get from his "They're no good! I'm telling ya!". Yeah we get it! You don't need to keep repeating it over and over! But I guess that's the point of his character as he does serve as the asshole of the group and in the end no one wants to hear him as they all get up and walk away from him after he delivers his last rant before he realises no one is listening.
SUM UP
And well that's it for my look at 12 Angry Men which is still an excellent and gripping drama film which is worth checking out and I myself recently watched it again on Netflix so I can back that up! And despite the film's age it still doesn't feel that dated and its themes are very much as relevant as they are today in regards to crime, parenthood, civic responsibility and giving people a second chance.
So that's it for now and I will be back at some point with another review although not too sure when but hopefully it will be soon.
Until the next un bye for now!
No comments:
Post a Comment