12 Angry Men

I love it when a movie with legendary status lives up to it. 12 Angry Men is not a complicated movie. One man stands alone against eleven in a jury room during deliberations of a murder trial in which an 18 year old is facing the death penalty. He has doubts. He doesn't believe the prosecution's case. Over the course of an evening, he talks it out with his fellow jurors in a room with no air conditioning. The heat makes them all cranky, and the case brings to the surface mentalities and prejudices each of them harbors. Each of them has to examine themselves, and re-examine the evidence. You'd think with a cast of 12 people and a run time of just about an hour and a half, it would be too crowded or jumbled. There are a couple characters that don't get as much exploration (the jury foreman, the advertising guy), but for the most part, everyone gets a chance to shine and work with one another, bringing about different issues and conflicts with and within one another. Unlike so many other courtroom/legal dramas, 12 Angry Men doesn't hinge on the gotcha moment. So many others have that one moment, be it some undiscovered evidence, or a moment of testimony, on which the case turns. Col. Jessup's fiery rant in A Few Good Men, the question of age in Liar, Liar, and so many more up-end the case in a moment. 12 Angry Men doesn't do that. Henry Fonda thinks the prosecution has overlooked or ignored a lot of contradictory testimony and evidence, and he goes over it, piece by piece. His fellow jurors consider his ideas, and one by one, they're swayed for different reasons, much to the anger of some. EG Marshall's studious stockbroker that's only interested in facts, Ed Begley's racist, classist garage owner, Jack Warden's dismissive, uninterested juror who will do whatever it takes to get out of deliberations and to see his beloved Yankees, and the chief antagonist of the movie, Lee Cobb, a blustering, loud-mouthed jerk who refuses to concede any point, no matter how logical, are the chief obstacles in Fonda's campaign to free what he believes is an innocent man. This is an acting class, and a directorial one as well, as Sidney Lumet makes the most of a movie that is set 98% of the time in one cramped, sweltering room. The heat -- literal and emotional -- oozes out of the screen with every passing minute and every confrontation that exposes the reasons people have for voting the way they do. I don't have much more to say on this. There's no need. It does more than enough to reinforce its sterling reputation. It's the kind of movie that everybody should see. There are powerful themes at play in this movie that, despite being almost 70 years old, are as relevant today as ever.