There’s a question that every cinephile has answered at least once in their lives. Have you ever been asked, what film made you realized that you love cinema? I’m pretty sure you’re thinking of an answer right now, or even better, you already know the answer.
Those of you who have read my writings the few times I’ve shared them know my story. 2012, Senior year, Spanish Homework, 500 films before I die, Joel the cinephile is born. Some of you might know my love (or obsession?) for films like Spirited Away (2001), The Last Picture Show (1971), and Pan’s Labyrinth (2006), to name a few. If you have been really paying attention though, you might know my answer to the question previously asked. The film that changed me was Sidney Lumet’s 12 Angry Men.
Released in 1957, this film was first a TV episode of Studio One, an anthology drama series that first aired on radio. But later adapted to the TV format via CBC and CBS. The first episode of season 7, was released on September 20, 1954, and it was written exclusively for Studio One by Reginald Rose and directed by none other than legendary director Franklin J. Schaffner (Planet of the Apes, Patton).
Related Review: Sweet Smell of Success
This episode garnered the show three of the five Primetime Emmys the series won in its lifetime. It won for “Best Written Dramatic Material” for Rose, “Best Direction” for Schaffner, and “Best Actor in a Single Performance” for Robert Cummings, who played Juror #8. The success of this episode caught the attention of Hollywood, but it wasn’t until 1957 that something concrete was made.
Henry Fonda read the script written by Reginald Rose and decided that this film needed to be made. Fonda even became the producer and protagonist of the film. With his blessing and connections, he managed to gather some of the best actors working in the moment, like Lee J. Cobb, Martin Balsam, Jack Klugman, Jack Warden, Ed Begley, and Edward Binns. Also, some of the original episode’s cast members returned for the film.
Reginal Rose stayed in writing duties, while directing was given to film rookie, Sidney Lumet. Although a first timer in this medium, Lumet was no newbie to the business of directing. He had already directing credits in some Off-Broadway plays and 48 episodes on various TV shows. This mix of collaborators prove to be great because in the end, the result was perfect.
This film is highly supported by the very humanistic and realistic screenplay made by Reginald Rose. If you ask me, the strongest element of this film, I will undoubtedly say it is the script. Even when the direction, the acting, and technical aspects such as cinematography, editing, and sound mixing, are also outstanding.
Related Review: The Three Faces of Eve
My reasoning comes from one of the aspects of the film that I loved the most: the setting. It takes you a while to fully realize that this film is being mostly shot in one place: a jury room. We don’t notice quickly because we are very engaged with all the discussions being fired throughout that single room.
The conversations feel real, they are pertinent, and unbelievably ageless. Today, 2020, the themes covered in this film: racism, xenophobia, classism, apathy, justice, empathy, etc., are themes that are universal – especially to the United States.
There are lots of lines that are quotable to this day, especially those referring to how important is the decision these 12 men are making. One that always haunts me because it makes me think on the power of decisions and its consequences is this exchange between Juror #3 (Cobb) and Juror #8 (Fonda):
Juror #3: [to Juror #8 about the El-Train drowning out the supposed death threat] “You’re talkin’ about a matter of *seconds!* Nobody can be *that* accurate!”
Juror #8: “Well, I think testimony that can put a boy in the electric chair *should* be that accurate.”
This is a powerful dialogue that should impact every movie watcher. The delivery by both Cobb and Fonda also adds to the impact of those two simple lines of dialogue. It makes us think and reflect on life, and I love that.
Related Review: Le Niotti Bianche
This screenplay is very entertaining because it keeps your attention throughout, but it’s also important. Social prejudice is still a big problem around the world, and this film deals with this in a way that is flawless. So much that it seems easy to talk about it, even when reality is more complicated.
I think one of the reasons it works is because of the characters involved. 12 different men (although all white and all probably straight) from different ages, social class, work areas, and beliefs are enclosed in one place deciding the fate of another man. It’s the amalgam of differences that makes this relatable and realistic, because in real life we’re all different, we all think and feel different, and all this is thanks to our experiences in life, our lives.
The script also works, like I mentioned before, thanks to the acting of this very talented cast. Even the smaller roles shine, like Jurors #4, #5, #9, #10, and #11. I don’t know if this has happened to all of you, but while watching the movie, although I always identified with Juror #8, I always find something of me in all the other jurors.
Juror #1’s calmness, Juror #2’s curiosity, Juror #3’s wrath, Juror #4’s objectiveness, Juror #5’s attention, Juror #6’s cluelessness, Juror #7’s indifference, Juror #8’s empathy, Juror #9’s wisdom, Juror #10’s prejudice, Juror #11’s belief of fairness, and Juror #12’s doubting moments. Every characteristic, good or bad, has been one of us at some point.
Related Review: Until They Sail
We all have been judges at least once in life. This film studies a case, but it also studies every time we encounter a situation where we must decide whether to punish, award, or, better yet, understand another human being. This is why I admire Juror #8 so much because he is an example of what every one of us should aspire to be as humans that live in the same planet and that we share everything, even from afar. Henry Fonda does help with his portrayal, of course, and in real life he apparently was like that too.
This was Lumet’s first gig in film, but it doesn’t look like it. He has full command of this movie from beginning to end, and it’s noticeable. Look at the camera angles, the shots (wide, close-ups, mediums, pans, etc.), they’re all done with a purpose. Whether it’s to add suspense, to make us feel uncomfortable, to let us know the room is hot (literally and figuratively), there’s no decision made that is done without a purpose.
For example, do you remember a musical score in the film? No? That’s because the music is barely used. The intro, the outro, and the scene where the jurors go to vote a second time (when Juror #9 changes his vote) are the only scenes with a musical cue. The voting scene in particular is important because it’s the scene that changes the film. Now, Juror #8 knows he’s not alone and that maybe he can convince the others of the reasonable doubts this case has.
Related Review: Peyton Place
Other important decisions made by Lumet, but that some people seem trivial, is how he convinces us that the day is hot. Not only some characters explicitly say it, but he also tells us by the need of them to open the windows, the fan doesn’t work, their sweat, they all take their jackets off. Small details that establish atmosphere, in circumstance and in emotions.
Unfortunately, this film, although loved and revered now, in its time it didn’t received the love it deserved. Like some popular classics, it failed at the box office, thanks to a negligent decision made by the studio of going wide immediately, instead of doing limited release first.
Henry Fonda wanted everyone to see the film, but he wanted to gradually create revenue and that word of mouth would sell the film. But the studio thought otherwise. Nevertheless, it garnered a few awards during the season, including three nominations at the Oscars for Best Writing (Adapted) Rose, Best Director for Lumet, and Best Picture. It didn’t win any of them, but the name is marked in history books.
In the end, 12 Angry Men managed to survive the test of time, which is a worthier award. This film is beloved by the film community and casual movie watchers alike, because of its impact and the way it deals with themes that are still pertinent today.
Related: 1957 at the Academy Awards
This film changed me and changed the way I view cinema. I believe everyone should watch this film once (at least), not only because of the important social commentary, but also if you want to be a filmmaker.
Lumet is not any director, for many he is THE director. It’s no coincidence that one of the most important books any film student should read is Making Movies by Lumet. 12 Angry Men is easily a masterclass in acting, writing, and directing, especially when directing a film in a small and confined setting. The blocking is extraordinary, and that is no easy feat.
Whether you are going to become a director, a film critic, or simply love movies, 12 Angry Men is a must-watch. If you want to become a better person, 12 Angry Men is a must-watch. It helps you empathize better with people, especially to those that apparently don’t deserve it.
Every day I try to be the most I can, like Juror #8. It’s not easy, but it’s worth it. When I become like Juror #3 (it has happened, you know my tweets) I always feel uncomfortable afterwards, and I feel so tired… But when I do the contrary, I feel great and more energized.
Although there are more great movies out there, only for this reason, 12 Angry Men will always be my favorite film, because, like most movies (and art) should, it helps me become more human and a better person. I hope these words encourage all of you to seek that film that makes you feel better about yourself, and that help you be better people. In a world so chaotic, we need more of this. Hope this helps.
2 thoughts on “1957 in Film: 12 Angry Men”
Comments are closed.