It's Hot in Here and We Need to Get to a Ballgame (12 Angry Men)

Mr. Lumet (no French-sounding silent T in his name), I would feel badly calling this your best work, because it would imply that you rushed out of the gates too quickly. With works like Dog Day Afternoon, Murder on the Orient Express, Network and others - it's tough to say it's your best work. However, it's greatness can not be denied. 12 Angry Men boasts an all-star cast by any standards with Henry Fonda anchoring it by doing what he does best - wearing the white suit (no offense Once Upon a Time in the West). The movie does so many things so well, that it's hard to know where to begin.

Not having much background knowledge about 12 Angry Men, I started analyzing the film from the very start. The opening scene in the courtroom. I noticed the jury box and, what I could assume, were the 12 Angry Men for which the film was titled. At first, I wanted to rename the film, 12 Angry Men and 1 Angry Woman. The woman being me due to the fact I noticed zero woman in the group as this story takes place when women were not allowed to serve on a jury.

Taking time to move past that, I also assumed the film would take place in one room. In this instance, it did...for the most part. Very true to theatre, everything happened within a set timeframe within the courthouse. Also, following suit, the cast consisted of the 12 Angry Men...no more and no less. This allows for an intimacy with each character as time progresses and characters reveal themselves. This also begins right away as, what was thought to be, a quick and easy decision between 12 men deviates without warning. A bold move to vote in a way that differs from everyone else in the group. There are shouts of bothersome discontent about the vote and very little empathy. My favorite response to this is when Fonda's character states that he doesn't know if the defendent is not guilty therefore leaving a reasonable doubt. The scenes following include the process of exploring the defendent's story from start to finish as if there could be a reasonable doubt. Besides the breadth of the defendent's story, I believe the concept of Group Think and basic social behaviors are also examined. Other people affecting our opinions and if there was an anonymous voting process would our vote change. Fonda's character allowed for that window of doubt, worry, concern, and awareness. Men began looking inward and reflecting upon family. Some began opening their minds to possible motives that aren't black and white.

In talking with Alicia, she's made the point that at the end of the movie, we don't know if the right decision has been made by this jury. She implies that she wonders if the boy is guilty - but I would have to argue that it doesn't matter. Reasonable doubt was established - which is all the boy needed for his freedom. Here's the point. The all-star cast walked into that room - minus one - deciding the boy was guilty due to reasons that had little to do with candid examination of the evidence. Their attention spans were on to the next thing - which is what I think Lumet illustrated so well and may have been a visionary in considering the fate of American Society. After all, is a trial determined by a jury of your peers fair if all your peers don't take the time to consider key points - or consider points that have no bearing on the case. In considering those things - this is where Juror Number 8/Davis is our hero. He plants the seed for other to consider reasonable doubt - which is what any of those men should have stopped to consider.

Besides the strength of the script which considers timely social relevance, Lumet's direction and the ensemble cast is tremendous. There's a reason that this movie is deservingly ranked as #9 on the IMDB list of great movies. Lumet gives us the feeling of being locked in the room with the men who want to leave - and at first, we feel anxious. There's a sense that we don't know where things are going. We're not really sure if we want to see it through, but something in the back of our head drives us to spend just a few more minutes listening and watching. And the subtlety with which Fonda poses the inital questions that bothered him throughout the trial illustrates the skills we'd seen on the silver screen for twenty years. As we fast forward to the future, we see many of these actors go on to win countless awards - some for Lumet's work. He said, "It's a multiple viewer." I can honestly say when I've seen it on TV, I've stopped and watched scenes. Lumet and Fonda fans need to own this. However, other than that - I'd say watch and decide for yourself.

I appreciate the topic explored and I would be curious to watch this story unfold on stage as part of a live performance. The courage of Juror Number 8 equals success, influential power, and more importantly, justice.