The Criterion Film Of The Week

[vader4]

I'll be watching 12 Angry Men this weekend. It will be nice to have a well focused discussion of this film. Looking forward to it.

[A Sith Lord?]

If someone has an extra 20% off B&N coupon that was e-mailed a few hours ago for this weekend, I'd love to use it to get Wings of Desire!

[Romulus]

I'm definitely down for this. Can't wait to watch 12 Angry Men again.

[Scottie]

Beginning at midnight, we will begin our discussions on the first Criterion Film Of The Week, 12 Angry Men.

[mrjohnnyb]

12 Angry Men

[Show spoiler]is unique to its genre. Whereas most legal system dramas depict their action in the courtroom, 12 Angry Men chooses the jury room. There is one major filming problem with this space: that jury room must become the film's universe. However, Sidney Lumet leaps this hurdle effortlessly, and at the same time gives the audience a quick-moving and entertaining story. It is for these reasons, that 12 Angry Men is an outstanding film worthy of being in the canon known as the Criterion Collection.

In constructing his universe, Lumet creates an environment that keeps filmgoers riveted. Starting with the use of interior long shots, he gradually brings the audience closer to the characters up until the question of the witness's eyeglasses. A series of close-ups bombard the screen; an "in your face" comment from jurors expressing their aforementioned wrath.

Swiftly, 12 Angry Men moves at a real-time, "break neck" pace that enlightens as it entertains. Audience members who have seen the film on numerous occasions are mildly shocked to realize that the ending comes quickly. With passionate dialogue and diverse characterization written by Reginald Rose, the script is like a civics lesson exemplified by a cross-section of American male types.

To sum up, 12 Angry Men presents itself creatively in the small space its drama unfolds. Additionally, its pacing keeps its audience "glued to the screen" and "fully entertained."

Favorite quote:
Juror #10: Listen to me. We're... This kid on trial here... his type, well, don't you know about them? There's a, there's a danger here. These people are dangerous. They're wild. Listen to me. Listen.
Juror #4: [quietly and firmly] I have. Now sit down and don't open your mouth again.

Favorite juror (other than Juror #8):
Juror #4

Funniest sight gag:
Juror #7 getting hit in the head by a crushed paper ball.

Funniest line:
What is this? "Love Your Underprivileged Brother" Week?

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by mrjohnnyb

[Show spoiler]12 Angry Men is unique to its genre. Whereas most legal system dramas depict their action in the courtroom, 12 Angry Men chooses the jury room. There is one major filming problem with this space: that jury room must become the film's universe. However, Sidney Lumet leaps this hurdle effortlessly, and at the same time gives the audience a quick-moving and entertaining story. It is for these reasons, that 12 Angry Men is an outstanding film worthy of being in the canon known as the Criterion Collection.

In constructing his universe, Lumet creates an environment that keeps filmgoers riveted. Starting with the use of interior long shots, he gradually brings the audience closer to the characters up until the question of the witness's eyeglasses. A series of close-ups bombard the screen; an "in your face" comment from jurors expressing their aforementioned wrath.

Swiftly, 12 Angry Men moves at a real-time, "break neck" pace that enlightens as it entertains. Audience members who have seen the film on numerous occasions are mildly shocked to realize that the ending comes quickly. With passionate dialogue and diverse characterization written by Reginald Rose, the script is like a civics lesson exemplified by a cross-section of American male types.

To sum up, 12 Angry Men presents itself creatively in the small space its drama unfolds. Additionally, its pacing keeps its audience "glued to the screen" and "fully entertained."

Favorite quote:
Juror #10: Listen to me. We're... This kid on trial here... his type, well, don't you know about them? There's a, there's a danger here. These people are dangerous. They're wild. Listen to me. Listen.
Juror #4: [quietly and firmly] I have. Now sit down and don't open your mouth again.

Favorite juror (other than Juror #8):
Juror #4

Funniest sight gag:
Juror #7 getting hit in the head by a crushed paper ball.

Funniest line:
What is this? "Love Your Underprivileged Brother" Week?

Excellent analysis. I'm really glad you included your favorite elements of the film, as I think it's great for discussion and it's great to see such diversity.

I will be rewatching my copy tomorrow and posting my review then. I do have some important issues that I want to touch upon that I think will be beneficial for discussion and further understanding.

[DasMarcos]

What a great idea for the forum! I'll rush to have it delivered via Netflix this week and hopefully I can at least get the tail end of the discussion.

[Enki2460]

12 Angry Men is my favorite Criterion that I have seen so far (not saying much though), so I am excited to give my 2 cents.

When I first started watching 12 Angry Men and all of the jurors were making small-talk in a tiny room, I thought I was going to be in for the long haul. However, I soon became enraptured by the progression of logic that swayed the jurors. Somehow, despite the ending never being in doubt, the movie manages to surprise the viewer repeatedly. Another thing that I really liked about the movie was that even the people who wanted to convict the suspect were made to appear sympathetic. In particular the viewer sympathizes with Juror #3, whose personality comes back to bite him again and again. I also really liked Juror #4 who was one of the most intelligent jurors but one of the last to change his vote. I even pitied Juror #10 for being so out of touch with the attitudes of a new era. But the highlights of the movie for me were the moments where seemingly ironclad evidence unraveled under the scrutiny of the jurors.

Favorite Juror:
Juror #9 – He was very observant and was willing to give Juror #8 a chance to explain himself when no one else would.

Favorite Quote:
#3: Let me go! I'll kill him! I'LL KILL HIM!
#8: You don't really mean you'll kill me, do you?

I hope that added to the discussion and did justice to one of my favorite movies.

[Supaclyde]

It's my absolute favorite movie of all time. I bought it during the 50% off flash sale a few months back. I think it's about time I watch it again.

I think it's funny how I was introduced to this movie. Does anyone remember the game Scene-It? I haven't played the game in years, but I remember it showing the scene with the knife and thinking "this movie looks awesome! what is it?" I forgot about it and watched it many years later in a film class in college and remember getting really giddy when I realized I had watched this scene before.

I love how simple the movie is. Aside from the first scene and last scene, it's all one room. No frills. Just gripping drama from the beginning to the end.

My favorite jurors are 5 & 9.

[Debbie Downer]

My favorite juror is the one Demi Moore played in "The Juror". But I like 12 Angry Men too. It's a good movie.

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by Debbie Downer

My favorite juror is the one Demi Moore played in "The Juror".

[Scottie]

In Sidney Lumet's 1957 courtroom drama, 12 Angry Men, twelve jurors are given the daunting task of deciding the fate of a young Spanish-American boy accused of murdering his father. The jurors must reach a unanimous decision before the end of the day and each person must be certain beyond a reasonable doubt. Should they find the boy guilty, he will be sentenced to death. Almost all of the film takes place inside the jury room in the courthouse. The jurors are placed into this room on the hottest day of the summer, where none of them actually want to be. Each individual seems to have their own agendas and would like a conclusion to be reached sooner, rather than later. What begins as a somewhat "easy" task, ends up turning into a grueling afternoon full of sweat, rampant emotions, and dissenting opinions. The important thing to take out of this film is that all it takes is one person to make a difference. By Juror #8 (portrayed by Henry Fonda) speaking up and not conforming to the expectations of his peers, the entire jury room was faced with confronting their differing opinions and their own personal troubles along the way.

12 Angry Men is a landmark in cinema history. While many may consider it to be the greatest courtroom drama (and general film) of all time, it was one of the earliest films that shifted the focus from the traditional setting of the courtroom to the jury room. I find it very ironic how we learn so much about each individual's character in such a short period of time, but we never learn something as simple as their names.

12 Angry Men has easily become a favorite film of mine. Not only does it have fantastic acting by each actor involved, but it has wonderful directing as well. With Sidney Lumet's exceptional directing abilities, specifically his keen eye for detail and the ability to capture the raw emotion on each character's face, we see how advanced he was for the time and how his directing styles would come into play in his later movies.

[mrjohnnyb]

Excellent observations.

Even though it is not directly stated, I believe that the defendant is Puerto-Rican. In the 1950's, thousands of Puerto-Ricans relocated to New York City, primarily in East Harlem where tenement rentals and public housing units were more affordable. This area soon became known as El Barrio and Spanish Harlem. (Ironically, it was previously known as Italian Harlem and was the headquarters for the Genovese crime syndicate.)

Four years after the release of 12 Angry Men, another film addressing the issue of racism, West Side Story, hit the silver screen. More appropriately, it should have been called East Side Story.

[octagon]

Well, I'm not used to supposin'. I'm just a workin' man. My boss does all the supposin', but I'll try one. Supposin' you talk us all out of this, and, uh, the kid really did knife his father? - Juror #6

This line underscores what is to me one of the most impressive things about this film. Not only did they take a fairly dry, technical topic (reasonable doubt/burden of proof) and turn it into a dynamic, dramatic debate. They also pulled off a pretty impressive storytelling sleight-of-hand in the process. And they did it without cheating.

At the end of this film you don't simply feel like the system worked. You feel like the good guys won. You feel like an innocent man was saved from the gallows (or electric chair, as the case might be).

But that was never established. In fact, there's a pretty good chance they let a guilty man go free.

Now, that was the correct verdict. The state did not meet its burden. There was not enough evidence to convict this guy. Acquittal in this case was definitely the right and proper outcome. Not because things were clear but because things weren't clear.

But on an emotional level it felt like it went well beyond that. Everything felt pretty clear cut toward the end. And they did it without any cheap, Perry Mason 'aha, he couldn't have done it' moments. They never let the audience off the hook with any simple, unambiguous conclusions.

And yet, we all wound up exactly where they were leading us the whole time.

I think that's very impressive.

[bluesilo]

I was first introduced to 12 Angry Men in a human behavior class in college. I had always heard wonderful things about the movie and knew it was in the top IMDB films of all time (back when that list meant everything to me).

The class brought up a lot of different ways to look at the film other than the already countless topics at hand. Not only social class, but racism, and family issues were big ticket items. At the beginning of the film when they do the first vote, look at juror #9. He's hesitant to raise his hand for the guilty verdict, but the peer pressure of not conforming with the group makes him raise his hand. When the ballot vote takes place that kind of pressure is diminished and thus he stands behind his not guilty vote.

There's other ways juror #8 begins to grow his alliances throughout. Juror #2 is weak willed and easily stepped on. When he tries to gain favor with the group by offer a cough drop, only #8 accepts the invite. When trying to decide whether the old man could've reached the door on time, #2 is quick to reciprocate the good will.

Most of the characters seem to have their own character traits and flaws that influence how they will vote. Even though he is conducting the votes, juror #1 feels like the most underdeveloped character. Sure we get his sense to lead, but outside of that he is fundamentally the least compelling juror in the film. There's something about juror #4 that makes him one of my favorites. I think it has to be that out of all the gentlemen there, he is most familiar with the upbringing the boy has had and proves that not all children who grow up in the slums are "trash".

For a movie with little pure action, it still builds up to feel like a final boss encounter. Only juror 3 has a pure claim on why he won't vote not guilty. Once he is defeated it is only the prejudice and self pity that leads the other two men to hold on to their vote. Having just seen Lee J Cobb in On The Waterfront it's interesting to see how his performances compare. Outside of Henry Fonda, he is easily the most vital part of the film and truly embodies the opposition.

There has always been wonder about whether the child was truly guilty or not. I read something recently that disallows the jury to conduct their own research into a case and thus would disqualify Henry Fonda from the vote because of the knife. It seems that almost everything that the prosecution had against the boy was all circumstantial evidence and nothing holds up against Inspection. To have a case this cut and dry would have to mean the kid is innocent right?

I hope I have contributed in a meaningful way. Ill leave with one more idea from human behavior... The final spoken words of the film are an introduction between juror 8 and 9. Almost sharing this information as a gift for initially supporting the not guilty verdict.

[jrmac2000]

Excellent idea, I'll,watch 12 angry men tonight!

[The Great Owl]

I discovered 12 Angry Men when I was in ninth grade, because my English teacher assigned the original teleplay to our class. I was fascinated by some of the more disturbing nuances of the jury deliberation process, such as the possibility that someone could be sentenced to death simply because a juror was in a hurry to get to an evening baseball game (or, in the instance of the teleplay, tickets to The Seven-Year Itch). The character interactions in this story reverberate with me, and I have remembered 12 Angry Men whenever I read about any given court case in the news.

12 Angry Men predominantly takes place in one small room, but makes resourceful use of external cues and props to amp the tension. A rainstorm rages outside the windows as the jury deliberations reach an intense split decision. A fan that is thought to be broken and is later found to work at the flip of a light switch symbolizes the gradual shift in assumptions and interpretations about the court case.

The greatest special effects, however, are the actors themselves. Henry Fonda shines in his cool-headed role as a juror who simply wants his peers to take pause and reflect on the case before passing judgement on the defendant. Lee J. Cobb, who excelled as Johnny Friendly in On the Waterfront a few years earlier, is brilliant with a stormy performance that reflects inner resentment. E.G. Marshall, whom I grew up watching as the unfortunate germaphobe in the final tale of Creepshow, is subdued, but fascinating in this film. Each of the 12 actors steps up to the plate at least once during the movie, and there are no minor wallflower roles.

12 Angry Men does not let the viewer off the hook by revealing any guilt or innocence on the part of the defendant, but it does shed a light on the importance of reasonable doubt with respect to criminal court cases. More importantly, the film is unflinching in its portrayal of how individual evaluations of any given situation are reflections of our own personal values, beliefs, and experiences. 12 Angry Men is needed now more than ever, in these present-day times of internet news interpretations where hyperbole often overrules thorough examination and where mob mentality casts a powerful allure.

The Criterion Blu-ray of 12 Angry Men is blessed with a superb transfer that gives us a feel of heat and sweat in an uncomfortable enclosed room where rain pours outside. The inclusion of the teleplay version is a welcome feature.

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by bluesilo

There's other ways juror #8 begins to grow his alliances throughout. Juror #2 is weak willed and easily stepped on. When he tries to gain favor with the group by offer a cough drop, only #8 accepts the invite. When trying to decide whether the old man could've reached the door on time, #2 is quick to reciprocate the good will.

That's an excellent observation and I never really thought about it that way. He was always trying to win over the favor of others by doing such subtle things as offering cough drops.

I guess that's why John Fiedler went on to voice Piglet from Winnie The Pooh. Excellent choice if you ask me. That's all I can see when I watch 12 Angry Men, though haha.

Also, does everybody agree that Jason Segel is probably Lee J. Cobb's long lost son?

[mrjohnnyb]

Originally Posted by bluesilo

Even though he is conducting the votes, juror #1 feels like the most underdeveloped character. Sure we get his sense to lead, but outside of that he is fundamentally the least compelling juror in the film.

I suppose if you were really measuring development, you can make an argument that Juror #1 was the least developed. He does, however, have some revealing moments: 1- the scene where he almost loses his composure when he believes that the other jurors do not think he is doing a good job as foreman, 2- his dialogue with Juror #8 about being a high school football coach (usually, a teacher), and 3- his comments regarding voting procedure and evidence retrieval.

Originally Posted by bluesilo

There's something about juror #4 that makes him one of my favorites. I think it has to be that out of all the gentlemen there, he is most familiar with the upbringing the boy has had and proves that not all children who grow up in the slums are "trash".

I believe that you are referring to Juror #5 (played by Jack Klugman). Juror #4, who is my particular favorite, was played by E.G. Marshall.

[bluesilo]

Originally Posted by iScottie

Also, does everybody agree that Jason Segel is probably Lee J. Cobb's long lost son?

[Show spoiler]

They look amazingly similar in that photo.

I sort of have this weird feeling that young Jack Klugman and young Dustin Hoffman look similar, but that could be just me remembering Klugman from his other roles.

@MrJohnnyB

Yes I did mean Juror #5 in this case then. I was trying to remember them from seating last night, but must've confused them.