THE INDISPENSIBLES - #19: TWELVE ANGRY MEN
Asides from an ever so brief introduction and a closing scene on the court steps outside, Sidney Lumet’s Twelve Angry Men takes place entirely within the confines of a small New York City jury room, on “the hottest day of the year”. We follow twelve men in conversation, only this conversation carries the fate of a young defendant charged with murdering his father. The trial itself is never seen. We, the audience, have to gather all the evidence we need to come to our own conclusions only by what we hear come from these twelve men inside this small, sweaty room. And it’s all shot in black and white!
What shouldn’t work, evolves on the basis of sublime performances (Henry Fonda’s work here is my absolute favourite of everything he has done!) and solid, simple direction by Sidney Lumet - making his feature film debut with this - into something just about positively perfect.
Twelve Angry Men is quite simply one of the best films from the 50s and the greatest stage-to-screen adaptation you could be lucky enough to encounter. A Few Good Men deserves a mention in this regard also, but Lumet’s 1957 is the daddy, or should I say “granddaddy” of this subgenre!
The story is based on a television play by Reginald Rose, later made into a movie by Sidney Lumet, with Rose and Henry Fonda acting as co-producers and putting up their own money to finance it. It was later, rather pointlessly, remade as a TV movie in the late 90s by William Friedkin with an impressive cast but which added nothing to justify its existence. Although seeing Jack Lemmon essay the role made famous by Fonda and making it his own, reminds us of what a truly wonderful actor he was. One of the best.
As an irrelevant aside, whilst I was out in Australia trying to make it as a stand-up comedian, touring the various festival circuits, I got spotted on stage by a guy who thought he might have a “job” for me and that I was to meet him the next day. I went to a bar that next day and he talked about how he liked my act and thought I’d be good for this thing he was working on. He said he was bringing Twelve Angry Men to the stage.
“Again?” I asked.
“What do you mean by ‘again’?” he replied.
“Well, it was a famous play in the 50s.” I offered. “You know, before it was a movie?”
“I didn’t know that!” he said.
It could only go downhill from there right? I asked him where he was thinking of putting it on and when. He replied that it would be the following month at the very comedy club I was performing at. I told him that I didn’t see how I would fit into his cast because I was twenty-one (at the time) and the play is about middle-aged men, by and large. I also told him that I didn’t see Twelve Angry Men working for a comedy crowd. It was ostensibly a drama after all.
“Don’t worry. My flat mate and me are writing it as a comedy!”
I exited soon after, with hollow offers of “good luck” and “hope it goes well”, but got as far away from the mere idea of it. What is the moral or point of this story? Well… that play went on to become Jersey Boys and I have been crying myself to sleep ever since. Nah, only kidding. The moral is that I loved that movie so much that I could not have allowed myself to have any part in trying out a “comedy” version. Twelve Angry Men is beyond such bastardising. Let’s get back on track shall we?
Like a fair few films in this series, the original Twelve Angry Men took time to be appreciated for what it is. When it was released in 1957, Technicolor was the “in” thing and the movies were expected to be as much about the production design and overall ‘look’ as they were about the story and performances. Twelve Angry Men was black-and-white, set in one location, sparsely decorated and to say that it was “word heavy” is to define the term “under-statement” It did not make an impression at the box office. This was in spite of absolutely glorious reviews. The Internet Movie Database and the AFI now consider it, rightly, to be one of the best films of all time.
Twelve Angry Men is a film devoid of action. It is tense and enthralling but this comes from dialogue, and only dialogue. But this dialogue is so rich and so well written that you are on the very edge of your seat, engulfed in every word, like it is some sort of adrenaline pumping action thriller. The tension comes from things we take for granted and not many other films spare even a thought on – words and how they’re used, personality conflicts and body language.
The movie lasts ninety-five minutes and I still argue to this day that it is intended to play out in real-time. During this time we sit in the company of men defined in terms of their personalities, occupations / backgrounds and prejudices. We never know their names (we get only fleeting mention of the surnames of Fonda and Joseph Sweeney’s characters in the final minute of the movie) and only see them as Jurors 1, 2, 3 and so on. We encounter evidence and information as and when it is presented or addressed within the room and within the confines of the debate between these men as and when it happens. Twelve Angry Men is absolutely meticulous in this regard, making sure that no stone is left unturned in making sure the facts are not only heard, but weighed by these jurors in the manner you would hope when a young man’s life hangs in the balance.
It has passed into movie-making lore that Lumet increased the sense of tension within the room and for us the viewer by having the walls of the jury room set placed on moveable wheels so that as events played out, he slowed brought the walls in a little closer so that the feeling of claustrophobia was increased. This is not true. Lumet did make the room appear smaller and smaller as the film went on, but it was done – thanks to him being the true master that he is – by using the camera and the variety of camera lens to his advantage. To make the room seem smaller as the story continued, he gradually changed to lenses of longer focal lengths, so that the backgrounds seemed to close in on the characters.
It was techniques like that, that would mark Lumet out as a true master in the field of cinema. Just spare a second to go and look up his filmography. He would follow on from this movie with unarguable masterpieces like Serpico, Prince of the City, Fail-Safe, Network, Dog Day Afternoon and, of course, possibly his best film, The Verdict.
Twelve Angry Men -is the film that gave his talent to us though. So we hold it in higher affection then the others. When people talk about the “good old era” of movie making, when it wasn’t about ‘trailer moments’, demographics, CGI and which superhero hasn’t been adapted for the screen yet, Twelve Angry Men is the ‘poster-boy’ for that period they are referring to.
Related Posts:
- THE INDISPENSIBLES - #7: THE VERDICT
- [Movie Review] NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
- [MOVIE REVIEW] NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
- THE INDISPENSIBLES - #22: THIS IS SPINAL TAP
- THE INDISPENSIBLES - #16: DO THE RIGHT THING
4 Responses to “THE INDISPENSIBLES - #19: TWELVE ANGRY MEN”
Brilliant film. Good stuff Gazz - some great choices so far.
Absolutely fantastic film, I’ve only seen it the once, have to rewatch it again. I remember at the time I’d set myself the challenge of writing a script that was set in one room and rented this out to see if it could be done. After I saw it I said “Oh, it can,” and realised that I’d never even come close to writing something fractionally as good as this and promptly abandoned the script.
Sadly though, it seems juries that thoroughly examine the evidence and methodically go through every detail are a rarity from a few books I’ve been reading lately. David Simon has a great bit about ‘em in Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets. Every jury should have a Henry Fonda character to make sure that they’re not just throwing out a verdict because they want to get home and catch the new episode of Lost.
Thanks Nomis, it’s a bit ‘broad’ in the next couple of choices - or so I have been told but stick with it, it gets personal again soon after… and that’s the best way, for me, if I have a personal attachment instead of just writing “They’re ace, and its unarguable, that is all” which is admittedly the case with Issues 18 and 17.
Oh, and NotorietyH, for “injustices” you should check out Issue #23 of this very series. That will make your heart and your brain hurt like crazy!
Trackbacks
What's Your Opinion?