I got hold of a copy of 12 Angry Men a few years back. I am almost ashamed that it has taken me so long to sit down and watch it.
Let me begin be saying that its not the greatest film I have watched. The direction and acting[not that I am qualified to make such a statement] at a couple of places seems forced and awkward. However, if there has been a greater, more masterly exhibition of controlled acting, of sincere and honest direction, I haven't come across it.
The story and setting is simple enough. A crime has been committed, and the jury has to reach a unanimous decision regarding the the guilt or innocence of the accused. The entire film is shot in the room the jury holds its discussion in, and the adjoining facilities. The twelve jurors are from a variety of backgrounds, although none of them are black or female.
A youth has been accused of murdering his father, with the prosecutor having done a good job of making the case seem straightforward. The jury members are convinced that the youth had killed his father over an argument, and, in a matter of minutes, are ready to punish him with the death penalty. However, the eighth juror, played by Henry Fonda, has his doubts regarding the evidence and the witnesses' testimonies. What follows is an exhibition of deduction which Sherlock Holmes would have smiled at. With Fonda being the only juror against awarding the death penalty, he sets upon convincing his fellow jurors that there was reasonable doubt regarding the youth's involvement in the murder.
The cast as a whole does a magnificent job, but Fonda...ah, what a performance. The control he exhibits-not just as an actor, but as a person-while being ridiculed, his beliefs questioned, his intentions misunderstood, is awe-inspiring.
Fonda aside, the film had several aspects which made it so gripping. And I don't say gripping because it was an edge-of-the-seat thriller. It was gripping because of the multiple revelations and the effect it had on the jurors. Each juror required a different argument, a different piece of evidence to be torn to shreds by Fonda's reasoning and consider the fact there could be an element of doubt over the defendant's role in the crime. The diverse backgrounds of the jurors, the prejudices which are part of everyone's life, the passion and failings while waging a lost battle, all are on show and are instrumental in establishing the cultural context and the tension.
All in all, Sidney Lumet's directorial debut does not feel like a debut. To end with a dialogue delivered by Fonda: ''It's always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth. I don't really know what the truth is. I don't suppose anybody will ever really know. Nine of us now seem to feel that the defendant is innocent, but we're just gambling on probabilities - we may be wrong. We may be trying to let a guilty man go free, I don't know. Nobody really can. But we have a reasonable doubt, and that's something that's very valuable in our system. No jury can declare a man guilty unless it's sure. We nine can't understand how you three are still so sure. Maybe you can tell us.''
Let me begin be saying that its not the greatest film I have watched. The direction and acting[not that I am qualified to make such a statement] at a couple of places seems forced and awkward. However, if there has been a greater, more masterly exhibition of controlled acting, of sincere and honest direction, I haven't come across it.
The story and setting is simple enough. A crime has been committed, and the jury has to reach a unanimous decision regarding the the guilt or innocence of the accused. The entire film is shot in the room the jury holds its discussion in, and the adjoining facilities. The twelve jurors are from a variety of backgrounds, although none of them are black or female.
A youth has been accused of murdering his father, with the prosecutor having done a good job of making the case seem straightforward. The jury members are convinced that the youth had killed his father over an argument, and, in a matter of minutes, are ready to punish him with the death penalty. However, the eighth juror, played by Henry Fonda, has his doubts regarding the evidence and the witnesses' testimonies. What follows is an exhibition of deduction which Sherlock Holmes would have smiled at. With Fonda being the only juror against awarding the death penalty, he sets upon convincing his fellow jurors that there was reasonable doubt regarding the youth's involvement in the murder.
The cast as a whole does a magnificent job, but Fonda...ah, what a performance. The control he exhibits-not just as an actor, but as a person-while being ridiculed, his beliefs questioned, his intentions misunderstood, is awe-inspiring.
Fonda aside, the film had several aspects which made it so gripping. And I don't say gripping because it was an edge-of-the-seat thriller. It was gripping because of the multiple revelations and the effect it had on the jurors. Each juror required a different argument, a different piece of evidence to be torn to shreds by Fonda's reasoning and consider the fact there could be an element of doubt over the defendant's role in the crime. The diverse backgrounds of the jurors, the prejudices which are part of everyone's life, the passion and failings while waging a lost battle, all are on show and are instrumental in establishing the cultural context and the tension.
All in all, Sidney Lumet's directorial debut does not feel like a debut. To end with a dialogue delivered by Fonda: ''It's always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth. I don't really know what the truth is. I don't suppose anybody will ever really know. Nine of us now seem to feel that the defendant is innocent, but we're just gambling on probabilities - we may be wrong. We may be trying to let a guilty man go free, I don't know. Nobody really can. But we have a reasonable doubt, and that's something that's very valuable in our system. No jury can declare a man guilty unless it's sure. We nine can't understand how you three are still so sure. Maybe you can tell us.''
No comments:
Post a Comment