Usually, when a movie is described as confined, the accessibility of the movie is called into question, and the average viewer tends to shift their thoughts onto the latest Hollywood epic instead. In fact, most of the time even film aficionados tend to avoid movies that feel stuck in one place, with the relief of outside exposure almost assuredly laying at the end of the picture, and there only. No lies though, that is EXACTLY what 12 Angry Men is, and that's EXACTLY what makes it brilliant, and upon seeing it for the first time, I'd recommend it over the latest glamorous retelling of history that Hollywood seems to constantly conjure up year after year.
12 Angry Men's setup isn't complicated at first. These men, like all people are at some point or another, are all called in for jury duty and must decide, in a 12 to nothing vote, whether the the defendant of a homicide case is guilty or not. The verdict pushes between freedom or the death penalty with no fidgeting room in between, laying the pressure down very hard on some of the "12." Simple enough so far, though the plot slowly develops throughout, utilizing excellent scriptwriting, acting, plot twists, and character development.
This movie just feels organic. The pacing is perfect though it never lets off the feeling of confinement, making the viewer both anticipate the end of the picture while greatly enjoying how it plays out while the suffering lasts. The characters represent several different personalities and just how varied opinions can be based on prior experience, attitudes, prejudices, and morals. There's a character here for everyone, and those that the viewer can't relate to will still provoke empathy at one part or another (besides one purposely aggravating character whom shall remain anonymous).
The script, as mentioned before, pits stroke after stroke of genius, performed to perfection by Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, and others, and provokes just the right reaction at just the right time for both the 12 and the audience. The only "flaw" I can think of is the fact that a lot of times the movie came down to reason why he should die reason why they can't be so sure with a plot twist argument to that argument to that, plus another plot twist and so on and so forth. It works wonders, but by the final argument conclusion I knew how it would play out down to the timing.
The movie pulls some long shots during the times of rest from the argument, with the first of which in the room lasting at least 5 minutes (though don't quote me on length, it's long though and consistent) which contrast with the quick camera changes during the argument, giving a relaxed, smooth feel when it should be, and a quick, sharp feel when necessary. The camerawork emphasizes what's important without forcing what it needs to in our faces, and never lets us forget just how confined we are through some well-portrayed camera angles. So overall, the camerawork is fitting in the most complementary way.
I had HIGH expectations for this movie going in, through all the constant praise it recieves and the performances it casts. My expectations were bested, and I can safely say this movie belongs in my top 20 at the very least. This is also my first experience with Sidney Lumet, and his movies Dog Day Afternoon and Network are high on my "must watch" list already.
9.5/10
One of my 5 favorite movies of all time, and Lumet is one of the best directors who ever lived, even if he wasn't always the most consistent. I love how as the film progresses it gets less and less about the case itself and more about the different classes, upbringings and beliefs in the jury room. Also Lumet's techniques to make the room feel smaller and smaller as the film progresses are subtle but genius. An absolute masterpiece and I'm glad you feel the same way.
ReplyDeleteNetwork and Dog Day Afternoon are both excellent as well, and in different ways. What all three movies have in common are a portrait of society and culture, and have fucking amazing performances.
The Verdict and Serpico are also excellent.