12 Angry Men

I'm always a tad anxious to revisit the very old classics and it's rare that I do so. I'm not sure exactly why, because I've yet to be truly burned aside from maybe some more mediocre James Bond films. 

There are still several on my list - Citizen Kane seems to be the one I'm avoiding - but 12 Angry Men has been longstanding. Knowing next to nothing about it aside from the broad concept and historical "near perfect" rating consensus, I finally decided to seek it out. I'm not always the biggest fan of single-location films, but the script and performances have always been touted highly with 12 Angry Men. 

Watching this film for the first time 67 (!) years after it released is somewhat remarkable because of how well it holds up when many other pictures from that time have disintegrated in meaning simply due to being from a different era. However - most striking - was how relevant I found 12 Angry Men to today's discourse landscape, particularly with politics. 

Our story centers around 12 jurors who are sent to make a final decision on a hot summer day. A guilty verdict would send a teenage boy to the electric chair for murder, while a verdict of innocence would let him be set free. The entire film takes place in the confines of the basic courtroom's jury quarters and is simply 12 men arguing around a table, sweating (so much sweat), for 90ish minutes. Upon their first vote, they find 11 to be convinced of the boy's guilt and a lone juror, Henry Fonda, who has questionable doubt - enough to vote innocence - that the group must reconcile with in order to reach a unanimous decision. Part courtroom drama, part character study, part mystery who-dun-it, and part modern day commentary, 12 Angry Men is a deep, rich film. 

I can see why it ranks as one of the best films of all time as it was truly a film ahead of its own. 

Each man is unique enough that you begin to pick up small details on them and it creates a room that can be both tense and one you'll find yourself rooting for. These small elements, expertly crafted by both the script and the performances, help to facilitate a movie and plot that is far more engaging than it has any right to be. I was often hanging on every word and every point proved or attack delivered. Throughout our story, our group uses critical thinking to challenge the "facts". It breaks them down to better understand, and while others hold steadfast to their beliefs, despite being proven blatantly otherwise, you will begin to be amazed how relevant the film remains throughout time. Partially depressing is the politeness (most of the time) with which this group disagrees with one another...certainly something that wouldn't happen in this day and age. Though, with Angry in the title, there are some outbursts at key points that build the drama. 

12 Angry Men is spotless every way you look at it. The cinematography in such a small setting is continuously effective, and sometimes striking. It captures those delivering monologue when that matters and people's reactions to it when that may be more important. The script is quick, smart, and feels organic...probably the element that felt the most ahead of its time in terms of quality. And it's sold beautifully by every performance. There're no weak links, but there are shining beacons in Henry Fonda (the lone "innocent" at the beginning), Lee J. Cobb (the most aggressive "guilty" believer), and E.G. Marshall (a man of fact who believes "guilty"). Even things as simple as the attire each man is wearing help to build their character without any backstory. 

12 Angry Men is the definition of a timeless classic. It's Old Hollywood and an old movie, sure, but one that holds up insanely well nearly 7 decades later. I'm still a bit in awe of how much it gripped me, and how talented it is at all the "little" stuff to make such an effective, yet simple movie, so damn great.  

Retro Rath's Review Score |

10/10 - Instant Classic