BY MCKAY DAINES
12 Angry Men, a film by Sidney Lumet, is a “penetrating, sensitive and sometimes shocking dissection of the hearts and minds of men who obviously are something less than gods” (Weiler). As well as being his directorial debut, the film was the first in a long line of penetrating, controversial films by Lumet, and is currently in the top 25 movies of all time (Ebert). Despite keeping the film set in a single room, Lumet controls the mood of the movie through masterful use of cinema tools and directorial skill; better than movies that have whole galaxies and millions of dollars with which to set the tone. The general message of the film is one of success, and the power of morality – essentially, the power of the individual human spirit. In the beginning, these values are easily seen. However, as the film develops, the message gradually mutates into a cynical display of mob mentality – how people will first rashly decide their answers to a life-or-death situation, then change these decisions based not on evidence or personal conviction, but on an impulse to avoid standing out from the rest of the herd.
Sidney Lumet’s first work as lead director is one of the clearest and most masterful uses of camera angles and lenses, scenery, and progression that I have seen. The film is the story of a twelve-man jury deliberating the case of an eighteen-year old boy who is accused of murdering his father. Aside from an opening and concluding scene with the court, and a single view of the accused, the whole movie takes place in a single room. The jury initially vote guilty by a count of eleven to one, and eventually change their vote to not guilty. The genius of the movie comes not from the trial; in fact, we never know if the accused is guilty or not. Lumet’s mastery lies in his depicting of the jury and how he gradually shows us their true colors, dropping pretenses and civility. He does a world-class job of using camera lenses, scenery, and even costumes to show the passage of time and to increase tension. By changing the focal length of the lenses used as the movie developed, he caused the background to “shrink” – increasing tension and a feeling of claustrophobia. In addition to the focal length, he shot the movie in thirds – the first third above eye level, the second at eye level, and the third below eye level, increasing the levels of tension felt (Ebert). The jury room table becomes increasingly cluttered as deliberation drags on and the characters, increasingly disheveled. Lumet uses the table as both a barrier and a tool of unification. By placing the table between arguing jury members, or placing two agreeing jurors behind it, he effectively uses it to shift allegiances and update arguments throughout the film. In addition, the table facilitates a one-sided perspective while an argument against a juror is heard but not seen. These tools add to the general tension of the scene, the gradual wearing down of societal guidelines and revealing the true nature of each member of the jury.
This film is undeniably a masterful work of art, and is one of my personal favorites. The entire cast of the movie deliver moving and accurate performances – they become the characters they appear to be. Lumet had a two-week long rehearsal of the entire film before even beginning filming, adding a depth to characters and emotions that is rarely seen in films (IMDB). The cinematographical genius, compelling story, gripping acting, and unique setting all make this movie belong in the lists of the greatest films created.
While I love the film, and consider it a masterpiece, I feel that its central message is not one of individual accomplishment and moral victory, as is traditionally argued. Henry Fonda plays the lone juror that feels there is enough doubt to at least seriously consider the choice placed before them. Although his urging is quickly ridiculed and decried, a fellow juror changes his mind in the following vote. This cycle is repeated with varying intensity until the verdict of not guilty is reached. It is the speed of this cycle that leads me to an alternate meaning. At first, the jury is nearly unified in their decision on the fate of the eighteen-year old. At a certain point in the vote – near an even split – the rate of change picks up dramatically. The characters display blatant personal prejudices, vindictive voting, and other demeaning personal traits as the deliberation rolls on. Many who have seen this movie view this scene as a breakdown of injustice, and the beginning of honest deliberation from the jury. I, however, see it as the ugly display of the human tendency to make snap decisions and to agree with the group in power. There are exceptions to every rule, and this movie is no exception. The whole confrontation is brought about by one man’s personal conviction or stubbornness. But on a whole, the film pulls back the curtain on society’s mirror and reminds us that, in spite of our noble pretensions, we will discard our personal convictions and opinions if the majority demands it.
Leave a Comment
No comments yet.
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
