‘12 Angry Men‘ is the debut film of director Sidney Lumet. Reginald Rose (who is the author of the script and the television play that inspired it) and Henry Fonda, the independent producers of the film, took a risk by entrusting him with the making of this film. They were probably inspired, based on the few television drama productions that Lumet had made up to that point, and on the fact that the film’s format was a minimalist one, based very much on the text and the actors’ performance, precisely at a time when historical blockbusters were more fashionable in Hollywood (and in Europe). Their bet turned out to be a winner, but in the long run. ‘12 Angry Men‘ did not win any Academy Award (it was nominated for three) and did not sell many tickets. Over time, however, the film gained prestige and influence, being considered today a classic and a cinematic reference of a genre that never ceases to fascinate. Rewatching it almost 70 years after its release, I found it to be a timely and magnetizing spectacle.
How relevant is the story of the ‘12 Angry Men‘ today, the story of the deliberations of a jury composed of 12 white men (the word diversity had not yet entered the political or legal vocabulary) who must decide the fate (i.e. life or death) of a young man – perhaps belonging to an unspecified ethnic minority – accused of murdering his father? In any judicial system in which the presumption of innocence of the accused is a fundamental principle, I believe that this dilemma is and will be current. That is why ‘12 Angry Men‘ has generated a number of sequels that transport the problem to other times and sometimes to other places. It can be said that the script starts from two idealistic premises that are very American at first glance, but also universal if we think beyond the place and time in which the story takes place: the trust that the legal system – even if it is not infallible – can do justice and the belief that one single individual can matter, at the extreme he can even save a group or a community from committing fatal mistakes, provided that he is armed with faith in justice and the power of argument.
The very fact that the institution of the court grants the jurors, that is, people who can make mistakes driven by superficial information or their own prejudices, the right to decide, makes the interaction between the characters more important. We don’t even know their names most of the time, but it is clear that each of them comes with their own emotional baggage and personal life experience. This is, in my opinion, the strength of this film. Sidney Lumet knew how to select and direct his team of actors so that each of them outlines a distinct person and personality. The group dynamics are excellently captured, from the first to the last scene. Over 90% of the film takes place in the same room, the jury deliberation room, but this space seems to change its dimensions as we advance in the debates. To achieve this effect, Lumet and cinematographer Boris Kaufman gradually lowered the angles of the filming. The combination of what the actors do and the way they are filmed makes us feel that we are present, as spectators, in the same overheated room, witnesses of the dramatic debates. Henry Fonda has created a role here that defined his entire career, but the entire team of actors is superb, including the better-known Lee J. Cobb and Martin Balsam, or the extraordinary E.G. Marshall and Joseph Sweeney. Even though most of the action takes place outside the courtroom, ‘12 Angry Men‘ is the ultimate court drama, a reference and inspiration for cinema and the idea of justice.