Laura’s Rating: 2.5/5 Stars
Yikes. Everyone seems to love this movie and rave about it but I guess I must have missed something… Here’s my honest take on 12 Angry Men.
The Analysis:
The movie is famous for taking place almost exclusively in one room of the courthouse. As jurors debate the innocence of a young man, the singular setting makes the conversations feel separate from the outside world. The tightly contained room adds a sense of pressure and intensity. This feeling is compounded by the fact that it is the hottest day of the year and the 12 jurors are literally and figuratively feeling the heat to make a huge decision about a young man’s fate. The storm outside and the sweat pouring down the faces of the jurors are great illustrations of how they are feeling inside. The movie highlights the sacred American concept of “reasonable doubt” and also the heavy severity of bringing down a guilty verdict in a death penalty case.
Henry Fonda’s performance as Juror 8 is commendable and I appreciated his character’s willingness to go against the grain and question what seemed obvious to all the other jurors. His character is never rude or presumptuous. He calmly and methodically both listens to his fellow jurors while also exploring the possibilities of flaws in the testimony or assumptions. He is the example of a model juror, demanding discussion before a decision and emphasizing that the burden of proof is on the prosecution and the accused is “innocent until proven guilty”.
Some of the other characters are less fervent in their beliefs about justice, but do begin to challenge each other’s ideas. There are some great one line zingers directed at the most bull-headed of the jurors.
Juror 3 discussing the accused: “Bright? … He don’t even speak good English!
Other Juror: “He doesn’t even speak good English…”
Nice one! My critique is that the personalities of the jurors paired with their opinions seemed a bit obvious. Of course the quiet, polite man is the first to assume the accused is not guilty. Of course the gentle elderly man comes around to his side next. Of course, the loud, angry men are the hold-outs. It just feels like they hit you over the head with the negative qualities of those assuming guilt, while emphasizing the likability of those assuming the possibility of innocence.
12 Angry Men was billed to me as a fantastic courtroom drama and just sharing that I was watching it provoked several excited responses from people on instagram. The movie has also been selected for the National Film Registry and appears on a couple lists from the American Film Institute. However, after watching, I can only describe my feelings in one word: underwhelmed. The poster for the movie literally says “It explodes like 12 sticks of dynamite!” Did I miss the explosion? I would argue that there is hardly a climax to the movie at all.
Conversation heavy movies can be interesting, but a movie with lots of dialogue and little action runs the risk of becoming boring. Unfortunately, that was the case for me with 12 Angry Men. I found it challenging to focus on the movie and then there was virtually no payoff for the hour plus of discussion and debate. Despite a few good elements, the movie fell flat for me and is definitely not a favorite of mine.
Comments