SAVAGE CINEMA REVISITS: "12 ANGRY MEN" (1957)

"12 ANGRY MEN" (1957)
Story and Screenplay Written by Reginald Rose
Directed by Sidney Lumet

“It’s the face. A face is just as compelling by a wall as it is next to a mountain. A movie is about a revelation in human nature."
-Sidney Lumet, 2005 interview on Turner Classic Movies

On April 9, 2011, the world of cinema lost one of its creative giants, Mr. Sidney Lumet, who passed away at the age of 86 from lymphoma.

For lovers of the cinema, his passing is a seismic one as he leaves a creative hole, the likes of which cannot be filled in the exact same way ever again. He was the quintessential “New York” filmmaker who was conceptually fearless with his attention to issues of social justice as well as the darkest corners of the human soul, all of which were filtered through his extremely notable attention to and relationship with actors, eliciting performances worth their weight in gold time and again. Thankfully for us, we are left with Lumet’s rich film legacy of over 40 films which include, and are not limited to “Serpico” (1973), “Dog Day Afternoon” (1975), “Network” (1976), “The Wiz” (1979), “Deathtrap” (1982), “The Verdict” (1982) and his final film “Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead” (2007). Any filmmaker would be honored to have made just any one of those titles and to think Sidney Lumet made them all and more. The man, his artistry and cinematic vision will be tremendously missed.

Recently on the Turner Classic Movies cable channel, I stumbled upon a Lumet film I have seen several times and have always found myself instantly caught up deeply inside its brilliance. On that particular night, I found myself enraptured once again in the dialogue, the intensity, and those incredible faces, all presented in the sparsest of settings and the starkness of black and white cinematography. In tribute to the great Sidney Lumet, I am so proud to revisit his debut film, “12 Angry Men.”

By now, the plot of “12 Angry Men” must be of the most familiar but just in case there are those who have not ever experienced this masterwork, I offer you the main storyline. 12 jurors, after hearing the final deliberations in a courtroom, retire to the sweltering Jury Room to deliberate whether a teenage boy from a city slum indeed stabbed and murdered his own Father in cold blood. Henry Fonda stars as Juror #8, initially the lone juror who issues a vote of “Not Guilty” and then spends the entirety of the film intensively questioning and re-questioning the facts and potential doubts of the case with his fellow jurors.

Alongside Fonda’s Juror #8, we share counsel with Juror #1/the Foreman (Martin Balsam), the observant elderly Juror #9 (Joseph Sweeney), the indifferent and passionate baseball fan Juror #7 (Jack Warden), the immigrant watchmaker Juror #11 (George Voskovec), the man who once grew up in the slums Juror #5 (Jack Klugman), the fastidious stockbroker and cool tempered Juror #4 (E.G. Marshall) and the explosively volatile Juror #3 (Lee J. Cobb), among others. Without any names, and solely through the details of the case, we are given a window into the world of these men, their personalities, prejudices, failures, and unforgiving judgments as they all struggle to reach a unanimous decision concerning the fate of a boy none of them knows.

Compulsively watchable, Sidney Lumet’s “12 Angry Men” is a compelling and electrifying experience fueled by an exquisite screenplay by Reginald Ross, and flawless performances from the entire cast. While Henry Fonda is the film’s anchor and serves as the film’s moral compass and greatest conscience, and Lee J. Cobb operates as the film’s primary antagonist, their performances would mean absolutely nothing if not for the other ten men that surround them. The work of the cast is the definition of “symbiotic” as there are no wasted words, gestures, or moments at any point and Lumet works with his cast with the ease of a grand master, a fact that continued to surprise me as, again dear readers, this was Lumet’s first film!

As I re-watched this film, I often found myself pondering which movie was the very first to utilize the conceit of exploring complex social issues and human nature within an enclosed setting. Certainly “12 Angry Men” could not have been the very first to utilize this technique but Lumet crafted his film in such an individualistic fashion that it often feels like the first of its kind. Perhaps that feeling is because it is a film that has been often imitated, referenced, re-made as episodes of various televisions series or even as another film in its own right.

As you all know so very well, my love for John Hughes’ library detention set of “The Breakfast Club” (1985) is endless but I am curious if Lumet’s classic, in any way, was a direct influence to Hughes as he conceived his ode to adolescence. Or how about Spike Lee’s beautiful and criminally underseen “Get On the Bus” (1996), the story of a group of African-American men traveling by bus to the Million Man March? That film, mostly set within the bus and filled top to bottom with conversations and revelations, provided us with an enormously profound and entertaining microcosm of the African-American community, and presented in the way that only Spike Lee knows how to deliver. Lee’s knowledge of film is encyclopedic and it would not be terribly far fetched to wonder if Lumet’s work had an influence, in regards to working within the tight visual space of a cross-country road trip and keeping the conversations flowing freely and in a completely naturalistic fashion.

In “12 Angry Men,” I loved how effortlessly Sidney Lumet explored the ever shifting social rules of peer pressure and how those rules extend themselves so far beyond the world of the playground or the high school hallways. Just watch the very first public vote of “Guilty/Not Guilty” at the outset of their deliberation, and watch which men immediately raise their hands to the other men who are obviously watching the responses of others. Then, view how the same men react during a secret ballot vote that occurs later in the film and view how bravery often emerges in silence and hiding.

I truly loved watching Klugman’s quiet and non-confrontational Juror #5 gain emerge from follower to one who eventually stands his ground. The meek, balding, bespectacled and nearly effeminate voiced Juror #2, as played by character actor John Fiedler was also a character I enjoyed seeing grow from one who is disregarded and even bullied into a man who discovers his courage and refuses to relinquish it. On the flipside are the domineering characters who find their comeuppance including one racist who is unilaterally put into his place.

Visually, I just continued to be impressed with how Lumet refused to be intimidated by a set that was this enclosed and small. With the exception of the opening and closing sequences and a short scene set inside of the jury room lavatory, the entire film is set and staged in the jury room, making for an experience that is taut, tight, and at times claustrophobic. You can almost feel the heat, humidity and stench of that room through osmosis and when Jack Warden finally gets the room fan to operate, you can instantly feel the breeze in the air, easing the tension just a bit. Brilliant!

Yet, the power the film holds conceptually is its greatest gift. While the film is now 54 years old, it could not be any more relevant in the 21st century. Truly an amazing feat as “12 Angry Men” also almost functions as an artifact of a very different period in our collective world history. As I watched, I found myself wondering if this film could even be made today considering the disintegrating status of our political discourse and our increasingly cynical and downright apathetic attitudes about justice, fairness, equality, the law, the role of government and our role within the government. On a deeper humane level, with the nature of our prejudices, has anything really changed at all over the years? The period of Lumet’s “12 Angry Men” is a time when irony and a certain jadedness did not rule the day, especially as the film is set within a pre-Vietnam, Watergate, political assassinations, Iran Contra, 9/11, Iraq war America. And yet, the clear principles of morality, ethics and humanity contained within this seemingly archaic film still hold firm and blindingly true.

Nearly three years ago, I was chosen for Jury Duty and like most everyone I have ever known, the thought of the task of having my life disrupted to take part in some case I just did not know or care about was disheartening to say the least. I followed the instructions to call during my required period of time to see if I had to report, always breathing a sigh of relief when the female computer voice on the other end of the phone line informed me that my services were not required for the time being.

But then, my number came up and grudgingly, I had to report for duty.

While my case was nothing nearly as lurid as a murder trial, I was chosen to serve on a Federal hearing involving monetary fraud. Over four days, I sat with thirteen others strangers in a quiet, comfortable and almost sleep inducing courtroom listening to one testimony after another and taking copious notes in the process. In addition to struggling with being unable to speak of the case in any way whenever we were released from the courtroom, I was struck by how difficult the act of listening and remaining focused actually is, as mountainous information was disseminated.

During one break as we all stretched in the Jury Room, the court clerk, a kind, diligent and extremely cheerful middle aged Hispanic woman arrived to offer some moments of conversation. She informed us of how she became a citizen of the United States, the process, the exam and most importantly, the pride she felt when she accomplished her goals. She further went on to express how fortunate we were to be able to have this opportunity to not only witness but to take an active role in our country’s judicial process. That this experience was a privilege not everyone has the chance to partake in and it was through her palpable enthusiasm and unshakable passion that I began to re-evaluate the experience in which I was chosen to participate.

This case was not designed to be an inconvenience to me and my life and responsibilities and I should not treat it as such. People, whose finances were swindled away, needed to have their day in court, their day to have their voices heard, to be represented and to hopefully be vindicated. By the time I discovered that I was an alternate, who ultimately did not have to serve in the final deliberation process, I had to admit to being disappointed that I was not able to see the experience through to its natural conclusion. It was anti-climactic certainly making for an experience that felt like a large puzzle that was completed except for one solitary piece lost forever. (And to not leave any lose ends for any of you, dear readers, the defendant in that case was correctly found guilty!)

As I watched “12 Angry Men” this time, that particular personal story flew to the forefront of my mind as Lumet’s messages became clearer than ever. Lumet urgently argues that we should not take the duties of our government and especially our judicial process for granted. As symbiotic as the performances within the film are to each other, we are symbiotic as a species, especially within a courtroom when we are called on to represent the law that is designed to protect us and treat us with equality. Our decisions, regardless of whatever responsibilities we have in our individual lives, has an effect upon others and we owe it to each other to represent in the exact way we would wish to be represented.

Some of the very best films do function purely as entertainment presented at the highest order. But so many times, the greatest films serve not only as entertainment, but as a mirror to the world in which we all live, forcing us to search ourselves, examine and re-examine our beliefs and ideals, possibly leaving us more enriched than we were when we first walked into the theater. “12 Angry Men” is one of those films that will challenge, provoke and engage you while enveloping you in a heated dramatic tale. It is not a film to be watched passively as it is designed to create a relationship and discussion with the viewer and I would find it extremely difficult to believe that anyone who watches this film would not find something recognizable within the people they know, their communities, and most importantly, themselves.

Like the best films that leave profound impacts across generations, I would like to think that the lasting legacy of “12 Angry Men” was purely organic. Frankly, how could Lumet, his cast and crew have known how to explicitly manufacture a film that would serve as a benchmark in cinematic art? So many films need time and history to gather its full impact. Others reach it instantly. And others fade into obscurity. “12 Angry Men” had a foot in two areas of cinematic waters as it was initially a critical success but a box office disappointment, truly finding its audience upon subsequent showings on television, making for the undisputed cinematic classic we know today.

“12 Angry Men” is a cinematic triumph that not only transcended its genre, and its era of the late 1950s, like the best of great art, it is a work that speaks to its time while serving as a work that is timeless.

Thank you, Sidney Lumet for the films, the art, the craftsmanship and your singular voice. For all those who love the movies, we will forever study at your feet.

R.I.P.