Lately the films that I’ve chosen to talk about for this
series have felt a bit too…mass appealing? Which I’m not too disappointed in, one
of my goals for this series was to present films that people may not look at as
having analytical worth, or perhaps went under appreciated for how much effort
went into them and how many small details make them great. With that being
said, I feel as if I don’t balance it out and talk about some “easier” films to
discuss then it might create the wrong impression of my taste in films, or
might not show how diverse I like to think my taste in films is. Another reason
why I don’t talk about these “easier” picks is because not much has to be
explained. I’ve said in the past films like Pulp Fiction and Shawshank
Redemption could easily be discussed in this series, but at the same time what
would be the point? I could go up to any cinephile and say “I think Shawshank
Redemption is an amazing film” and they would only respond with “Yep”. Because
no one ever needs to explain why Shawshank is an amazing film, everyone knows
it. I prefer talking about films that would have people asking “Really? Why do
you think that film is so good?”. Nevertheless, that doesn’t change the fact
that just because something is obviously brilliant, doesn’t mean it can’t be
talked about, so: 12 Angry Men.
12 Angry Men was directed by Sydney Lumet and stars Henry
Fonda, as well as 11 other men playing the jury of a murder trial of a young
man who is accused of murdering his father. In which the majority of the film
takes place in just one room as they all debate whether the defendant is
innocent or guilty. Sounds like a fairly simple premise, in fact one might say
it’s dangerously simple. How could a 97 minute film that is just people in one
room debating be at all interesting? Through amazing directing and pacing is
how. To me, this film is one of the best examples of minimalism in all of cinema.
One room, 12 people who aren’t even given names and filmed in black & white
means there is nothing distinguishing in the frame. We’re not even shown any of
the events of the crime at hand, just people talking about it. In the rule book
of cinema this should be a major crime, and on a personal level should have
bored me to tears. Film is a visual medium, show-don’t-tell, yet this film was
able to individualise every single juror member with just the bare minimum
needed to make them memorable. Details such as Juror #9 having a great memory
for small details, #5 being poor and relating to the defendant on a social
class basis, etc. Within the 12 jurors each one has details about them that
show how different they are, some are young, some are old, some are
middle-class, some are lower class, some are locals, some are immigrants, some
are invested, some aren’t. By the end of the film each one has been fully characterized
without even a name being exchanged.
The performances are also what help flesh out these
characters, all of them are given chances to shine, though Henry Fonda as Juror
#8 is given the most screen time-being the biggest actor-but the performance
stealer for me was Lee J Cobb as Juror #3, a man who is adamant that the
defendant is guilty, and slowly over the film it is revealed that he lets his
emotions-mostly with his broken relationship with his son-that clouds his
judgement, eventually leading to his breakdown. It’s the subtlety of how is
motivations are shown that make this a brilliant performance. The perfect
marriage of acting and directing that drive such a nuanced film, another iconic
scene is when Juror #10 goes on a bigoted rant and all the other Juror’s simply
look away in disgust, no explanation given, but you can just tell they all have
their own reasons for not being able to look him in the eye.
Sadly though this is not to say this is a perfect film, plot
wise there are some very large gaps that I doubt would ever happen in an actual
courtroom. Fonda as the only juror to initially believe the defendant to be
innocent has to slowly but surely convince all of the other jurors to see his
point of view. Unfortunately his point of view is built mostly on coincidences
and an adamant belief that he is right, not seeing the other argument, which is
actually the most logical argument. His reasons for not thinking the defendant
is guilty is based on coincidences and what-ifs, ignoring that the most likely
scenario is probably the correct one. He argues that just because the boy was
in the apartment when his father was killed, murdered with the boy’s knife,
just because no one technically saw it, means it couldn’t possibly be him,
without offering an alternative to who could have killed him. In a logical
scenario, the boy would have been found guilty no question, but I suppose the
filmmakers would have wanted to end it on a more positive note and having the
boy be found innocent.
Regardless, this is a masterfully crafted film, with some of
the best direction in all of cinema, great pacing, brilliant and distinct
performances. It is often considered to be one of the greatest films of all
time, and it is certainly one of mine.
-Danny
No comments:
Post a Comment