12 Angry Men Movie - Essay Example

12 Angry Men Director Sidney Lumet’s 1957 film “12 Angry Men” did not do well at the box-office thanks to the full-color motion pictures that continued to draw many away, nor did it receive widespread awards and accolades within the film industry, although it did receive several nominations for Academy Awards including Best Picture, Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay.1 In the years following, the film has not seen much additional success, but has maintained a firm grip on its position as social commentary and innovative production techniques as it did provide an intimate look into the American justice system, complete with its breakdowns, weaknesses and strengths, that has withstood the test of time, holding its own among the classic films of American cinema. Far from the highly colorized, flash and bang of modern cinema, “12 Angry Men” takes place in a single room and involves 12 ordinary men who are each stereotypical of prevalent societal attitudes at the time of the film’s making, but could as easily be transferred to more modern times, forcing the viewer to focus on the psychological action occurring rather than the latest high-dollar computer graphic imagery or fast-moving car chase scene. The production of this film provides it with an importance different from that of its subject matter, setting an artistic precedence in keeping with the intentions of the director and contributing greatly to the impact of the film in general. Filmed almost exclusively in a bare, 16 by 24 foot real-life jury room, this film nevertheless has an interesting production history that lends it weight and appeal that might otherwise have been lost in today’s movie-making mentality.2 Having started as a television screenplay by Reginald Rose, the project was expanded in 1956 for the cinema at the request of co-producer and star Henry Fonda. Created with a budget of only $350,000, the film did not have much room for enticing special effects, elaborate scenery or extensive on-location filming.3 Instead, it was filmed on site in approximately 17 days in the actual jury room of New York’s courthouse. Although color was available for films in this time period, the use of black and white film worked to reduce costs as well as further highlighting the life and death question that hung in the balance as the main point of the movie. The makers of the film took another almost unheard of approach to the production of this movie in that they hired Sidney Lumet to direct it, a man who had only directed television programs up to this point and most of the actors with the exception of Henry Fonda were selected for their experience within the television genre.4 Each element of the film speaks to the question of doubt and surety as the men work their way through personal prejudice to decipher the facts from their own preconceived ideas, motives, inclinations and objectives. Removing the possibility of special effects, numerous on-location film sites or even a studio, the film capitalizes on the stark nature of the jury room environment to bring focus on the issues at hand rather than the ornate structure of the setting, bringing things down to the basic facts, as the jury members are expected to do in deliberating the case. With no flashbacks, narration or subtitles, and bare walls surrounding the men in the jury room, there is nothing left to distract the audience from the interplay of words occurring in the room or the effects these words have on the men who are so closely situated to each other. Known for a deep aversion to unnecessary stylistic fireworks that have little to no connection to the progression of the storyline, Lumet sets up his reputation here by including nothing in the jury room but a water cooler, a temperamental fan, a long table and a pad of paper. Even when the jurors are positioned immediately in front of a window, the only view that can be seen is that of bricks or blank faces of other buildings too far away to provide any detail. Because of his use of the enclosed space in this film, Lumet is able to include the audience as a silent but always present thirteenth jury member, even seeming to lock the camera in the room with the jury as the movie gets underway. Adding impact to the film, cinematographer Boris Kaufman utilizes a series of different camera angles, including disturbing close-ups and a range of well-balanced mid-shots to establish and illuminate action within the dialogue. This wandering eye of the camera works with the wandering steps of the men as they work their way through the complicated issues they discuss, sometimes following them about the room, sometimes remaining stationary as they move around and sometimes moving around as they remain stationary and silent. However, none of these camera angles emerges as being unnecessary or superfluous, all working instead to help build the tension and focus the concentration on a specific point the director is trying to bring across. The heat in the room is immediately understood as many of the jurors work to wipe the sweat from their brow, windows are broken open to let in a little air and the humidity is discussed as the jurors prepare to discuss the case. The breaking of the storm is timed to coincide with the breaking of the jury as tensions begin to become a little less weighted and each man slowly comes to realize a reason to doubt the guilty supposition. Even the shadow of the fan blades as they begin to turn seem to suggest the flickering pattern of thought as it vacillates between guilty and not guilty in the room and in each individual mind. The film ends with the departure of Juror #8, who maintained the possibility that the boy might not be guilty from the start, as he walks down the freshly washed steps of the courthouse into the clean city of justice. Lumet’s work beginning with “12 Angry Men” has been characterized by a tendency to treat serious issues such as prejudice, racism, indifference, unreliable judgments, personal vendettas and more in his films, most of the above appearing in this first of a long line of impactful filmmaking, always presented in a way that proves entertaining in a fascinating way. In describing this hard to define element, Lumet says “Good style, to me, is unseen style. It is style that is felt.”5 His approach to making “12 Angry Men” was coming from his previous experience of working with live television. This helped prompt his predilection for shooting the entire movie in a single location as well as for the speed with which he had it filmed. To help bring out the intense social issues he wished to cover, Lumet found it necessary to allow all twelve characters their development throughout the movie, although there have been arguments brought forward that some jurors, such as Juror #8, show very little progression as they are already close to Lumet’s view of socially aware and responsible. In describing the movie-making process in general, Lumet says it is like making a mosaic. “Each setup is like a tiny tile. You color it, shape it, polish it as best you can. You’ll six or seven hundred of these, maybe a thousand. Then you literally paste them together and hope it’s what you set out to do. But if you expect the final mosaic to look like anything, you’d better know what you’re going for as you work on each tiny tile.”6 The ability to work with Kaufman adds yet another element as Lumet explains Kaufman’s style to be exactly in tune with the dramatic interpretation of the scenes that Lumet himself envisions. “The camera becomes another leading actor. … the camera – like everything else in a piece – has to relate to what’s going on dramatically. You have to cast your camera the way you cast an actor.”7 Thus it is that with a clear direction and vision in the mind of the director as well as a working crew that shares that vision and is able to utilize their technical skills in adhering to it, a movie such as “12 Angry Men” can be produced in which every element contributes to the overall message being portrayed. Although the movie doesn’t necessarily provide any answers to the problems that it raises, solution is not the point of this film. Through the use of such artistic innovations as treating the camera as a leading actor in the scene, the movie is able to draw the audience into the drama being played out in this small, warm room to such an extent that they can feel the heat of the summer day even in the winter temperatures of their living rooms 35 years after the movie’s production. This intensity of focus serves to provide all the action and suspense the film needs to capture attention and retain it throughout the end of the story, slowly revealing the characters inner layers even as they themselves come face to face with their own true beliefs, sometimes for the first time. Although it doesn’t necessarily follow the traditional feature-length film production schedule, “12 Angry Men” nevertheless has withstood the test of time in terms of content, artistic vision and production history. Footnotes 1 Dirks, Tim. “12 Angry Men.” Greatest Films. 2006. FilmSite. March 5, 2006 from 2 12 Angry Men. [film jacket]. Dir. Sidney Lumet. Perf. Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Ed Begley and E.G. Marshall. United Artists, 1957. 3 Dirks, 2006. 4 Dirks, 2006. 5 Lumet, Sidney. Making Movies. New York: Knopf, 1995, p. 52. 6 Lumet, 1995, p. 58. 7 Bogdanovich, Peter. Who the Devil Made It: Conversations with Legendary Film Directors. New York: Ballantine Books, 1998, p. 802. Works Cited 12 Angry Men. [film jacket]. Dir. Sidney Lumet. Perf. Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Ed Begley and E.G. Marshall. United Artists, 1957. Bogdanovich, Peter. Who the Devil Made It: Conversations with Legendary Film Directors. New York: Ballantine Books, 1998. Dirks, Tim. “12 Angry Men.” Greatest Films. 2006. FilmSite. March 5, 2006 from Lumet, Sidney. Making Movies. New York: Knopf, 1995. Read More