12 Angry Men
12 Angry men is a courtroom drama focused on a jury of 12 men trying to agree on a decision over a murder case. Eleven of the twelve men agree at first and there is one holdout. Then men are then forced to argue over the case in an attempt to settle on a decision. The movie doesn't try to impress you visually. It is mostly shot in one room with the twelve jurors making up almost the entire cast. This allows you to focus almost entirely on the rich plot. We are constantly being fed information about the case and the jurors. Each has his own personality that is brought to the film in great detail. The review hits the nail on the head when it says "This is a film where tension comes from personality conflict, dialogue and body language, not action;". Each character is eventually opened up for examination for us in some part of the film. We get to take a look at their reasoning for their stance on the case. This adds a depth to the plot. It also allows us to relate to the characters and their struggle as they dive deeper and deeper into the case.
The film also attempts to give an inside look at our judicial system and some of the flaws that lie within. When we fist see them take their first vote and most of them vote guilty without any discussion we see our first failure. It was the "hottest day" in an non air conditioned room, there were ball games to get to and so on. Sitting in a room by themselves they are removed from the reality in their decision. The life of a young man lied in their decision and most of them were willing to sentence him to death without a conversation. I think this is most likely a reality in a lot of cases, and therefore an important point made by the movie. Luckily for him it was only a movie, so there was a single holdout that allowed the twelve men to dive deep into the case. However the critique still hits home.
I found it interesting how the film was shot. In the review he quotes Lumet who said he used a "lens plot", changing angles and lenses throughout in order to add to the drama and tension making it appear that the room is getting smaller. The film was based almost entirely on shots of people, capturing their facial expression and body movement to capture even more of the story. With a film set in a single room using the camera in such away adds so much to the film. I am always impressed with movies like this that are able to add so much with camera work and the amount of thought that goes into each shot.
For me, this film is harder to review then some of the other ones. Where the other films have been shorter and some in a language I don't understand, this one is full length and filled with dialog. In a way I am distracted by that a bit. In a short film there is so much packed into every frame I could easily watch it over and over again and dig in a bit easier. This film with a one room setting, and it being packed with dialog, I feel almost distracted or rushed. This leads me to question what I find to be important in a film and what should be emphasized.
The film also attempts to give an inside look at our judicial system and some of the flaws that lie within. When we fist see them take their first vote and most of them vote guilty without any discussion we see our first failure. It was the "hottest day" in an non air conditioned room, there were ball games to get to and so on. Sitting in a room by themselves they are removed from the reality in their decision. The life of a young man lied in their decision and most of them were willing to sentence him to death without a conversation. I think this is most likely a reality in a lot of cases, and therefore an important point made by the movie. Luckily for him it was only a movie, so there was a single holdout that allowed the twelve men to dive deep into the case. However the critique still hits home.
I found it interesting how the film was shot. In the review he quotes Lumet who said he used a "lens plot", changing angles and lenses throughout in order to add to the drama and tension making it appear that the room is getting smaller. The film was based almost entirely on shots of people, capturing their facial expression and body movement to capture even more of the story. With a film set in a single room using the camera in such away adds so much to the film. I am always impressed with movies like this that are able to add so much with camera work and the amount of thought that goes into each shot.
For me, this film is harder to review then some of the other ones. Where the other films have been shorter and some in a language I don't understand, this one is full length and filled with dialog. In a way I am distracted by that a bit. In a short film there is so much packed into every frame I could easily watch it over and over again and dig in a bit easier. This film with a one room setting, and it being packed with dialog, I feel almost distracted or rushed. This leads me to question what I find to be important in a film and what should be emphasized.
Well, your distraction might lead to the real issue at hand...it does seem this is a film where talk dominates---as the film starts, everyone is real impressed with the "expert job" of the prosecutor....why this focus on delivery/talk>? does it distract jurors from really looking? and why the biggest talkers seem to dominate the conversation....who eventually sides with 8? the quiet nurse/painter/old man....maybe the film, in other words, is about the distorting power of speech... (worth keeping in mind silent red balloon---that society seemed to have very little good to say)....
ReplyDelete