12 Angry Men

Tonia and I had the pleasure of seeing 12 Angry Men last weekend. (We borrowed it from Kristian Naugle-- thanks!)

The 1957 classic features 12 actors in one room for almost all of the movie-- as they debate the fate of a young man who has been accused of the capital crime of murder.

The jury is comprised of people who take their responsibility with varying degrees of seriousness-- some finding the evidence compelling; others just wanting to get on with their own lives (while ending that of the defendant). Henry Fonda puts a stick in the bike wheel and brings the proceedings to a halt.

At first, he says he's not sure about the defendant's guilt-- not that he's sure the man is innocent. (Is this a rhetorical ploy for the character or was he truly agnostic at that point?) As things proceed, he brings up questions about the evidences-- which raises other questions-- which converts people to the "not guilty" side, and so on.

I can't say it's a four-star movie in terms of sheer enjoyment. As with any older movie, it's always interesting to peek into the world of that time. And it's a wonderful movie in that the writer and director are able to make a film work with 12 guys in a room. In particular, the characters are all distinct-- no mean feat.

There are two types of despicable characters in the film-- and a hard and more moderate version of each type. Two guys are ethnic bigots. Brutal. But perhaps more repulsive is the depiction of Jack Warden and Robert Webber as flippant and indifferent to the defendant's fate, willing to change their mind for no apparent reason, and willing to perpetuate evil. Which is worse?

Check it out if you haven't seen it!