A Filmmaker's Review: "12 Angry Men" (1957)

Last night, I spent some time re-watching one of the smartest films of the 1950s. 12 Angry Men (1957) is a film about 12 men on a jury who get to decide whether an 18-year-old boy, accused of murdering his father, should go to the electric chair or not. With at first only one man voting 'not guilty' there is a slow, but steady uncovering of evidence plot holes that cause the jury to rethink their decisions and retract certain scenarios that could not have possibly happened. From re-enactments to copy-cat knives, there are so many holes in the presented evidence that it would only take a matter of time to decide. However, these men cannot be moved - will they spare this boy's life or will they convict? Is he guilty or is he not?

Let's start with the fact that the entire film is pretty much set in one room and that it is a pretty excellent feature of the film. Having the film set in one room in which we can see all characters at all times in medium to wide frame means that there is no chance for a character to do something hidden or concealed. Everything is out in the open and we are the omniscient viewers of the situation. Secondly, it presents us with a greater representation of power politics. Between the people who initially think guilty, to the only ones remaining throughout - this film gives a great deal of itself over to presenting oppositions in a classic, juxtaposing style. We get these flashing close ups on to a character's facial expression when it is of prime importance and so, we are constantly kept in the loop of the entire room but also have access into the psychological states of certain characters in the room. Psychological states that are presented either by shouting, movement or even sweating.

There are very certain themes in the film such as rivalry, class, gender and violence. The most prominent, I believe, is class. The focus is constantly on the fact that the boy must be guilty because he comes from the slum area of the land. However, one of the men in the room on the jury states that he too, grew up in the slums and yet is not a criminal. This sends into action a great divide between the people who are currently voting guilty and not guilty at the time of the statement. The way in which we see this is through not only the divide but the rivalry between very certain characters. The speech that is made towards the end of the film by the old man who is clearly prejudiced against the poor people from the slums and the iconic scene where the rest of the jury get up from their seats and turn their backs on him - it is a classic presentation of the rivalry between certain characters and their reasons.

Let us also take a look at the way in which we see the rainfall scenes. The rainfall seems to come on pretty loudly, making some of the characters speak louder as a result. The rainfall also comes at a section of divide and rivalry as if to try and wash away these disagreements. However, the sweating scenes seem to build the rising tension as a juxtaposition to the rainfall and therefore, we have an even greater divide than if we did it without the heat scenes and just the rainfall. The question really is that whether rainfall is enough to wash away the disagreements or would it take a lot more in the atmosphere change to do so? There is no real change to the atmosphere, just the way in which the audience see it.

In conclusion, we have a film which is a brilliant production of atmosphere, disagreement, rivalry, morality and the question of how long it can take to decide whether someone goes to the electric chair or not. There are so many things to analyse in this film even though it is mostly set in only one room - see what you can find out when you watch it. It is a perfect film and deserves all the praise and recognition it gets. Clearly, it is one of the greatest films ever made.