12 Angry Men: The Power of Dialogue and Deliberation
12 Angry Men is set in the background of a New York City jury room, as twelve jurors from the jury room deliberate the fate of an eighteen year old seeking a fate of patricide. Then the heat and the tension build up inside this small room and Juror #8, played by Henry Fonda, raises doubt that what seemed an open and shut case turns to a dramatic, gripping climax. The film enables each juror to finally see how all their own biases were exposed, as they must all come to a new verdict, thinking about the evidence, and having to wrestle with individual prejudices even in the face of reasonable doubt and the fallibility of human judgment. The tone is intense and suspenseful but it is also sobering of realism. The moral of the story is always between the primordial fight of prejudice versus reason in the face of each and every juryman who is made to pay for his own biases. Justice, equality, and moral responsibility are themes that are sublimely woven into the tale, and it’s so much more than a courtroom drama. Its stark exploration of the forces and flaws of the social system strikes powerfully now as it did then, perhaps even more so.
Henry Fonda leads with riveting performances as the voice of reason, Juror #8. The emotional push of the narrative comes for the most part from the interaction of the cast; the overly aggressive measures of Lee J. Cobbs opposition to the quiet, thoughtful parts played by E.G. Marshall and Jack Klugman. And the viewer is presented with a cross square of prevailing attitudes revealed within the community dynamics each represented by one facet of society; from prejudiced to impartial
The direction of Sidney Lumetin 12 Angry Men is masterful: storytelling through a single location is kept up with a sure touch to keep the audience hooked nothing. So, Lumet makes clever use of the space of the jury room to heighten the tension by using claustrophic close ups and sensible staging, creating the very tense, almost oppressive atmosphere (along with the pressure mounting up from the jurors), and the music in 12 Angry Men follows the dialog based story and its minimalist score underscores rather than overwhelms the emotional moments. The dramatic tension is so palpable due in part to how the subtle use of sound is used to advance this story in a naturalistic way; silence often speaks more than words.|Boris Kaufman’s cinematography is deft with tight framings and controlled camera movements used to enhance the tension and emotions within that jury room. Besides being black-and-white, the film works on these statements and raises the dramatic effect and the focus on the faces, the faces and expression, and the weight of the decision of the characters.
The design of the room in 12 Angry Men is made meticulously detailed reflecting oppressiveness of the heat and the cramped conditions that tighten the situation. But this makes the stage a perfect one for such a powerful drama because the set design is simple and allows the characters and the story to be in the front and not the clutter of special effects.
The story and the characters of the script were too strong to carry with effects, so they opt for more simplicity in the set placed. Carl Lerner’s editing in 12 Angry Men is delicate and effective, moving with a fast pace that keeps the audience fixed, but sufficiently accesses the time so the viewers can digest the nuanced performances and the growing storyline.
The lack of visual distractions gives viewers to concentrate into the compelling human drama, that the actual effects are made by performance and dialogue. The editing rhythm emphasizes the differences of opinion within jurors and dramatically captures the jury’s evolution in perception. 12 Angry Men presents the moral and ethical quandaries the story raises in a methodical pace that permits the viewer to be in deep with the story, alongside the jurors even as they peel away the layers of the characters conviction and bias with the dialogue. Reginald Rose’s screenplay is excellent in the dialogue, which moves from sharp and poignant observations of what the jurors think to metaphors about the jurors and, by extension, the audiences. But its the gripping exchanges that give the film such power for real.
Yes, 12 Angry Men is widely lauded for its disruptive approach and themes, but it is criticized for being without diversity in the men, including the men, of the all-male, predominantly white jury. Above, this illustrates the period of the movie, but this does not hurt the film see what’s in human nature, but rather emphasizes the importance of our cinemas having more inclusive stories.
Seeing 12 Angry Men is an exhilarating, stimulating movie. What can be said about the story? And more importantly, what can be said about the story’s dialogue. The film expresses very well about prejudice, justice, and moral courage that make you ponder human decision making. It’s an enduring classic and its emotional intensity renders it a cornerstone of classic cinema that continues to mesmerize audiences.
