Before I delve into the film, I feel it worth mentioning that I am very familiar with this story: I read for Juror #11 in sophomore English, I've seen both the 1957 version and the 1997 version, and I performed the play my junior year as Juror #12 (although that version was retitled 12 Angry Jurors since we had a coed cast). What I'm trying to say is that I knew what I was getting into. Although, it had been at least fifteen years since I had last reviewed it, so I was able to have a bit of a fresh take on it.
For those unfamiliar with the story, you can actually watch the full film on YouTube (that's where Ian and I watched it). The basic premise is that a trial has just been held for a young man and the jury is excused to deliberate the verdict. We, the audience, don't see any of the trial -- we have to put the case together based on the different points that the various men bring up. It's mostly a story about how to argue a point and not letting biases affect one's judgment.
The story is told in real time, with no jumps ahead in time. While this is mostly due to it being adapted from a stage play, it works for the story. We see each man's opinion argued and swayed as it happens. In a way, story's about how fragile our own opinions are.
The first thing that stood out to me was that everyone was white. The young man on trial, the judge, the bailiff, and every single juror (even the foreign-born one, Juror #11). One of the points that they argue over is that the defendant came from a slum, and one of the jurors shows his bigotry by saying that the defendant was "one of them." I'm not saying that having strong feelings based on class didn't exist then, but the lack of color stood out.
Speaking of a lack of color, the film is shot in black and white despite color having been available for decades. Clearly, the monochromatic scheme was by choice. I think it was because most of the characters saw the case as very clear or "black and white," so the color choice reflected that.
Another thing that stood out was that everybody smoked. In films today, smoking is used to represent something about the character engaged in it. Maybe he's smoking to look cool or tough or she's smoking to look seductive or filthy. But in 12 Angry Men, the meek Juror #2 smokes a pipe, the analytical Juror #4 chain smokes, the tough guy Juror #6 smokes hand-rolled cigarettes, the persuasive Juror #8 smokes unfiltered cigarettes, the suave Juror #12 filtered cigarettes, they all smoke. It was a different time, and I guess not having someone smoke was considered the weirder option.
The characters' names and faces.
If you look at the picture above, you'll see that the elderly Juror #9 has an uncomfortably tight closeup on him. That happened a lot. I don't know if people had a different idea of what personal space meant or if the cinematographer wanted us to feel uneasy, but whatever the reason, the zoom lens was overused.
One thing I noticed this time that I hadn't back in high school was how well each character was written. There was more than one broad stereotype, sure, but each had a reason for voting they way that they did, not all of them good. For example, the only Juror to change his vote more than once was Juror #12 and he was swayed by peer pressure. His motivation is never stated that plainly, but the subtlety with which it was handled made it all the more realistic.
Overall, it was a nice experience to watch this film again. I've grown a lot as a person since the last time I saw it and, since I've developed more as a writer, I better appreciated a lot of the nuances in the script. It was also fun to discuss the film with Ian to help him prepare for the essay he had to write. So even if you aren't assigned by a teacher to watch this film, it's still a great movie with a good message.
12 Angry Men is distributed by United Artists.
No comments:
Post a Comment