12 Angry Men (1957)

A jury holdout attempts to prevent a miscarriage of justice by forcing his colleagues to reconsider the evidence.

Director:

Sidney Lumet

Writers:

Reginald Rose (story), Reginald Rose (screenplay)

Stars:

Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Martin Balsam

Top Rated Movies #5 | Nominated for 3 Oscars. Another 16 wins & 8 nominations.

Cast

Complete credited cast:
Martin Balsam	...	Juror 1
John Fiedler	...	Juror 2
Lee J. Cobb	...	Juror 3
E.G. Marshall	...	Juror 4
Jack Klugman	...	Juror 5
Edward Binns	...	Juror 6
Jack Warden	...	Juror 7
Henry Fonda	...	Juror 8
Joseph Sweeney	...	Juror 9
Ed Begley	...	Juror 10
George Voskovec	...	Juror 11
Robert Webber	...	Juror 12

Storyline

The defense and the prosecution have rested and the jury is filing into the jury room to decide if a young man is guilty or innocent of murdering his father. What begins as an open-and-shut case of murder soon becomes a detective story that presents a succession of clues creating doubt, and a mini-drama of each of the jurors' prejudices and preconceptions about the trial, the accused, and each other. Based on the play, all of the action takes place on the stage of the jury room.

---

Plot Keywords:

jury | dialogue driven | courtroom | trial | prejudice | 

---

Taglines:

Life Is In Their Hands -- Death Is On Their Minds!

---

Genres:

Crime | Drama

---

Certificate:

Not Rated

Details

Official Sites:

MGM Studios [United States]

Country:

USA

Language:

English

Release Date:

April 1957 (USA)

Also Known As:

12 Angry Men

Filming Locations:

New York County Courthouse - 60 Centre Street, New York City, New York, USA

Box Office

Budget:

$350,000 (estimated)

Gross USA:

$4,360,000

Company Credits

Production Co:

Orion-Nova Productions

Technical Specs

Runtime:

96 min

Sound Mix:

Mono

Color:

Black and White

Aspect Ratio:

1.66 : 1

Did You Know?

Trivia

Juror #1, The Foreman, is the only Juror who never explains why he considers the defendant guilty, or, later, not guilty. Actually, there is a very interesting psychological metaphor on the meta-level of this film, and, of course, particularly concerning this character. Like a "Foreman", he leads, and is not asked why he does what he does, and how he does it, one simply assumes that he knows what he's doing. Later on, when he changes his mind, he still does not explain his decision, although from then on he does not lead anymore, but now, follows. This is beautifully expressed via facial expression when he raises his hand to conclude that he now considers the defendant not guilty.

---

Goofs

Juror #6 follows Juror #8 into the washroom to splash water on his face and stands awkwardly sideways between the two sinks, the only likely reason being to continue facing upstage.

---

Quotes

[first lines]
Man in corridor: You did a wonderful job, wonderful job!
Judge: To continue, you've listened to a long and complex case, murder in the first degree. Premeditated murder is the most serious charge tried in our criminal courts. You've listened to the testimony, you've had the law read to you and interpreted as it applies in this case, it's now your duty to sit down and try to separate the facts from the fancy. One man is dead, another man's life is at stake, if there's a reasonable doubt in your minds as to...

---

Crazy Credits

All of the credits are in lowercase.

---

Connections

Featured in Inside the Jury Room (2008)

---

Soundtracks

Dance of the Cuckoos
(uncredited)
Music by Marvin Hatley
Portion whistled by Jack Warden

User Reviews

No Dissonance

This film deserves to be on anyone's list of top films. My problem is that it is so perfect, so seamlessly polished, it is hard to appreciate the individual excellences.

The acting is top notch. I believe that monologue acting is quite a bit simpler than real reactive ensemble acting. Most of what we see today is monologues pretending to be conversations. But in this film, we have utter mastery of throwing emotions. Once the air becomes filled with human essence, it is hard to not get soaked ourselves as the camera moves through the thick atmosphere. Yes, there are slight differences in how each actor projects (Fonda internally, Balsam completely on his skin...) but the ensemble presents one vision to the audience.

The writing is snappy too. You can tell it was worked and worked and worried, going through several generations. It is easy to be mesmerized by this writing and acting, and miss the rare accomplishment of the camera-work. This camera is so fluid, you forget you are in one room. It moves from being a human observer, to being omniscient, to being a target. It is smart enough to seldom center on the element of most importance, so expands the field to all men.

This is very hard. Very hard, to make the camera human. So much easier to do what we see today -- acknowledge the machinery and jigger with it. Do we have a filmmaker today who could do this?

Ted's Evaluation -- 4 of 3: Every cineliterate person should experience this.