Sometimes, all I’m looking for in a movie is a really great performance. I don’t need grand adventure or killer special effects or stakes so impossibly big that I can’t relate to them. I just want to be moved by an actor (and a script) with as few frills and distractions as possible. Currently, for free (with ads) on YouTube, there is a movie that contains no less than 12 of those kinds of great performances, and it’s one of the most satisfying films ever made.
12 Angry Men begins at the very end of a trial, just as the jury is about to go deliberate. This is a murder case where a son is being accused of stabbing his father to death. The judge reminds the jury of their duty, and that the sentence for this person, if convicted, will be death. Silently, the young man who barely looks to be out of high school looks at the jury and a couple of members look back. Then the jury goes off into the jury room.
The men pile in and take a few minutes to get settled, but once they do, the foreman suggests they take a vote to see where everyone stands. Of the 12-man jury, 11 of the men believe the man is guilty, while the 12th man is unsure. From there, the discussion unfolds about whether to convict or not.
That’s literally it, and that’s all you need.
To bring home my point about no frills, 95 percent of this black-and-white movie from 1957 takes place in the jury room (just the very beginning and the very end don’t). The movie is just 12 guys in a room talking and making their points, arguing, and revealing their prejudices. The characters don’t even have names, they’re just called “Juror 1,” “Juror 2,” etc. And while Henry Fonda, who plays the dissenting Juror 8, is the star of the movie with the most compelling performance, every single one of those characters is given something interesting to do and is a fully fleshed-out character in their own right.
Juror 1 is played by Martin Balsam, the foreman and the steady hand who leads the discussion, but even he finds himself shaken by the arguments that break out in the room.
Juror 2 is John Fiedler, a character actor who may be best remembered as the voice of Piglet. He’s an easygoing, seemingly weak man, but he learns to stand up for himself in the room, especially after he’s insulted or it’s revealed that bigotry is part of the reason why some of the men who agree with him want to convict.
Lee J. Cobb is Juror 3, a loudmouth jerk determined to convict. He’s easy to root against because of how obnoxious he is, but he becomes more and more sympathetic once you figure out the source of his anger had more to do with his own estranged son than it does with the accused.
Juror 4 is played by E. G. Marshall. He’s a cold, analytical man who presents the best, most logical case for conviction.
The Odd Couple’s Jack Klugman has one of the most sympathetic character arcs as Juror 5. Like the young man whose life is in their hands, Klugman is a “slum kid” and he objects to the innuendos about the accused based on his social standing.
Juror 6, played by Edward Binns, is an understated blue-collar guy who is easy for the viewer to identify with.
Jack Warden is the kind of character actor who makes you go, “Oh, I know that guy,” even if you’re not sure from what. He was in The Great Muppet Caper as Kermit and Fozzie’s boss at the newspaper and in Dirty Work as Artie Lange’s dad. As Juror 7, he often steals the show by cracking jokes and making it very clear that he’s got tickets to a Yankee game after this and he really doesn’t want to miss it.
Then there’s the star of the film, Henry Fonda as Juror 8. He’s a principled, thoughtful man who originally dissents not because he’s sure of the innocence of the accused, but because he’s just not sure. He thinks, because this is a death penalty case, that they should take the time to discuss everything — a man’s life is at least worth that. His performance is moving and the arguments he makes are compelling, but the movie isn’t just him convincing everybody. He states his points and, one by one, more people come to his side by bringing up their own points and even convincing themselves. It’s the unique kind of performance that is both commanding and, in many ways, quite subtle.
Juror 9 is Joseph Sweeney, an old man who is easy to overlook, but he makes some of the most profound observations about the trial.
Juror 10, played by Ed Begley, is a bigoted business owner who is determined to convict simply because of the defendant’s unspecified ethnicity. (A key point to the case is that it took place in a New York City slum and the accused murderer is darker-skinned than everyone on the jury, which is incredibly relevant to how things proceed in the jury room.)
Juror 11 is George Voskovec, a European watchmaker who also finds himself a target of some bigotry in the room.
Finally, Juror 12 is Robert Webber, an ad man who doesn’t really care about the proceedings, but eventually rises to the occasion.
Written by Reginald Rose, 12 Angry Men was directed by master filmmaker Sidney Lumet, famous for films like Dog Day Afternoon, Serpico, Network, and many others. 12 Angry Men was his directorial debut and he shows tremendous wisdom in just letting the actors do their thing. Relatively early in the movie, it becomes clear that the trajectory of the film is that each man changes their minds, one at a time. But the interesting part is the why of each man.
Most compelling of all is to figure out when you, the viewer, switch sides. Going into the jury room, the majority is convinced of the man’s guilt because the case they just witnessed was convincing. The evidence appears to point in favor of conviction, and it’s laid out, at first, to make sure the viewer is also on the side of conviction. But one by one, the men change their minds and the experience of watching the film is that you, at some point, change your mind, too.