I had the privilege of rewatching Sidney Lumet's 1957 version of 12 ANGRY MEN recently which is now rated as the 7th greatest film on this website . Not bad for a film that is rather uncinematic in its genesis . Two things make it so well regarded
1 ) The powerhouse performances of its cast
2 ) The political subtext
In short 12 ANGRY MEN is a critique on McCarthyism where people who slightly leftist leanings found themselves come under suspicion for publicly stating democracy involves not only saying what you want but listening what you don't want to hear - who else but a filthy dirty red would defend any liberal leaning ? If someone found themselves up in court for unAmerican leanings , who else but a filthy communist fifth columnist would state that being in front of a committee doesn't necessarily mean you're a traitor to American democracy ? It's interesting that in the film version two of the three jurors holding out for a guilty verdict are portrayed as right wing reactionaries . Even the sensible , coldly logical juror number 4 played by EG Marshall does make a statement early in the film slums are a breeding ground for violence . You can see in the film that it's liberal intelligent thought versus right wing reactionary prejudice . If there's a flaw to the film it's that it'd very unlikely Fonda's lone juror would be able to change anyone's mind in real life . The problem with this original 60 minute teleplay is that this flaw is much more compounded by its running length
You might not be convinced by the arguments put forward by juror number 8 in the film but you can understand the arguments . Having Henry Fonda in the role helps greatly being one of classic Hollywood's good guys . Robert Cummings in the role is in a different and sadly inferior league and it's difficult to believe he'd be able to persuade anyone that the defendant could be innocent . That said the characterization is much inferior to that of the film version over all . So much so that you'll be puzzled why people have changed their vote from guilty to not guilty since there's very little dramatic build up to individuals changing their votes . Likewise the jury too quickly dismiss juror number 10 as being a bigot when he's not continually emphasised many bigoted views compared to the Ed Bagley film version . It's also noticeable that juror 10 is also missing the catchphrase of " know what I mean ? "
Being a live TV transmission future Oscar winning director Franklin J Schaffner doesn't have the luxury of doing a retake if things go wrong and there are a couple of noticeable goofs . One is Cummings getting a line mixed up where he confuses the boy with the defence attorney and in one scene one of the TV cameras comes in to and reverses out of frame
In summary watching the original version of 12 ANGRY MEN you're struck that it's not close to being the definitive version in any way since the 1957 version is superior in every respect . That said if we didn't have this TV original it's unlikely we would have got the film in the first place so let's be thankful Reginald Rose wrote something that Henry Fonda and Sidney Lumet could improve on
1 ) The powerhouse performances of its cast
2 ) The political subtext
In short 12 ANGRY MEN is a critique on McCarthyism where people who slightly leftist leanings found themselves come under suspicion for publicly stating democracy involves not only saying what you want but listening what you don't want to hear - who else but a filthy dirty red would defend any liberal leaning ? If someone found themselves up in court for unAmerican leanings , who else but a filthy communist fifth columnist would state that being in front of a committee doesn't necessarily mean you're a traitor to American democracy ? It's interesting that in the film version two of the three jurors holding out for a guilty verdict are portrayed as right wing reactionaries . Even the sensible , coldly logical juror number 4 played by EG Marshall does make a statement early in the film slums are a breeding ground for violence . You can see in the film that it's liberal intelligent thought versus right wing reactionary prejudice . If there's a flaw to the film it's that it'd very unlikely Fonda's lone juror would be able to change anyone's mind in real life . The problem with this original 60 minute teleplay is that this flaw is much more compounded by its running length
You might not be convinced by the arguments put forward by juror number 8 in the film but you can understand the arguments . Having Henry Fonda in the role helps greatly being one of classic Hollywood's good guys . Robert Cummings in the role is in a different and sadly inferior league and it's difficult to believe he'd be able to persuade anyone that the defendant could be innocent . That said the characterization is much inferior to that of the film version over all . So much so that you'll be puzzled why people have changed their vote from guilty to not guilty since there's very little dramatic build up to individuals changing their votes . Likewise the jury too quickly dismiss juror number 10 as being a bigot when he's not continually emphasised many bigoted views compared to the Ed Bagley film version . It's also noticeable that juror 10 is also missing the catchphrase of " know what I mean ? "
Being a live TV transmission future Oscar winning director Franklin J Schaffner doesn't have the luxury of doing a retake if things go wrong and there are a couple of noticeable goofs . One is Cummings getting a line mixed up where he confuses the boy with the defence attorney and in one scene one of the TV cameras comes in to and reverses out of frame
In summary watching the original version of 12 ANGRY MEN you're struck that it's not close to being the definitive version in any way since the 1957 version is superior in every respect . That said if we didn't have this TV original it's unlikely we would have got the film in the first place so let's be thankful Reginald Rose wrote something that Henry Fonda and Sidney Lumet could improve on