12 Angry Men: A film that "firmly establishes itself within the canon of courtroom cinema with gusto..."

A courtroom drama (mostly) without the courtroom, and yet firmly establishes itself within the canon of courtroom cinema with gusto.

[WARNING: SPOILERS]

12 Angry Men manages to accomplish what very few films manage to do: make a successful, engaging film that plays out almost entirely within one room. For the vast majority of the run-time, the film takes place entirely within four small walls. And the fact that it manages to accomplish so much with those walls should be praise in and of itself.

Firstly, the plot is exceptional - a murder trial. The defendant, a boy who is assumed to have killed his father in an emotional outburst. If he's found guilty by the "angry men", he gets the electric chair. The details of this case are quickly thrown into suspicion by Fonda, and from there, it's a snowball of confusion that casts a long shadow of doubt over the jury's proceedings - leading from an (almost) unanimous vote of "guilty" to a completely unanimous vote of "not guilty". This flip feels completely natural and logical, due to the clever writing. In addition, due to the tightness of the plotting, the pacing of the film was consistently strong. 

The cleverness of the writing also applies in many other areas such as with Lee J. Cobb's character - a man who, at the film's climax, is revealed to have imposed his own furious and frustrated feelings towards his own son upon the defendant. In fact, the writing helps to distinguish each character effectively, giving each instantly recognisable character traits: Henry Fonda's character is calm but unsure, Lee J. Cobb's character is excitable and probably the most angry out of the 12, Jack Warden's character is lazy and a slouch (and so on and so on...). Many of the characters' actions also highlighted particular social prejudices (e.g. suggesting that, because he grew up in a slum, he was given to violence), that hint at how much of an effect past experience has on a decision - and how no decision, especially one as important as deciding the life of a young man, is ever truly unbiased (as shown distinctly by Lee J. Cobb's character, as mentioned above). And of course, all the nuances of this writing are demonstrated and carried by fantastic performances across the board by all the actors.

As stated previously, the film does indeed take place almost entirely within the jury room with only three short scenes outside of it: inside the courthouse, inside the courtroom and outside the courthouse. But what keeps the room from feeling stagnant is the cinematography, which is fantastic throughout with clever use of blocking (i.e. An actor's moves in relation to the camera) and interesting, varied angles and shot compositions - one moment, two actors are looking out a window discussing elements of the case and then, in one swift dolly move, we're now focused back on the table and the rest of the group. The blocking also further accentuated each character's movements and idiosyncrasies, which in combination with the writing, also elevated the characters more and more. 

Considering the quality of the writing, the pacing, the acting, the cinematography and the blocking, there's very little to truly criticise 12 Angry Men for - except for maybe one thing: the score was forgettable, but it wasn't used much anyway, so definitely more of a nitpick than a real criticism.

If you're going to watch one great courtroom drama film in your lifetime, make it the one that helped to define the genre (and also make it the one that doesn't even unfold inside of a courtroom).

10/10