12 Angry Men. Review on 12 Angry Men Movie

The merits of this movie have been discussed umpteen number of times in various websites and newspapers. I am not gonna touch that chord again.It sure is a great entertainer - got me glued to the TV for more than an hour and a half. A four line review of the plot:

It is all about how a 12 Member jury decides whether to convict a boy or not. 11 of them are convinced that the boy is guilty. However the 12th angry man, who is very cool by the way, is of the opinion that there is not enough evidence to declare the boy guilty of the charges. They talk about it a lot and finally the 12th Man talks the rest into his opinion. That pretty much sums up the story. Let me put down some personal observations. Most of the project meetings normally follow the same pattern. The session started with everybody joking about something or the other. A life was at stake there. It looked a little silly. However I have seen this happening in almost all my team meetings. So I was ''home''. And also it took nearly ten minutes for the 12 angry men to actually sit at the table and get the ball rolling. It was gradual and natural. I loved the chaos. It was so real. Henry Fonda remained aloof clearly showing the viewer that he was quite different from the rest of the group.

Was I disappointed? kinda yes. I was. I could not understand why should he be aloof just because he happened to hold a different theory up his sleeves. However in a meeting normally this happens quite often. People believe in dropping the bombshell without any warnings. Henry Fonda did exactly the same. Cliche And pay attention to the pretty neat transformation of the volunteer organizer from a leader to an angry man turning violent out of frustration. It happens all the time. In a typical team gathering we see normally three to four leaders. When one breaks down, another takes control of the situation. The restroom scene, where everyone tries to ''informally'' and ''unofficially'' convince Henry Fonda that the boy was guilty: I am sure everyone here knows about this Off Table Persuasion. :))

Of the twelve angry men, I personally liked Joseph Sweeney, the old man who changed his vote from guilty to not guilty to support Henry Fonda. He had a remarkable sense of observation. (The eye glasses marks on the woman's nose, the way the old man living downstairs was dragging his left foot...) His analysis about people doing all these for want of publicity and attention was perhaps the most important factor that fuelled everyone to consider their verdict. IMO of course. When the session started it was 11 to 1 in favor of an execution. However of the 11 angry men, only #4 was coherrent and logical. The rest were simply too excited and hell bent on defending their opinions instead of thinking logically. What started as a decision making process turned out to be an ego-clash at the end. And the only scene that made me really roll on the floor laughing: Henry Fonda was trying to convince #4 that if the boy was under stress he really could not have remembered the movie name or the actor line-up. (That was one of the questions in the court room to disprove the alibi the boy had had.) He kept on asking #4 what he did the previous day, the day before that and the day before that. Who was that guy who shouted in the middle: ''When you get to the new year's eve of 1954 ah let me know!''

Anyways. I am unable to understand why did Sydney Lumet, the director, choose to show the defendant's weared down face briefly for a moment before the session had started. He could have done without showing the boy to the audience. Was it just to evoke sympathy for the boy? All in all, a neat movie that keeps you glued to the TV. Don't miss it. Venu