James Absolon explains how this Pope-themed film, despite its risky premise, works
Alex Pollard reviews Hollywood's biopic of the controversial Margaret Thatcher
A few weeks back, in an enhanced state of boredom, I deviated from my usual dose of online games, and put on a film. Luckily for me, the film was 12 Angry Men and I would emerge from those revelatory 96 minutes mind-blown.
Set in a 1950s American court, the film begins as the 12 men of the jury retire to decide the fate of an 18 year old Hispanic slum-born boy accused of murdering his father. Only a unanimous verdict will be accepted. For 11 members of the jury it is simple: the boy is guilty and deserves the electric chair. However one juror (Henry Fonda) is not so sure. The film follows his attempts to convince the other members of the jury that the boy is not necessarily guilty. What previously seemed to be “an open and shut case” suddenly becomes much more complex.
Despite the shortness of the film, the character development is remarkable. Henry Fonda is superb as the embodiment of reasonable doubt. Starting off as little more than Devil’s Advocate, he becomes convinced of the boy’s innocence. Enduring derision and then increasing belligerence, he stands firm and mounts a two-pronged attack. Firstly, in a series of adept manoeuvres, he uses the anger of the ‘executioners’ to reveal their own ignorance and personal prejudices. Secondly, he exposes considerable flaws in the prosecution’s case. As the rebellion gains momentum, the volume and exasperation of the die-hard executioners increases. Each member of the jury represents a different perspective and motive for voting for a guilty verdict. These range from personal vendettas, to apathy, to genuine belief in the evidence.
The fact that it is a film allows for more realistic sets, and the focussing of attention on specific people and events. However, it retains the immediacy and real-time aspect of theatre, making the viewer feel like they are experiencing real life events. The theatrical roots of the film are evident. Almost the entirety of the film is set in one room and dramatic devices come out in force. For example, the stuffy weather both represents and amplifies the discomfort of the jurors.
The greatness of this film rests on the melding of film and theatre, truly fantastic acting, and a damn good script. Although obviously stylised, it feels intensely real and despite its setting in 1950s America, I think this should be compulsory viewing for all those called to do jury duty.
You must log in to submit a comment.
