#87 12 Angry Men (1957)

I've seen this as a play, and part of an 80's TV Movie with Jack Lemmon.  But I hadn't seen this version before, of course.  The black and white kept me away.  Let's see if it was for a good reason.

Plot summary (with spoilers): A bored judge instructs a jury of twelve not-really-all-that-angry men about the seriousness of the crime alleged (murder), the severity of the penalty (death) and the need for their verdict to be unanimous.  He's got his fist propping up his head, and can barely stay awake as he recites his jury instructions from memory.  The twelve men nod dutifully and then get up to begin deliberations.  We see a shot of the accused, a young kid, only eighteen, who looks to be Latino or perhaps Middle Eastern.  (The play I saw never showed the kid, which I think is a better way to go).
In the jury room, the men futz around for a bit; one man tries to plug in a fan that doesn't work, several talk about how damn hot it is, a few others mention the waste of time the trial was and comment on the obvious guilt of the defendant. The Jury Foreman (# 1) finally calls everyone together and suggests everyone sit down and begin. Someone suggests they sit down in order of their numbers, which was very helpful for me, since none of them get names.  (It also reminds me of the Cylons, of which there were also twelve.  Ooh, that's fun.  Imagine the Cylons as you read this.  Henry Fonda is number 8, same as Boomer.  So go ahead and feel free to imagine Henry Fonda as a hot Asian chick).   Very quickly, slick # 7 mentions he has a ball game he's planning on attending that afternoon, and suggests they take a quick vote and get this over with.  No one seems to have any objections.  #1 (Brother John Cavill) calls out a vote for guilty.  Many hands shoot up.  He counts.  "One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven.  And, uh...not guilty?  Ah, just the one".  #8's hand is the only one to go up.  Several others express annoyance at this, but #8 quite reasonably says he's not sure yet, and before one sentences someone to death, there ought to be at least a little discussion.  #1 comes up with the idea to go around the table and say why you think the kid is guilty.  #2 (Leoben) thinks he just seems guilty. (Awesome, thanks for coming).  #3 (D'Anna Biers) has got a notebook out.  He mentions the fact that the downstairs neighbor heard the boy arguing with his dad hours before, and then heard the kid say "I'm gonna kill you!" then heard a thump.  Then the old man ran to the doorway and fifteen seconds later saw the kid running down the fire escape.  He also mentions that a woman who lived across the street saw the boy stab his father with a knife through the windows of a passing L train.  #4 (Simon) chimes in at this, and points out that in addition, the kid offered an alibi of the movies and when questioned later, but couldn't say what movie he saw or what stars were in it.  #5 (Doral) adds that they also had a history of fights and that the kid admitted that the dad had punched him earlier that day.  #6 (Caprica) throws in that the knife found in the dad's chest was the same kind of knife the kid had bought from a shop just a couple days earlier, and that the kid himself said he lost the knife.  #3 talks out of turn and reminds everyone that the shopkeeper also said that the type of knife was one-of-a-kind.
Well shit, I think we're done here.  What's the hold up, #8?
#7 (Starbuck's Daddy Daniel) has nothing more to add and just wants to go to his ballgame. The Foreman wants #8 to talk, but he says he thought it was the other people's job to convince him.  They insist he go anyway, so #8 says the first thing that bothers him is the knife.  He doesn't know if it's as rare as the shopkeeper says.  The Foreman asks the bailiff to bring the knife into evidence, and after he does, #3 angrily declares that the shopkeeper says it was one-of-a-kind and that's good enough for him.  He slams the knife into the wooden table (which has GOT to be super against the law) and points to the distinct markings on the handle.  Suddenly, #8 reaches into his pocket, and produces the exact same knife and also drives it into the table.  Dudes, seriously!  That is government property! #3 asks just what it is he's trying to prove (um...I think that's clear) and a lot of others raise a fuss as well.  #9 (Let's say Tory) defends #8's actions, while #10 (Anders) starts sputtering that you know what they're all like, let's not kid ourselves, this kid is a menace!  He said with his own words "I'm gonna kill you".  #8 says people say that all the time.  #3 says not when they're this angry.  When they're angry, they mean it.
#8 says he has a proposition.  A secret ballot.  He'll abstain.  If there are eleven guilty votes, he'll switch his vote. If there aren't, they'll all keep talking.  Everyone agrees with this.  The ballots are casts and the Jury Foreman reads off ten "not guilty's"...and one "guilty".  Everyone groans.  #3 randomly starts yelling at #5, accusing him of flipping.  Finally, #9, the old man, says it was him.  He says he's still not convinced of the boy's innocence but he definitely wants to hear more.
So we hear more.  Next up is the lady across the street's contention that she saw the murder take place through the last two cars of a passing "L" train and the old man's testimony that he heard the kid yell "I'm gonna kill you" right before the body hit the floor. #8 asks if anyone knows how long it takes for an L train to pass a given point.  About ten seconds.  Has anyone lived near one?  #5 has.  Aren't they loud?  Yes, very.  So...if the murder took place about eight seconds or so after the L train had been passing the old man's window, how did he hear the kid scream "I'm gonna kill you" or hear the body hit the floor?  #5 and #6 are gobsmacked.  That's a really good point.  Some of the others are less impressed.  #10 says this is all just gobbledygoop and you can't trust these people.  #11 (Saul Tigh) expresses disgust at that sentiment.
#5 flips his vote.  #3 is thoroughly pissed and starts ranting again, #10 joins in.  Some of the others stick up for #8 and #5, but aren't interested in joining them.  Now #8 wants to go over what the old man said about running to the door in 15 seconds and seeing the kid flee. They decide to act out how that must of taken.  The agree to time how long it would take #8 to walk around the room with a limp (the old man had a limp), approximating how far the old man's bedroom was from the front door.  #2 agrees to time this, and cutely wants to wait until the second hand is on 12 before beginning.  They time the walk and it takes 41 seconds.  #3 angrily says this proves nothing and why would the old man lie anyway?  #9, an old man himself, says he could tell by the way the old man dressed that he was pathetic and lonely and testifying today was basically his one chance to get out of the house and feel important.  He may have even convinced himself that what he said was true.  #3 is apoplectic with rage and incredulity.  "We're letting this kid slip through are fingers!"
Everyone's horrified by the comment.  #8 says he clearly cares nothing for justice and merely wants to watch someone burn.  He's a sadist.  #3 lunges at him, and is held back by #4.  "I'm gonna kill you!" he shouts.  "Now, you don't really mean that, I'm sure".  Ooooh...burn!
Another vote is called.  #11, #2, and #6 have also flipped.  The vote is tied, 6-6.
They're at an impasse.  Everyone is sweaty and pissy now.  Several people want to tell the judge it's a hung jury, but the Foreman says not enough time has passed.  #7 is furious he's going to miss his game.  #12 (Chief) , is super douchey, and regals others of his past success stories in sales.  No one seems to want to keep deliberating.  Finally, they get going again.  #2 wants to talk about the knife, and how it entered the father's body.  He wants to know if it makes sense.  The knife was driven down into his body, even though the son was shorter.  #3 says that makes sense.  He grabs the knife and walks up to #8.  He lowers himself to #8's chest level, and mimes stabbing downwards.  "See, it works."  Suddenly, he really stabs downwards, stopping just before hitting #8's chest.  Everyone cries out.  "We're just messing around here" he says, chuckling.  "Calm down, everyone".  Well, that definitely would've been one way to get a mistrial.  #5, having earlier established himself as having grown up in the slums like the defendant, says that that's not how you stab people with a switchblade.  You do an uppercut, like this.  He acts it out.  The Foreman seems impressed by this, and after a bit, changes his vote.  At this point, 7, the ballgame guy, switches his vote as well.  He says there's no real reason for it, he just wants to get out of here, and knows which way the wind is blowing.  (7 is played by Charlie Bucket's Grandpa Joe, about twenty years younger.  He and Henry Fonda are the only two people I recognize.  And hey, why isn't Willy Wonka on this list?!) #11 says that's unacceptable and starts berating him until 7 finally admits that he really does think the kid is innocent.  That leaves just #4, #3, #12 and #10.  #3 says he'll never ever ever times infinity change his mind so they might as well call a mistrial now.  #4 suggests another hour max of deliberations.  He outlines his main reason for saying guilty.  The shaky movie alibi, and that the woman saw the murder take place.  #8 quizzes him on the last movie he saw and who was in it, and #4 doesn't do so well.   #12 flips his vote.  Now #10 has had enough.  He stands up and goes into a long-winded rant about what animals "they" are, and how he shouldn't have even gotten a trial, and they all need to be locked up forever, etc.  As he does this, a perhaps too on-the-nose scene takes place, where all the other jurors stand up and literally turn their backs to him, until he's just sputtering like a lunatic to an empty table.  I don't know.  It was well acted, but so damn corny.  He ends with "you've gotta listen to me".  #4 snarls "I have.  Now shut up, and don't talk again".  Okay, that was awesome.  And #10 doesn't talk again in this movie.
#4 tells #8 that the movie stuff was impressive, but he's still not convinced.  #3 isn't either, of course.  #4 takes off his glasses and rubs his nose.  #9 says he noticed that #3 has those little indentations in on his nose from his glasses, and the lady witness had them too.  Yet she wasn't wearing glasses in the courtroom.  Because she wanted to look pretty, and guys don't make passes etc. They conclude that there's no way she had on her glasses when she was in bed looking out the window, and therefore her testimony is suspect.  #4 flips.  #3 is out of his head.  This isn't right!  You know he's guilty.  "You're alone now", says 8.  I have a right!  Yes, you do.  So let's talk about it.  3 rehashes all the now-debunked evidence until finally taking out his wallet, staring at a picture of his son, crumbling it, and weeping.  "Not guilty", he says.  "Not guilty!"
Hmm...I think #3 has incorporated his personal life into the case a little bit.
They file into the courtroom to give their verdict, and justice is served.
Outside the courtroom, #9 asks #8 his name.  "I'm Davis" says 8.  "I'm McCardle".  They shake hands and smile.  Then, they part ways, walking down the courtroom steps.
As Davis goes around the corner, the kid approaches him.  "Hey, vato!  That was so awesome how you helped me get away with killing my dad!  High five!"  They both laugh evilly as ominous music plays.  The moral?  Always follow the crowd.

Review: Okay, that last paragraph didn't actually happen.  But it would've been awesome.  As for the movie, it was originally a play, and feels like a play, but Lumet does all he can do bring great cinematic energy to the whole thing.  There are lots of sweeping long shots in the beginning that go on for six or seven minutes, before a quick cut, and then another long shot.  The camera bobs and weaves through everyone as they chat with one another.  Then, by the end, when tensions are high, there are nothing but quick cuts and lots of extreme close-ups.  A very engaging contrast that really sets the mood.  Also, by 1957 there were in fact color movies, but I suspect that they were seen more as gimmicky, like 3D is today.  I'm kind of glad they didn't employ it, here.  And by 1957 it seems that the old-timey bad acting bullshit is finally a thing of the past, with everyone here giving a nuanced and realistic performance, even angry #3, who could've easily gotten melodramatic at the end.  One of my favorite trashy movie genres (second only to body-switching movies) are movies where a ensemble cast is trapped somewhere and getting killed off one-by-one.  This is like the classy version of that, where instead of getting killed off, people where getting "turned" by Henry Fonda over to the good guy's side, one by one.  Not that all the people who thought the kid was guilty were bad.  That was another great touch.  The only flat-out villain was #10.  Even #3 had some residual humanity and #4 was an entirely reasonable man who held onto his beliefs until they ceased to be reasonable. We should all be so lucky.  Although, even though the actors were all great, I have to admit, I found myself more engaged in the mechanics of who would get "killed off" next and why, rather than really embracing the emotional aspect of the story.  #3 revealing his own problems with his son at the end of the movie rang especially "who the fuck cares" to me. But that's minor. The actual plot was easy to follow, too.  When we first hear the evidence, we agree with the eleven that it's pretty open-and-shut.  At what point the individual viewer "turns" probably says a lot about them, as well.  All in all, a great flick.

Stars: Four out of five.

Does it deserve "Best 100" Status: Like I said, I'm getting stricter.  Only five star movies get the honor. So, no.
Next, "Platoon" and then "A Night at the Opera".  Both are new to me, entirely.  I'm not sure how I'll be able to take Sheen seriously, but I'll give it a shot.