Released in 1957 | Directed by Sidney Lumet

There’s a moment at the very end of Sidney Lumet’s 12 Angry Men where the 12 Jurors, who have spent the entirety of the film inside a single room, leave the courthouse and go their separate ways. These perfect strangers, who may very well never see each other again, are quick to return to their everyday lives, the routines and rituals that comfort them and give their lives purpose. Juror #8, played by Henry Fonda, is stopped by Juror #9, an elderly man who was the first to sympathize with his point of view on the murder trail the jury was meant to judge. He asks for the Juror’s name. “Davis”, he replies. “My name’s McCardle”, Juror #9 replies, smiling and shaking his hand. Both of them comfortably exist in this moment, now knowing one another more fully, before going their separate ways.

12 Angry Men is a great film for many reasons, but the reason which struck me - and likely the reason why the film is still considered among the greatest of all time - is the role that dialogue plays in advancing the story and building the characters. It is no small feat to tell a complex, interesting and engaging story in a single room with twelve characters, none of whom have met before. Of course, if we were to know more about the Jurors, which we come to know by number rather than name, it would weaken the film. We learn bits and pieces about their lives casually through exposition - Juror #12 is an ad exec from the city, Juror #5 grew up in a poor neighbourhood - but the writer’s decision not to offer too much information about the characters is one of my favorite aspects of the film. Knowing very little about their class, their history, or their beliefs, we are left to judge them solely by their character. It’s hard to build an interesting story around something as simple as a jury coming to consensus, but Reginald Rose - who wrote the original teleplay as well as the adaptation for stage - tells his story with a grace and subtlety that never feels anything but natural.

Credit should be given also to Sidney Lumet, of Network and Dog Day Afternoon fame (a fame which is well-deserved), whose choice of a simple, grounded direction style never distracts from or contrasts with the story’s pace and flow. The actors are all worthy of credit as well, and each Juror becomes so unique as the story progresses that it becomes fascinating just to watch each one’s personality bounce off of one another. The strongest performance in my eyes is that of Lee J. Cobb, who plays the troubled Juror #3 so strongly that his eventual catharsis marks the film’s best and most memorable moment. Each person to have taken part in the making of this film did so much with so little, and that is truly remarkable.

12 Angry Men is one of the most popular films of its time, and for good reason - its characters are so strongly written and so well-defined that despite their challenges, which seem very much of their time, they resonate with viewers now who may see aspects of themselves in the nameless twelve on which the film rests. This is a writer’s movie, an actor’s movie, and a movie to be studied for those who wish to tell compelling stories and write compelling characters. I loved the hell out of it.

2 down, 363 to go.