1957
Directed by Sidney Lumet
What a great movie. This is a classic that everyone should see or has already seen. I was talking to some coworkers recently who didn't know I had seen it yet. They warned me that I might not like it because it is in black and white and I am so young. They obviously do not know me very well.
This film takes place almost entirely inside the jury room as Henry Fonda tries to convince the jury that the man on trial is innocent. While this may seem like it could get dull after awhile, it is actually entertaining and wonderful until the very end.
I have never actually been on jury duty but like the book suggests, now I am going to imagine myself as Henry Fonda when I am finally a jury member. The idea that a group of strangers could come together like that and then walk away and carry on with their lives is poignant and I enjoy watching movies with that theme.
There are twelve jury members that the camera is on for pretty much the entire ninety minutes and not one of them is anything less than magnificent. Just a great film; if you have seen it yet, for shame!
RATING: *****
Interesting Facts:
None of the twelve jury members are still alive.
Shot in 21 days.
Lost all of its Oscars to The Bridge On The River Kwai. Oh come on!
Well done Henry, the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. But, overall, the kid probably was guilty, wasn't he?
ReplyDeleteHaha that seems to be the general conclusion! I always had dreams that this is what jury service would be like, but when I actually went I vomited and had to leave. One of my more charming anecdotes.
DeleteYou reckon 'he dunnit' then? I think not. For the purpose of story telling / dramatic effect, they had to pile on the evidence - at the start of the process- that he did. But Henry bit by bit, showed that some evidence was just circumstantial, some just out-and-out wrong.
ReplyDeleteOK, you shouldn't judge people by looks .. but did he look like some street tough? No.
Perhaps, if this was made today, to up the 'did he didn't he tension, you would make him look very 'street', give him lots of mouth and attitude .. and then show that break down to reveal a vulnerable, scared kid..
I wonder .. are there any other older Brits who read this who remember the 'Hancock's Half Hour' satire of this?
ReplyDeleteI wonder if anyone else remembers who Tony Hancock was?
Tony Hancock!!! Now we're talking! I've got some of his radio shows on my iPod I bought before going backpacking, so I'd have something other than just music to listen to. In the last few weeks I've listened to them all again. The jury TV episode rings a bell, but it would be 25yrs since I saw it last. At some point I'd like to get hold of the full set and watch/listen to them all.
ReplyDeleteCourts must convict beyond reasonable doubt and so Henry was quite right to demonstrate that there were insufficient grounds and that too many of the jurors were using their own biases.
ReplyDeleteBut, on the balance of probabilities, I'd still say he was more likely to be guilty than not. If this was spoofed by something a bit more satirical like The Simpsons, I can imagine the final scene as Henry/Homer and another juror walk off down the street congratulating themselves whilst in the background the accused walks out of the court, pushes an old lady over, grabs her handbag and runs away.
This talk is too British for me to understand! I really hope he didn't, because I can't live in a world where Henry Fonda is wrong.
ReplyDeleteI've just had to look up your review of Once Upon a Time in the West
DeleteWhether the kid did it or not is irrelevant for the movie. This is all about on what basis we judge other people. All these people have their personal motives to get the boy convicted and none of them has anything to do with the kid. Exposing that is the genius of the movie.
ReplyDeleteI loved every minute of it and I actually despise courtroom movies.
Same. Although I did like Anatomy of a Murder.
Delete