12 Angry Men: The Television Movie

 

12 ANGRY MEN

This review is part of the Summer Under the Stars Blogathon. Today's star is Ossie Davis.

Times change. What worked in an earlier era might not fully work today. Such is the case with the 1997 television adaptation of 12 Angry Men. This version brings a more diverse cast to the proceedings while keeping what worked from the original film. While it tacked on almost a half hour more than its predecessor, 12 Angry Men is still a showcase for a variety of actors.

A young man (Douglas Spain) is on trial for the murder of his father. The Judge (Mary McDonnell) gives her instructions to the jurors who move into deliberations.

The initial vote from the jurors is 11-1 to convict. The sole holdout is Juror #8 (Jack Lemmon). Leading the charge to convict is Juror #3 (George C. Scott), with Juror #3 (Armin Mueller-Stahl) as his ally. Juror #8 is not saying that he thinks the Accused is not guilty. He just has to move beyond reasonable doubt and wants to talk about.  the case. After some deliberation and fierce opposition from the other jurors, Juror #8 will vote to convict on condition that the other jurors remain unanimous. A single "Not Guilty" vote would extend the deliberations.

First to fall is Juror #9 (Hume Cronyn), who thinks Juror #8's objections should be heard. Over the course of hours, there is a shift among the jurors. Some, such as former Nation of Islam member Juror #10 (Mykelti Williamson) will not fold. Others, such as Jurors #2 and 12 (Ossie Davis and William Petersen) are more wavering, open to both sides. Some jurors just want out, such as Juror #7 (Tony Danza), desperate to make the Yankees game. 

Others such as Juror #11 (Edward James Olmos) take their duty seriously. While the Foreman, Juror #1 (Courtney B. Vance) works to keep the peace and things in order, the other jurors soon start arguing over every aspect of the case. Jurors #5 and 6 (Dorian Harewood and James Gandolfini) are caught in the middle. Will these twelve men agree to convict or acquit? Will their individual lives and views allow them to see the evidence alone?

12 Angry Men manages to sneak in a woman with the Judge. Apart from her, the television adaptation by Reginald Rose from his own original teleplay and 1957 film keeps it all with the guys. What 12 Angry Men has is an all-star cast where it lives out the creed that there are no small parts, only small actors. 

The lion's share is between George C. Scott and Jack Lemmon as the antagonists who will not yield their views without a fight. Lemmon does not have big showy moments. Instead, he almost underplays his role of Juror #8. He remains calm, measured, slightly agitated but never in a rage. That rage is from Scott, diving into Juror #3's mix of stubbornness and ultimately regret. Each play off each other well, ably directed by William Friedkin.

12 Angry Men gives most of its cast a chance to show strong acting. I would say that Cronyn is the standout of the supporting cast (if you make Lemmon and Scott the leads). He has an excellent monologue as to why he opted to follow Juror #8's lead that holds your attention. Williamson too did great work as Juror #10. It is almost daring to have this black man go on a racist rant. A lazier script would have had this diatribe against "spics" be issued by maybe someone else. That it is a minority going after another minority is a sign and sad acceptance that bigotry is not from just one side.

Petersen was also strong as Juror #12, forever wavering between guilty and not guilty. Mueller-Stahl made Juror #4 into a rational figure. While they had smaller parts both Gandolfini and Danza handled the roles well. Davis was too briefly on screen, but he too had a small moment where he got his say.

My great issue with 12 Angry Men the television movie is the same one that I had with 12 Angry Men the film. I think Juror #8 asked for too much in terms of evidence and supposals. The more I think on it, I think the jury reached the wrong conclusion not through the examining of evidence but by going into almost an alternate universe. Juror #8 seemed set on not accepting any evidence no matter what it was.

For example, he goes over a point that Juror #4 keeps going back to. The Accused said that he went to the movies when his father was being murdered but when asked by the police, the Accused could not remember what movies he had seen or even the stars in them. Juror #8 cuts down this testimony by asking Juror #4 to remember the last movie he had seen (Secrets & Lies). Juror #4 bungled the title, calling it "Lies and Secrets", then could not remember the actors in Secrets & Lies. From that, Juror #8 insists that it is perfectly logical that, under the stress and shock of being questioned by the police at the crime scene, the Accused could have been honest about going to the movies but not remembering anything about them.

Never mind that there were other witnesses testified had stated that they had not remembered seeing the Accused at the theater. For Juror #8, everything that pointed to the Accused's guilt was cut down. For me, Juror #8 kept putting up too much supposition to eventually make everything doubtful. He, to my mind, went beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, I do not know that the comparison between the Accused and Juror #4 is a fair one. 

Other elements, such as what seemed a longer time in getting to the second "not guilty" vote, made 12 Angry Men less than it could be. Some scenes featured Dutch angles, which I figure in a way to spice up the imagery. 

Despite some stumbles, 12 Angry Men works as a showcase for strong acting all around. I think 12 Angry Men is about the process of the jury system. For that, I respect it, even if I would not have changed my vote from "guilty" no matter how often Juror #8 pushed. 

7/10