12 Angry Men

    This is probably one of the best movies of all time and definitely my favorite. It's crazy to think that you can go on such an interesting journey in just one room (or three if you count the courtroom and bathroom). I feel like by the end of the movie, you kind of forget that you are still in the same room, and apparently, this was the intentionally choice by Sidney Lumet, the director. I read in an article that he used tighter lenses and moved the camera height down as the movie progressed to make the room seem smaller and increase the tension. Lumet almost uses the room as a character of its own, almost like an antagonist. If you really think about it, one the core reason why these 12 men are angry is because of how constricting the room -- small area and very hot. There's a very good chance that if the men were more comfortable they could have had a more civild discussion, but the nature of the room drives a lot of the tension between the jurors. Therefore, making the room a dynamic character by changing the lens and camera position was such an interesting and creative choice is this is what I love about cinema.

    Going on with the visual aspects, one of the first things that stood out to me was the choreography. For example, take the opening shot of the jurors entering the room. They walk around in such specific ways to properly introduce important information for the movie but it just seems so natural. It really feels like you are right there in the room, bouncing between the different jurors. This is one of the things this film does really well -- it's very immersive. Although this is not necessary for a good movie, I feel like this can make a movie really enjoyable to watch since it makes all the emotions and actions feel so much more real. For example, when you see Juror 3 break down at the end of the movie, it really feels like you're with a real father who has a strained relationship with his son. This was actually a pretty sad moment for me because the whole movie, you see him angry and annoyed, so seeing him smiling in the picture with his son hits home that he's just a normal father. You really empathize with him since I think everyone, at some point in their lives, have translated their emotions from one aspect of their life to another.

    Plot-wise, I have the admit, I was kind of suspicious about how I would be interested watching a bunch of people talk for that long. It really did feel clear that the defendant was guilty, and I didn't get how what the jurors would be talking about for so long. Even after I realized that the trajectory of the movie was that the 11 jurors would change their vote from "guilty" to "not guilty," I was still interested in seeing how there was doubt in each piece of evidence introduced. Probably my favorite piece of the evidence that came up was the woman claiming to see the boy see his father. I felt it was really smart connect it to Juror 4's eyeglasses. (If you really remember the movie, Juror 9 takes so long to get to the point. That felt kind of annoying).

    However, I didn't really agree with some pieces of evidence. For example, when Juror 8 questions Juror 4 about the movies he watched on Monday (three nights ago). I didn't really feel like it proved anything. I believe that the detectives asked the boy about what movies he saw the same night he apparently saw them, but Juror 8 asks Juror 4 about movies, and especially the second feature, from a couple nights ago. I feel like it is reasonable to forget something as insignificant as a second feature from three nights ago -- I can barely even remember what I ate for dinner last night. (At least I am assuming second features are pretty insignificant; we don't have that anymore). Therefore, I don't think comparing the juror not remembering to the defendant not remembering is compelling since it feels like a false equivalence. Furthermore, Juror 4 is portrayed as the rational one, so I thought it was kind of unrealistic that he did not complain about this.

    Additionally, I saw a review by Mike D'Angelo of The A.V. Club talking about how it's pretty unrealistic that that all the evidence shown in the trial is doubtful. Although I have the admit this is true, I don't feel like this doesn't take a lot away from the movie. Being unrealistic can make movies boring (for example, the Fast & Furious franchise), but I feel like this doesn't apply to 12 Angry Men. For example, the knife scene can be deemed as unrealistic, but on the contrary, most people would consider it iconic. This is because the writers don't repeat this type of coincidence all the time. It's not like Juror 8 excuses all the evidence just by magically coming up with proof -- this would make for a very bad movie. Instead, evidence is given a new perspective in many different ways like using logical reasoning or reasonably noticing something interesting about the witness. This variety is what makes the movie fun to watch. Of course, if you look at everything after your done with the movie, you realize that the situation was pretty improbable, but the whole point is that you don't notice this during the movie -- you're too invested in drama between the men. 

    A movie's job is to entertain you while it's playing. You might argue that great movies have an big impact on you after they're done playing (and I would agree with you), but I don't believe this is necessary for a great movie. I simply judge a movie based on how much I enjoy it. Sure, having a lasting impact elongates that enjoyment, but that doesn't necessarily increase total the enjoyment. I personally haven't found many movies that have had a significant lasting impact on me -- that's just not how I've viewed movies. So far in my life, movies have not been something that fundamentally change the way I think. (This usually happens from the people I talk to). Of course, this is subject to change as I watch more movies, but for now 12 Angry Men is my favorite movie.