It can look into the fire, spy on human nature and analyze the society with God-like calmness and the perspective of overlooking all living beings.
It can be composed and quiet, almost entirely relying on dialogue to create a dozen characters with different personalities, and to build a silhouette of the entire American judicial system.
It can be austere, with just one superstar, one interior scene, and a series of long takes with simple composition, and yet it has one of the best ensembles in film history.
It can be fascinating, with the life of a teenager as a bet, a confrontation between one person and eleven people, winning or losing has nothing to do with oneself, or even not necessarily about justice, only about the dignity of the system.
What's even more great is that this movie called "Twelve Angry Men" is only the first work of director Sidney Lumet. We usually call this kind of person a genius. Like Orson Welles in Citizen Kane, Quentin Tarantino in Reservoir Dogs.
To understand this film, you must first have a certain understanding of the jury system in American law. This is the biggest difference between the common law system and the civil law system. At first glance, a group of legal elites cite the classics and use the classics, and finally let a group of people who do not understand the law make a decision. This system does not seem so reasonable, but it is this seemingly "absurd" rule. , constructing greater justice and fairness.
The basic principle of the American judicial system has always been that "procedural justice" is greater than "substantive justice", so Simpson, a former football star who was caught on national television live, can be acquitted, so there are so many lawyers who have caught the police A little procedural flaw makes a big fuss, allowing the suspect to regain his freedom. In layman's terms, some are similar to our "I would rather let three thousand go than kill one by mistake". In the past, I always thought this was extremely unreasonable, and everyone knew it, but it still allowed criminals to go unpunished. And some Chinese media have also made a big fuss about these special cases as examples of the so-called "capitalist society" where money affects justice. In fact, we only realize the "Chinese-style" judicial loopholes when we have seen many unjust, false and wrongful convictions of the Chinese dynasty, have been used to seeing more than ten years in prison before regaining innocence, and have even been executed long ago before realizing that the perpetrator is someone else's "Chinese" judicial loophole. It is more of a stain that cannot be erased by a country's judicial system than to allow an innocent person to suffer unjust injustice.
And that's where Twelve Angry Men is at its best. Until the end, we have no way of knowing whether the young man was the murderer of his father. But it is under the supreme principle of "procedural justice" that every juror is obliged to cast a reasonable doubt. As long as there is no consensus, no guilt can be found. This way of handing the final judgment to democratic voting largely avoids personal subjective prejudice, and also gives the film space for conflicts to erupt.
Why is America strong? This is a big topic, but from several classic films, we can see some clues. Judicially, this film gives us the best research blueprint. Legislatively, Mr. Smith to Washington is undoubtedly a classic textbook of idealism, and administratively, movies related to the US President and the White House are even more profuse. The shaping of this kind of national image is not simply to praise virtues and build up positive energy, but to actually go deep into the existing system to find bright spots. In contrast, those domestic themed films that still only use the personal charm of leaders and heroes as their main selling points should really study hard (assuming that there are bright spots in the Chinese system for the time being).
The greatest part of the film is that it has completed a seemingly impossible task - in just over a hundred minutes, twelve jurors use debate as a weapon and voting as a battlefield to launch a conflict full of contradictions. Although each person does not have a lot of ink, it perfectly shows the images of twelve characters with different births, different occupations, different personalities, and different positions. Among them, there are philistine little businessmen, selfish ordinary people in the market, stubborn old stubborn, and heroic figures who are like western cowboys, turning things around alone.
It has to be mentioned here that the heroic views of the East and the West are different. When it comes to heroes, in the eyes of the Orientals, especially the Chinese, they are the nameless strong men who "kill one person in ten steps, and leave no one behind for a thousand miles", and are the tragic figures of "the wind is small and the water is cold". But in any case, it will never be the "Juror No. 8" played by Henry Fonda in this film who does not even have his real name. Perhaps it can be said that the Chinese people look forward to swordsmen and swordsmen who are happy and grudge outside the system, while Westerners regard such people as outlaws. Those who do justice within the legal framework are regarded as heroes. Of course, the United States also has desert sands and single-handed western cowboys, but that is not part of mainstream culture after all.
The reason is probably closely related to the political systems of both sides. China's thousands of years of centralized monarchy have made the rebels the embodiment of bravery and greatness in the eyes of the people. Especially in the context formed since the 20th century, "rebellion" and "destruction" have almost become the most respectable behaviors. It also makes the "Xia" who is outside the legal system a synonym for justice. In the West, the spirit of contract and the democratic system have long been deeply rooted in everyone's bones. Maintaining the social public contract of "law" is essentially to safeguard the public interests of everyone in the whole society. This can also explain that in the ranking of the greatest heroes in film history conducted by an American media in the minds of the public, Gregory Peck's lawyer Finch played in "To Kill a Mockingbird" beat James Bond and James Bond. Indiana Jones, the reason for holding the first place.
Because of its rigid and monotonous legal drama, it is not an easy task to make a good show. Or, like "Prosecution Witness" and "National Witness", under the guise of court trial scenes, it attracts attention with case reasoning and plot reversal. But in "Twelve Angry Men", although there is a debate on the facts of the case, it is not regarded as the focus. The escalation of conflicts and narrative impetus in the whole film lies in the process of eight voting. From the uniqueness of Juror No. 8 at the beginning, to the continuous recognition of his views, and the tearful admission of the last opponent, this process not only shows us the operation mechanism of the jury system, but also brings a spectacle to the audience. The movie-watching experience, at the same time in the war of words, was exciting and moving without losing the blood and blood, and it also gave Henry Fonda, who played the No. 8 juror, enough opportunities to show his personal charm.
Sidney Lumet was 87 years old, and until the age of 83, he still gathered together and completed the masterpiece "Before the Devil Knows You Are Dead". But throughout his life, his debut novel, Twelve Angry Men, remained his most popular and most acclaimed work. For some artists, being unable to rise above their initial peak is a tragedy for a lifetime, but not for Sidney. Because in his long career as a director, he has contributed countless masterpieces such as "The TV Station", "Afternoon on a Hot Day" and "Murder on the Orient Express" and so on. In particular, the creative life spanning from the 1950s to the 21st century has left classic works for the movies of each era. Such evergreen trees in the film circle are not uncommon even in Hollywood.
Even "Twelve Angry Men" is enough to make a name for Sydney's film history. With such a great movie, he taught everyone to believe in your convictions and doubt your doubts, even if the whole world is against you.
Because in many cases, the truth is often in the hands of a few people, such as Bruno who adheres to heliocentrism, such as Ma Yinchu and Liang Shuming who dare to sing the opposite. It's just that compared to the common people who follow the crowd, there are too few such people, too few.
View more about 12 Angry Men reviews
