12 Angry Men (1957)

When I went to New York on a history trip with my high school (ha! the closest we got to any history on that trip was analysing the stains in the communal showers) number one on my things to buy list was "Making Movies" by Sydney Lumet. I'd been recommended it as the one book a filmmaker should read but alas, to buy in Britain cost around £100 since it's not published here. Fortunately, I persuaded the group leader to allow me half an hour in the Strand book shop and left with my bounty.

Having read it, I'd have to agree that it's the one book you should read if you're stupid enough to limit yourself to a single book: it's accessible, intelligent, firmly rooted in the practical and a very entertaining read. Anyone who hasn't looked at it ought to get it from the library, or maybe they should book a plane to New York, worked for me.

Anyway, Sydney Lumet writes very well about making films, and he makes films very well too. I'd seen a few of his, but 12 Angry Men was not one of them, though I'd heard about it (and seen the Simpsons' pastiche). It didn't disappoint.

What struck me most was how tautly it was constructed, so that spending an hour and a half in a single room with the same twelve characters felt tense and exciting - there are passages far more thrilling than some action films I've seen, certainly. I think this is down to the cleverness of the script, which releases information as coyly as a mystery, and which poses questions to us and to the characters at every turn.

The acting is also fantastic, even to those of us (ie: me) who wouldn't know that these were a collection of very big stars. What showed through was that they were very talented actors who imbued their characters with so much individuality that I didn't have any trouble following their agendas, despite the fact that none of them were referred to by name. It's the kind of thing which could very easily become hard to follow but it's handled perfectly.

Because of Andy's class specifically about it, I had an eye on the lenses too. The effect is a very subtle one, and certainly not something a layperson would notice. Or rather, they wouldn't notice its execution though they would feel the effects. The most shocking thing was the very wide close-ups, which you don't see often (what with how unflattering it is). They were used in key moments as characters struck out with their own arguments, looking very confrontational with the almost fish-eyed effect.