A dissenting juror in a murder trial slowly manages to convince the
others that the case is not as obviously clear as it seemed in court.
The writing is snappy too. You can tell it was worked and worked and worried, going through several generations. It is easy to be mesmerized by this writing and acting, and miss the rare accomplishment of the camera-work. This camera is so fluid, you forget you are in one room. It moves from being a human observer, to being omniscient, to being a target. It is smart enough to seldom center on the element of most importance, so expands the field to all men.
This is very hard. Very hard, to make the camera human. So much easier to do what we see today -- acknowledge the machinery and jigger with it. Do we have a filmmaker today who could do this?
Director:
Sidney LumetWriter:
Reginald Rose (story)Genres:
Crime | DramaStars:
Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Martin Balsam |Storyline
The defense and the prosecution have rested and the jury is filing into the jury room to decide if a young Spanish-American is guilty or innocent of murdering his father. What begins as an open and shut case of murder soon becomes a mini-drama of each of the jurors' prejudices and preconceptions about the trial, the accused, and each other. Based on the play, all of the action takes place on the stage of the jury room.Reviews
This
film deserves to be on anyone's list of top films. My problem is that
it is so perfect, so seamlessly polished, it is hard to appreciate the
individual excellences.
The acting is top notch. I believe that
monologue acting is quite a bit simpler than real reactive ensemble
acting. Most of what we see today is monologues pretending to be
conversations. But in this film, we have utter mastery of throwing
emotions. Once the air becomes filled with human essence, it is hard to
not get soaked ourselves as the camera moves through the thick
atmosphere. Yes, there are slight differences in how each actor projects
(Fonda internally, Balsam completely on his skin...) but the ensemble
presents one vision to the audience.
The writing is snappy too. You can tell it was worked and worked and worried, going through several generations. It is easy to be mesmerized by this writing and acting, and miss the rare accomplishment of the camera-work. This camera is so fluid, you forget you are in one room. It moves from being a human observer, to being omniscient, to being a target. It is smart enough to seldom center on the element of most importance, so expands the field to all men.
This is very hard. Very hard, to make the camera human. So much easier to do what we see today -- acknowledge the machinery and jigger with it. Do we have a filmmaker today who could do this?
Post a Comment