Case Study - 12 Angry Men

First shot :High eye level and wide angle shot of courthouse

Our introduction to the jury actually comes in the courtroom: a simple tracking shot, right to left, watching them listen as the judge sums up their upcoming responsibilities.

The one facial shot of the scared, vulnerable – and never heard – accused boy…

… cross fades into five-minute-plus opening jury deliberation room shot that sets up the individual members and certain relationships over the credits and beyond.

The first cut is on Juror 8, Fonda’s initially lone voice of ‘not guilty’, appropriately isolating him from the rest of the group.

The opening shot, is a wide-angle lens angled downwards that gives the whole jury focus and the room ample space to clearly show 11 hands raised in near-unanimous agreement of a guilty verdict.

Throughout the film close-ups are used judiciously and wisely, to maximise impact, like the revelation that a second jury member now votes ‘not guilty’…

… or later when other changed minds are revealed by their raised hands.

The camera is an ever-dynamic presence, continuous shots changing emphasis, mood and tone. Here it starts on a medium shot of Juror 8 seated in serious contemplation…

The high/low camera angle in 12 angry men pulls the viewer into the character’s emotional experience

… following him around the room into a shared medium close-up with antagonistic Juror 7…

… now tracking with Juror 7 as he makes superficial comments…

… and once he leaves the shot, settling on various reactions to 7’s remarks, from amusement to resentment.

cleverly used the passing of time for additional visual drama. Juror 8 makes his case in daylight seen through the one wall with windows…

… the evening rain adds intensity to the jury’s debate, with the camera also positioned lower to cramp the frame…

… and the artificial lights as darkness falls evokes a foreboding mood to the action, the threat of violence now very real. Tilting the camera up to reveal the ceiling also exaggerates the feeling of the men boxed in by their surroundings.

And whereas before the men, even in grouped shots, had more individual freedom, now figures encroach into their personal space, raising the tension.

Compare this shot to Image 8. We still see all 12 men around the table, but the lower camera position and cramped framing now makes the room feel as if it has closed in on them.

Juror 10’s racist rant starts close on his tirade, then slowly pulls out…

… to reveal his fellow jurors one by one distancing themselves from, and turning their back on him, until he has no choice but shamed silence.

There’s a simple but effective visual scheme to shots of individuals. The camera starts above eye-level, almost dispassionately observing them, then gradually moves to a more confrontational eye-level (and here Juror 8 almost looks as if he’s appealing to the watching audience as much as his fellow jurors)…

… until finally it shoots below eye-level(as the tension grows) on a longer lens that blurs the background…

… and by going even closer in and almost distorting their faces, actually hones in on their true, sometimes ugly emotions…

… until there are no more words left. No hiding place. The faces see – and say – everything.

And a man’s life has been saved.

At the end a simple decent interaction restores humanity

It’s a huge relief then, and a release of claustrophobic tension, that the film’s final shot is its widest, highest vantage point, taking us outside and watching the 12 men gradually disperse and go their separate ways. And… breathe!

Mirroring the first majestic shot of the courthouse