Review: ’12’

The Reginald Rose-written/Sidney Lumet-directed film ’12 Angry Men’ was a masterfully crafted depiction of dissension amongst the ranks and how one man’s belief in justice can overtake the raw emotion of prejudice.   Nikita Mikhalkov’s Russian retelling of the same story has a much shorter title, yet a much longer running time.   Though it, ultimately, turns itself into a film that is nearly as powerful as its predecessor, that alone may keep it from ever arising to the legendary status its forefather enjoys today.

’12’ might turn off certain viewers from the concept level.   We no longer are trapped in the juror’s room with these men, as they debate back and forth about the innocence or guilt of a young Chechen man.   We travel outside the walls of the school gymnasium they are sequestered in, travel outside the time period they are in, as well, and see certain events of the boy’s life that led to the murder of his adoptive father.

All of the intricacies are left in in regards to the one man who initially believes the young man to be innocent.   We get the reenactment of the crime scene/the elderly witness who “saw” the young man fleeing the scene.   We get the questioning of how a man much shorter than another can stab the other man by swinging down.   We get the yelling and the frothing at the mouth that Lumet’s original seems to have subdued compared to this Pacino-esque remake.

However, we get so much more thrown on top of the story.   At first, it all seems superfluous.   The number of times we visit the young man in his jail cell bring nothing to the table, and only add to the film’s overall running time.   The flashbacks to the young man as he was as a child and his relationship with his father are incredibly depicted.   Mikhalkov is a master at crafting scenes, and everything in ’12’ is brilliantly placed before us.

In a single shot, Mikhalkov’s camera circles once around the table, as the foreman (played by Mikhalkov himself) begins calling the men to order for their first vote.   The dialogue back and forth between the men seems almost improvised, but the shot rests gently at its end once the conflicting vote is cast.

Later scenes of the young man from his war-torn childhood are radiantly crafted.   But much of it is so unnecessary and brimming with sentiment that, by the time ventures past the original film’s running time, it all grows domineering.

Lumet’s original was a thriller at its core, a fast-paced telling of a man’s struggle to make others believe what he believed that seemed to have a time limit.   Despite the fact to the contrary, we felt watching ’12 Angry Men’ that Henry Fonda only had 90 minutes to convince the other 11 men in the room to let the young man go.   With Mikhalkov’s revisit to the subject matter, we feel we are in this room with these men for days on end, even though the time span of events are probably the same as the original’s

Once ’12’ creeps past its second hour, it is easy to find yourself uncaring, particularly if you have already seen the original.   Every one of the twelve men gets his own moment to tell a story, a story that serves as a parable for why they believe what they believe.   In concept, it is a brilliant idea, and Mikhalkov’s beautiful direction does   much of these moments justice.   However, it is difficult near the end of the film to pay close attention to the final two or three stories when, really, all we want to do, much like these men, is go home.

And then, Mikhalkov turns the camera on himself.   Casting himself as the jury foreman, he sits, literally oftentimes, in the shadows at the head of the table, and is apparently silently sturdy to his beliefs that the young man is guilty.   But, then, a twist occurs, a twist not found in the original film, and it is breathtaking.   It takes everything we have seen from the first two-plus hours of the film and it turns all of that on its ear.

In an instant, we realize what this film is really about, why we have taken all of these departures away from the jury room, and why it is always commendable to question our own beliefs, even when we believe what we are doing is admirable.   The ending of ’12,’ though it, much like the rest of the film, spreads itself out a little long, is absolutely incredible.   In those final moments, everything, from Mikhalkov and Vladimir Moiseyenko’s screenplay to Mikhalkov’s direction to the auteur’s acting prowess, comes together to spearhead the culmination of the story in the best way possible.

’12,’ then, is, ultimately, a powerful telling of a story we have all seen or heard before.   It oftentimes feels like much is getting piled on just for the sake of piling on, and, to an extent, that is true.   Much of the slow build throughout the jury room scenes and nearly all of the actors’ saliva-throwing monologues offer very little in the way of emotion or even entertainment.   That ending, however, makes much of the film’s side roads relevant to the film as a whole.   It gives the film that rare sense of wanting to watch it again immediately, and that, alone, is a commendable element.

Overall Rating: 4 out of 5