5. 12 Angry Men

The stereotype of a ‘thriller’ or a ‘tense’ movie has always been handed to horror films. It is a fact that many horror films are surprisingly effective at these things, due to the human fear of the supernatural. However, an avant-garde thriller is when the supernatural is not used in order to illicit tension in the audience. This is achieved through the landmark film, and the next film on my list, 12 Angry Men; in order to push the borders of tension, it makes use of one room, and only 12 actors. It proves that the most thought provoking of films need not be complex.

The film starts out with the premise that a father was murdered, and his son was put on trial for parricide. The trial goes to the jury’s decision, and the initial vote (after viewing the evidence) starts with 11 out of the 12 judges believing the boy is guilty. Of course, in order for any decision to pass, all jurors must concur. From this singular juror’s action a chain of events is started which truly show a raw portrait of judicial deliberation.

The movie is extremely tense. As soon as the first juror [Fonda] says ‘not guilty’, the whole room is shaken. Every other juror was so self-confident in the simplicity of the decision, they believed the deliberations would finish rapidly. This is not the case.

What is even more fascinating is how the director, Sidney Lumet, chose to keep each man anonymous. In order for any audience member to make judgement on who they are, careful vigil of their body language, diction, and inflection must be maintained throughout the movie. This adds substantially to the experience, as no outside bias against any of these men can be held if their identities are not revealed. However, this does not mean that some of the men do not have observable biases. One of the jurors is immediately revealed to be bigoted against people who live in slums, and he considers them as below him- leading to his belief that this boy must be guilty. He is a perfect example of the deadly combination of hubris and bias, and can be considered the antagonist of the film.

The last statement is another point which makes this film a beauty. How can any of these twelve men be considered protagonists or antagonists, when they must be unbiased jurors debating over a man’s life? If they show any of these negative, brash emotions to the audience, it disavows their positions as jurors. Is this what Lumet is trying to show? It can surely be seen as so. When thinking about the judicial system the United States follows, it is extremely important for one to realize that everyone making decisions is completely human. The errors, presumptions, and assumptions that all these jurors make show the myriad that humans are. With this comes the calculated analyses of those such as the first juror to move against the bandwagon. These two combined paint a full human picture, and truly prove to show that humans are not perfect.

It goes without a doubt to say that the acting in this film is superb. The standout is clearly the legendary Henry Fonda, who does a flawless job as a catalyst of doubt. He plants a seed of doubt among all of the jurors (a few of whom do not desire to be there), and forces them to rethink the gravitas of the situation they have been put in charge of.

The cinematography is limited, but crisp. There is a total of 3 minutes outside of the small enclosed space that the jurors are sitting in. The camera makes sure to focus on macros of each and every single jurors’ face, when they are internally deliberating (with themselves over their decision). This concept of internal deliberation can be considered to be reflected by the space they are put in: cramped, difficult to

sit in, difficult to be comfortable in. But in order to move on, and make the right decision, they must in the room (the same way that each of them needs to make a decision!). The decision they are making is (similarly) difficult to understand, difficult to agree with (initially), but proves to be necessary.

The lighting is also dark, and the black and white quality of the film makes this beautifully shown. There is constant contrast in every frame- showing the black and white nature of the decision that the jurors need to make.

Overall, the movie is a pinnacle of achievement in cinema across the world. It makes each member of the audience suddenly introspective of tough decisions they have made. And most of all, it is thrilling to watch. This movie not only changed the definition of a ‘thriller’, but it set a standard for all films to follow: sometimes, simplicity (in plot and premise) can provoke the most intriguing thoughts. But most of all, shows the power of bias.

4. Toy Story

What defines a children’s story? Is it the characters introduced? The simplicity of the narrative and/or plot? If the director of Toy Story answered ‘yes’ to any of these questions, it is quite clear that the film would have never been created. Toy Story is not a ‘children’s’ film, and this is quite the opposite of what it has come to represent. Toy Story is the pinnacle of the achievements of animation, and it set off a revolutionary thought in the film industry: animated cinema can be successful and thought provoking. And more than this, animated characters can depict just as many emotions as a human character can. This is the beauty of Toy Story.

The movie is strikingly simple; a new toy replaces an old toy as a young boy’s favorite. Throughout the course of the film, the two toys (Woody and Buzz Lightyear) are forced to interact with each other and aid each other after a serious of mishaps cause them to be separated from home. The situation that Woody (the old toy) is put in is the epitome of jealousy. He feels old, he feels replaced, and he feels worthless. If someone has replaced him, what is the point of him even being there to play with? Woody represents jealousy in this film, and the animators have made it clear that he is consistently jealous through his actions. His boding overconfidence when he first meets Buzz, or the shock he experiences when Buzz flies.

Woody’s design adds to this. He is flimsy, and shown to be sewn together. His personality is similarly ‘flimsy’. He is too confident in himself, and believes himself to be on a much higher level than the rest of the toys. Buzz comes in and, quite literally, shakes him up. Buzz is the advancement in toys, and clearly represents what toys have become. However, the crux of Buzz is that he is set in presumption. He is stuck in the world of him being an astronaut, and a space traveler- and he finds difficulty in leaving his past beliefs behind him. Both Woody and Buzz show that facades exist. They act in one way, but they truly believe something else. They act confident and powerful- but on the inside they are uncertain about everything.

But this uncertainty soon fazes away. They collaborate and pull themselves together in order to accomplish a goal (getting back to the house and playing with Andy!). And this makes them realize that there is more to the being a toy than simply wanting to be the best (or in Buzz’s case wanting to be a galactic ranger).

The animation is superb. Remember that this was 1995. The animation correctly shows the personalities of all of the characters. A perfect example of this is Rex, the dinosaur with an inferiority complex. He is constantly terrified that he is not terrifying enough! He is afraid that Andy will eventually replace him. This is shown through his eyes, and the bump over them which forms a brow. He constantly looks down! Of course our ‘hero’ Woody tries to help him out of his anxiety.