Reason links to a fascinating back-and-forth on "12 Angry Men," the wonderful movie set entirely in a jury room. Was the kid actually guilty, gotten off by Henry Fonda's self-rightously liberal architect character? Or was the movie deliberately unclear on whether the kid actually did it as a way to show the difference between "guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt"? I tend toward the latter. That movie, by the way, shows why Henry Fonda was probably the best American actor ever. One of the cable channels (Showtime, I think), did a remake starring Jack Lemon and for one of the showings aired both of them back to back. Lemon did not look very good by comparison. Fonda was just there, effortlessly blending in with the story. In every scene, you could see the "acting" in Lemon's work in a way you couldn't in Fonda's.