Earlier version of Network

***
Well, the first one(for which he was Oscar nommed right off the bat), "12 Angry Men" is all about doubt and the possibility of compromise isn't it? -- famously so! Shown in classrooms! So he made that same theme over and over.
***

Allow me to better rephrase my point and give examples.

Lumet started making films about singular “ideas” (of justice, etc.), i.e. where the ideas preceded the characters, and gradually went on to make films about the plurality of individuals, their complex moral choices and their relationship to those ideas, i.e. films where characters came first and deliberation about ideas was at the heart of the film.

Lumet, at the beginning of his career and in 12 Angry Men, believes absolutely in the idea of a justice system that "works", and that if there's at least a single virtuous man of some integrity (like Fonda’s juror number 9), then that is enough for the system to produce justice. Men doubt, but the justice system itself is by and large reliable, and accounts for the fallibility of men (reasonable doubt, etc.).

Serpico turns his corrupt colleagues in and there’s no doubt that his motivations are moral and that, even though he’s a (charismatic, because played by Pacino) asshole, he’s doing “the right thing” at great personal risk.

Then comes Prince of the City, about a (corrupt) cop turning in his corrupt buddies. But this time he’s played by Treat Williams, who is a competent but very bland actor (as you rightly pointed out) who precludes any a priori identification by the audience (a very deliberate choice Lumet talks about in “Making Movies”). The film leaves it up to the audience to decide for themselves whether he’s doing the right thing for the sake of justice, if he’s going for personal redemption, or if he wants to save his own corrupt arse.

In the Verdict -a film I adore (that backlit pinball opening sequence, that polaroid scene at the hospital…) as much as you seem to do- Paul Newman’s Frank Galvin has the epiphany that the justice system is not about “guaranteeing justice to the innocent” but about guaranteeing “a fair shake” at justice.

At the end of Night Falls on Manhattan, Andy Garcia’s Sean Casey tells the young aspiring ADAs about his own experience with the grey areas of the Law. How, sometimes, breaking the law is more just than upholding it (he withheld evidence in order to convict a suspect he knows is a felon and cop killer). That they shouldn’t prepare for a job where circumstances are black and white because they’re going to spend most of their times in the grey areas, which is where they’ll come face to face with who they really are, a frightening thing to do that might take a lifetime to figure out. He tells them how they’ll come about cases where they’ll have to make deals in order to produce the best approximation of justice. He explains how he still has complete faith in the law, but also knows he’s completely fallible.


I think Lumet's body of work is so invaluable precisely because, even though he's not the first "auteur" to recurrently come back to some themes of predilection (in his case, justice and corruption), one can clearly see his own thought on these themes evolving film after film, and becoming more nuanced, more complex, leaving room for doubt and deliberation, and asking the audience that they do "some work of their own".

At the end of 12 Angry Men and Serpico everything is solved. Justice was carried-out (at a price, but the system "worked").
At the end of Prince of the City, Night Falls on Manhattan, Running on Empty, Daniel, etc. it's much more arduous to be certain about who was right, and whose motivations were just or morally justifiable (then and now).

I'm "missing" a few Lumets: Daniel, Running on Empty..its like Scorsese with HIS non-crime films. I need to see these.
***

Oh, please do treat yourself and watch these two films (and then tell us what you think)! Running on Empty is up there with Lumet's very best work, and Daniel is the film of his he's on record saying he was the most satisfied with.

--

Well, I tell ya. A "self confrontation" with a lifetime of movie watching tells me that I wasn't really a "film buff." I was a thriller buff(first, from Hitchcock to Charade to Wait Until Dark), then an action buff(from Dirty Harry to Die Hard), and often a Western buff. In short: genre.

But really good dramas -- with really good stars and writing - could lure me in, too. Network is one. The Hospital(which has murder thriller overtones) is another.

And comedies, of course, though I rarely have found one with enough "meat on the bones" for true greatness. Animal House, maybe. MASH. Some Like It Hot Love and Death.

Stars are/were a draw, too. i don't recall the stars of Daniel and Running on Empty, so I guess they weren't big enough to bring me in.

BUT THIS: I have some later years left and I expect to "catch up" on a lot of unseen movies, read up on a lot of unread books. I'll put Daniel and Running On Empty on the list.

---