12 Angry Men

At one point in “12 Angry Men” (1957), one of the jurors asks another juror if he ever sweats.  It’s a critical juncture in the film, at which a few jurors have started to doubt their initial “guilty” vote.  At the start, the eleven jurors unanimously voted “guilty,” with the only juror #8, played by Henry Fonda, voting “not guilty.” The eleven men in the room think they can convince the juror #8 to change his vote. But, as the deliberations intensify, so do human emotions soar and the tables have turned with juror #8 trying to convince the remaining jurors. With consensus shifting gradually, we see the jury is at a crossroads regarding their verdict.  A juror looks outside the window and remarks about a looming storm--a deliberate reference to an unending impasse in the room. Sure enough, the jury room has now developed into a boiler room for heated discussions, as the perspiring jurors struggle to stave off climatic heat.

Director Sydney Lumet brings in a dynamic cast to depict a twelve-man jury. The jury, consisting of all white males, represents how the jury was selected at the time. We meet a diverse set of jurors and when a few jurors stand firmly behind their “not guilty” vote; their firm-headed arguments implied that getting an agreement from this group would be an extremely difficult task. Surely, Lument wanted to signify the intricacies of human nature, and that for certain individuals, prejudices often tend to obscure their judgment.  For instance, several jurors thought that the killer was guilty because he was born and raised in the slums. As one juror remarked, people from the slums are often criminals, hence, they don’t deserve careful consideration from the jury. Blinded by their prejudices, jurors gradually realize, the circumstances of the killer’s birth cannot dictate the outcome of the case.  In fact, it would be unethical if they do so.

                                                                                      

Human beings might not think alike but, they have the capability to think reasonably and morally on any given issue.  Through Fonda’s character, Lumet exemplifies rationality and calmness expected from a person asked to do a civic duty, for instance, that of a juror. Right from the beginning, Fonda’s character had a reasonable doubt in his mind about the trial. In spite of angry discussions and being brusquely interrupted by other jurors, he still succeeds to get his point across. He achieves this because he is firmly convinced that certain elements in the case create uncertainty about the actual killer. Moreover, he eloquently dissects the evidence, breaking it through multiple scenarios and presenting potential flaws in testimonies.  Clearly, he is a firm-headed juror of the pack, driven by logic and responsibility. But, he also feels that as a civil juror, it is his duty to reevaluate the evidence and arguments presented in the trial, especially if their verdict is going to send the defendant to the electric chair.

As the discussions grow more rancorous, the word “doubt” is tossed around a lot to underscore its importance in the U.S. judicial system and what it means to the jury.  Indeed, even a slight doubt can mean life and death for the “guilty” party, and that’s the point juror #8 was trying to make.  The jury process still represents the democratic judicial system, in which the twelve jurors have equal rights to express their viewpoints and then collaborate for a common agreement.  The jurors don’t know each other; they view the case independently and they don’t have any stake in either party.  In addition, the system ensures equal liberties to its citizens, even to the criminals, irrespective of the crime committed. Lumet tries to keep things this way, by keeping the names of the jurors anonymous at the start, and it is only in the end when the names of two jurors are revealed. We are confused, too, on the background of these jurors and how we remember them throughout the movie. As such, in the end, we remember jurors by their votes, and the manner with which they respond and partake in the discussions.  

Surely, “12 Angry Men” is a film about getting a fair verdict, but it is also about standing behind your instincts, and treating case elements fairly and logically. Along the way, the film educates us about morality and making us aware of unchecked prejudices. Under Lumet’s masterful direction, “12 Angry” is a compelling legal drama, minus the courtroom, that has a series of memorable moments and quotes that captures one’s attentions right from the opening segment. Featuring superb camerawork, Boris Kaufman’s cinematography captures the tension in the room by composing tight-looking close-ups as well as capturing the breadth of the dingy room; the close-up reveal multilayered emotions exhibited from the characters as they intensely discuss the case. The film celebrates democracy by letting citizens participate in the justice system of the country. Indeed, “12 Angry Men” is a must-see classic even after fifty-five years since its release.


Final Film Rating = 10/10