12 Angry Men - Movie Review Example

12 Angry Men A Review AND SECTION April 12, 12 Angry Men A Review The film 12 Angry Men (1957) observes and reports on the jury system of the United States. The 18 year-old Spanish defendant draws five older gentlemen and seven middle aged men as his jury of peers. One juror is foreign born and one is from poverty. The jury does not assume him to be innocent, as the law prescribes. Even the judge drones his boredom during jury instructions. The many ethical dilemmas, values and concepts depicted in this film include: 1. Presumed innocence, ethic or myth? 2. Personal prejudice in the jury room. 3. Personal experience in the jury room. 4. Personal agenda in the jury room. 5. Interpersonal group dynamics: bullies, opinion leaders, bigots, conformists The film explores the best and worst in human behavior in the setting of the jury room amidst a literal life and death decision. This paper explores that treatment. Presumed Innocence Ethic or Myth Eleven of the jurors voted guilty in the first polling without the benefit of an evidence review. Only juror 81 voted not guilty. The anonymity of nameless jurors reduced audience prejudice, although, juror 8 wore a white suit and juror 32 wore a black suit in keeping with Hollywood symbolism. Juror 8 stood alone in his conviction, his ethic, that before sending a defendant to the death penalty, the jury had a duty to review the case. Several of the jurors commented they thought the defendant was guilty from early in the case, indicating an early personal deliberation without listening to the defense first. Juror 23 says he cannot put his reasons into words, just thought the defendant “guilty from the word go”. (Lumet 1957) Juror 64 says he was “convinced early” (Lumet 1957) when the prosecutor established motive. Juror 75 exclaims “no one thought about it twice” (Lumet 1957) except juror 8. Clearly, these jurors did not honor their commitment to impartiality prior to deliberations. Although the defense attorney did not aggressively cross examine witnesses, most jurors felt the defense council was competent, mostly by assumption. The assumption of competency logically lead to the conclusion that if there were a defense, it would have been presented. No defense, no rebuttal, no innocence. The defense council is never on screen, a cinematic no show. The fact that the boy was accused of killing his father, a man whose position was sympathetic to many on the jury, ironically foreshadowed the juror 8 role in this drama. (Cunningham 1986) Juror 3 said his parenting skills involved “making his son a man” (Lumet 1957) until his son punched him in the jaw during an argument. Juror 8 raised his kids through love and respect. Juror 8 saw in the defendant an innocent child that never had a chance while the others only saw his superficial guilt. The movie continued through the first act with only juror 8 assuming the defendant was not guilty. The others were too emotional or prejudiced to review the facts. The first act ends with juror 8 making a leap of faith. He challenges the others to make a secret ballot and if all 11 vote guilty, he will too. The votes are counted and a 10-1 split is discovered. The older gentleman, juror 96, decided to back up juror 8 on principle; although ten jurors did not presume innocence, the young defendant would receive thoughtful deliberation from his jury. Personal Prejudice The jurors demonstrated a varying degree of prejudice, both racial and class based. As the jurors entered the jury room, several conversations revolved around the defendant and his social status. The discussion of evidence brought to light the prejudice and backstory7 of the jurors. In a more benign comment, Juror 48 avers the defendant came from the slums and slums create criminals. “Everyone knows that” (Lumet 1957). Juror 59 disagrees with this assessment, reviewing his own history and asking for sensitivity to the youth’s plight. Juror 1010 is a more vehement bigot, spewing stereotype and cursing “those people” (Lumet 1957). Juror 9 confronts juror 10 early regarding the defendants propensity for lying as a stereotype. 10’s ranting continues to increase in venom until he ends the second act with a hate filled diatribe which brings nine other jurors to the point of leaving the table and turning their backs on him. Juror 10 is shunned. As the epitome of presumed guilt, he is no longer allowed to deliberate with the others. He sits alone and bemoans his fate. At the end of the second act, the vote stands at nine not guilty and three guilty. Juror 7 votes not guilty out of convenience and juror 1211, conformity. Jurors 3, 4 and 10 vote guilty. Personal Experience Throughout deliberations jurors are asked to contribute expertise to the discussion. The architect asks for the apartment layout. Juror 5 explains knife fighting. Juror 6 talks about el trains. Juror 9 talks about the loneliness of an old and largely irrelevant man who has the opportunity to be treated as valuable, and how that might influence his decision to testify incorrectly, to try to please his audience. The three most dramatic contributions, however, concern jurors 3, 4 and 1112. Juror 3 refers to the defendant as a “dangerous killer” (Lumet 1957). The fight between juror 3 and his son caused an ongoing two year estrangement. Juror 3 had not forgiven his son for becoming the man Juror 3 had wished him to be. Juror 3 wanted to transfer that guilt to the defendant, who accused of patricide, was a convenient anger release. At the movie end, as the last hold-out for a guilty verdict, a deeply conflicted juror 3 broke into tears, tore the photograph of his son and forgave the son, and by extension, himself. He became the unanimous vote for not guilty. Juror 11 speechified about the American justice system like only an immigrant can. With the wild-eyed wonderment of someone who has lived under an oppressive regime and come to the United States, he took his jury duty very seriously. Juror 11 admonished juror 7 for his lackadaisical attitude and his sole concern for attending the baseball game. Juror 11 pleaded the theoretical case of jury duty, and spoke of the wonderment of self-governance. The speeches were written into the movie as a reminder to the audience about duty and fairness. He defended juror 5’s sensitivity about the slum dwellers when made by juror 4. Juror 4 wore glasses. He rested his guilty vote on an eyewitness. During the discussion, when only four holdouts remained, juror 12 flipped back, juror 9 deduced the woman eyewitness wore glasses. Since the event occurred at night and she was in bed, 9 further deduced she was not wearing the glasses at the time of the murder. Her eyewitness testimony was reasonably in doubt. Juror 4 ceded the point, he was convinced of reasonable doubt because his expertise in wearing glasses made it impossible to believe she could see the event. At the very end of the film, juror 8 demonstrated his humanity and compassion again by helping juror 3 compose himself and get his jacket on. The others simply left juror 3 behind like a vanquished opponent. Personal Agenda All twelve jurors and the director, Sydney Lumet, brought personal agenda into that jury room. Juror 8, an architect, wanted to design a fool proof case beginning with the foundation and ending with eyewitness. Juror 8 found flaws in each part of the plan and rejected it for reasonable doubt. Most of the others simply resented the interruption to their normal lives. They had been in the courtroom for six days and wanted to get back to their lives. Juror 10 was blinded by his bigotry and would have liked to kill them all. Juror 3 wanted to find his own son guilty for having abandoned him after some violent teenage years. But the most personal agenda was the director’s. In the auteur theory of film criticism, the critic observes and comments on a body of work. Lumet was a master of the courtroom drama. Along with 12 Angry Men, he directed Serpico, Q&A, The Verdict and, although not a legal system drama, Failsafe. In each of these films, two characteristics stand out. The idea that individuals are responsible for group decisions and deliberation, the dynamics that affect the decisions. (Cunningham 2001) Lumet chooses heroes who have strong moral and ethical compasses, who try to do the right thing, and by doing so, they seem to become “fish out of water”. Juror 8 begins as the odd man because he wants the jury to deliberate. Lumet seeks sympathy for his agenda by using his cinematic skills for storytelling. Motion pictures are about showing a story; so even in a one room drama, the filmmaker must find a way to show the characters. This process is mise en scéne, or how the shot is designed. (Manchel 2003). Perhaps the best example is the scene where juror 8 is questioning juror 4 about his whereabouts during the past week. A cool, logical deliberate man, juror 4 answers until he tries to remember what movie he saw. His details were sketchy. During the questioning, juror 4 was framed by a window pane with a heavy rainstorm beating against the glass; and, although the room was very hot and he kept his coat on, juror 4 produced his first bead of sweat when he could not remember details. Juror 4 began to empathize with the young defendant who was under greater pressure than he during questioning. Lumet does such an expert job of creating this film and delivering his message of the importance of self awareness that a Russian remake of the film changed the youth to a Chechen and the murdered father to a Russian military man. (Malone 2008) The universal appeal of fairness and ethical deliberation is mirrored in this film. Henry Fonda, juror 8, questioned the capacity of court appointed lawyers and their incentive to do a good job. This film was released in 1957. In 1963, the Supreme Court decided Gideon v Wainwright which commanded the states to provide legal representation for indigent defendants, and the representation had to be competent. (Black 1963) The film was ahead of its time. Fonda went on in his career to play Clarence Gideon in Gideon’s Trumpet, a film about the events leading up to the Supreme Court case. Interpersonal Group Dynamics: bullies, opinion leaders, bigots, conformists The jury’s immediate reaction to the one not guilty vote was to badger and bully, to force conformity. From the comment “there’s always one” from juror 10 to the foreman, juror 113, condescending to “show you where you’re mixed up”, the other 11 members assumed juror 8’s ignorance because he disagreed with the majority. (Lumet 1957) Conformity brings comfort to those conforming, it’s validating. Juror 8 and juror 4 were the opinion leaders. They disagreed politely and responded with integrity to each other’s questions. They respected the opposing opinions. The other jurors ultimately aligned with one or the other. The bullies included jurors 3 and 10. They would not listen; they spoke in stereotyping personal attacks; and they were not welcome by their same voting allies. As bullies often are, they were cowards as well. As long as they were in the majority, they brashly condemned the defendant for his personal qualities and status. When they were shunned and isolated, they quickly cowed. Early on in the film, juror 1 admonished juror 10 to take responsibility for the leadership and management of the jury by being the foreman. 10 quickly deferred preferring to be part of a mob rather than leading a jury. The bullies ultimately hurt their own cause. The conformity presentation was interesting. As juror 8 gained momentum in his argument, it became easier for jurors to change their votes. Conformity is a strong urge among the citizenry. As juror 11 points out, that non-conformity, the individualism, makes the United States unique. One man can try to change the system, or the deliberations, as long as they accept the responsibility to do so. Conclusions The moral dilemmas, values and concepts in 12 Angry Men, are numerous. Individualism and conformity conflict. Bigotry clashes with factual evidence. Collaboration of expertise works out some of the disagreements. And once bigotry is literally put aside as personified by shunning juror 10, logic, reason and a review of the evidence in whole directs the jury to a reasonable verdict. Lumet artfully applies his skills to demonstrate the changing tides of the discussion within the framework of a three act play. Fonda uses several movies to explain the importance of living constitutionally, how the weakest need it most, and the strongest have a moral obligation to defend those too weak to defend themselves. In many ways this film is about complacency. Juror 7 personifies the slacker mentality that his trivial pursuits are more important than an 18 year-old life. The jury wants a quick verdict of guilty because they do not want to risk putting a guilty man on the street to endanger themselves, and this youth is a small price to pay. The system chose this defendant, it’s up to the jury to convict him, and everyone gets on with their lives. Even the judge is bored and expects a quick verdict. References Black, J. 1963, Opinion of the Court, Gideon v Wainwright (No. 155). 372 U.S. 335 Accessed on line from Cornell University Law School Cunningham, Frank. 1986. Sydney Lumet’s Humanism: The Return to the Father in Twelve Angry Men. Literature Film Quarterly. 14: 2, 112-122 Cunningham, Frank. 2001. Lumet at Zenith. The American Film Pantheon Lexington KY: The University Press of Kentucky. Lumet, Sydney, 1957, 12 Angry Men. Orion-Nova. Malone, Peter. 2008, From Conflict to Reconciliation in World Cinema. Studies in World Christianity. 14: 2, p108-124 Manchel, Frank. 2003, What Does It Mean, Mr. Holmes? An Approach to Film Study. Literature Film Quarterly; 31: 1, 69-76. Read More