12 Angry Men (1957) is another example of how you can make one
hell of a movie with a small cast, an enclosed space and a director who knows
how to work his cameras. Jury duty is something most people try to avoid, but
as directed by Sydney Lumet it becomes a fascinating morality tale as twelve
strangers debate the life of a young man accused of murder. Almost entirely
shot within one room and with a brisk 96-minute running time it is a timeless
classic.
My first viewing
was on a DVD rental, so obviously this was a couple of years before Netflix. The
DVD extras are definitely worth it for a retrospective on the cast of twelve
actors, the film’s legacy, and the opinion of legal scholars. Like all movies
it has its flaws, and apparently the most glaring was the judge’s blasé
attitude given the fact this is a murder trial. That flaw aside, this is
definitely a movie worth seeing with someone else because unlike many movies that
come out today it makes you think while you are it and a long time afterwards.
The scary thing
is that initially almost none of the jurors in the New York City courthouse
feel like doing any thinking at all. In their minds this is an open and shut
case of an 18-year-old kid from a slum accused of murdering his father with a
knife. They are heading towards a guilty verdict until Juror 8 (Henry Fonda)
chooses a not guilty plea. He has doubts about the evidence that was presented
and believes they all should take a closer look before making their final
decision. This irritates Juror 7 (Jack Warden) who is eager to get to a
baseball game and Juror 10 (Ed Begley) who shows prejudice towards people from
slums.
Over time Juror 8
begins to swing some of the jurors his way by actually looking at the facts
(remember those?). For one thing the prosecution argued the murder weapon is a
very rare knife, yet Juror 8 managed to bring an almost exact copy inside the
jury room. Then there is the fact the accused had a spotty memory when asked to
recall events that occurred a few days prior. However Juror 8 asks a fellow
juror to recall specific details from the past few days of his life and things
get a little foggy. Try it; it’s true no matter your age.
As the
deliberations carry on the jurors (Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, Lee J. Cobb, E.
G Marshall, Jack Klugman, Joseph Sweeney, George Voskovec and Robert Webber)
begin to get more and more agitated as their opinions and prejudices start to
bubble up. They are all stuck inside this one room with each other and it
begins to dawn on them that a man’s life is on the line, baseball games be
damned. They are supposed to be impartial, but it becomes clear some of jurors
have preconceived opinions about the accused based on his origins, which of
course angers some of the other jurors.
Given the one
location you would think there wouldn’t be much for the camera crew to do, but
Sydney Lumet and his crew managed to get creative. Initially the cameras are
above eye-level and mounted with wide-angle lenses. However as time goes by and
the debates become more and more intense Lumet shoots from a lower angle and
the jurors all get close-ups in order to increase the sense of claustrophobia.
Initially this
story was a play by Reginald Rose and after Lumet’s great film it has been
adapted again for television and in other countries as well. I am all for that
because as good as Lumet’s film is, the cast and even the accused are rather
vanilla. It would be complicated for the title if a woman was added to the
jury, but nowadays it would make sense. Better yet, instead of a young white
man from a slum, have him be black, Hispanic, or even a member of the LGBTQ
community, and also have the jurors be just as diverse. Or if you really want
to have a fiery debate, make a version of this story in which at least one
member of the jury voted for Donald Trump.
My takeaway from
this story is the importance of debating the facts and deciding beyond a
reasonable doubt whether or not the accused is guilty. As jurors they are not
there to decide if he is “innocent.” Nobody is innocent, but given that he is
accused of murder and could get the death penalty they need to be
100 per cent sure of his guilt. Think about that if you are ever inside a
courtroom either as accused or juror.
Comments
Post a Comment