There are many ways in which Continental and Anglo-Saxon schools of law manifest their differences in the area of criminal procedure, but usually the most notable, at least for outside observers, is the use of a lay jury in the latter. The advantages and disadvantages of both schools could be the subject of lengthy debates, but there is no doubt that criminal trials in Anglo-Saxon countries provide better drama and, consequently, better material for movies. Hollywood filmmakers came to this conclusion a long time ago and, as a result, created an entire new subgenre of courtroom dramas. However, the most important and possibly the most interesting element of such trials – the jury and its deliberations – was mostly absent from Hollywood films. One of the rare films to break this taboo and deal with juries was 12 Angry Men, the 1957 feature‑film directorial debut by Sidney Lumet.
The plot of this film is based on the play by Reginald Rose, who was allegedly inspired by his own experiences as a juror. The movie begins one hot summer day in a New York courthouse. A teenager has just been tried for the murder of his father, and the judge sends the jury to deliberate about his guilt or innocence, warning them that a guilty verdict brings a mandatory death penalty. When the jurors enter the room, things are not looking well for the defendant – the jury members are eager to pronounce him guilty as soon as possible. The only exception is Juror #8 (played by Henry Fonda), who votes “not guilty” only because he thinks that the decision on someone’s life and death should be made after careful examination of the evidence. The rest of the jury is upset by such dissent, but Juror #8 gradually convinces them to review the case. As a result, reasonable doubt about the boy’s guilt emerges and more jurors are ready to vote “not guilty”, while, on the other hand, some jurors are becoming quite passionate about sending the defendant to the electric chair.
Today, 12 Angry Men is considered a classic, one of the greatest films made by 1950s Hollywood. Unfortunately, it also belongs to those films which are not made in Hollywood today, since it is hard to imagine big studios spending money on films based on stage plays, shot in black and white and with plots set in a single room during one afternoon (the 1997 remake was shot as a cable production). On the other hand, some filmmakers in today’s Hollywood would find the theme of this film quite to their taste. Reginald Rose’s play does not just reveal dramatic tensions, usually hidden behind locked jury‑room doors; it also reveals the role prejudice plays in judicial, as well as any other important collective decisions in American society. If made today, and without some of the constraints Lumet had in the 1950s, this film would be considered very “politically correct”. Of course, the subplot about prejudices could be hidden for those accustomed to more direct and more preachy ways of socially conscious American cinema of the 1990s. All the persons in the jury room are white men; but even they are objects of social stratification and prejudices. Through the escalating drama anonymous jurors slowly reveal their different social backgrounds and the ways in which they perceive the world and each other. The biggest prejudice is, of course, racial – directed against “people from the slums”, who are, same as the jurors themselves, anonymous to the viewers, but their ethnic background is presumed to be Puerto Rican. Because of such prejudices, many jurors were ready to make their fatal decision before they were really examining the evidence. The microcosm of the jury room could be perceived as a metaphor for American society in the 1950s and the struggle of the lone Juror #8, whose background is intellectual, could be seen as a metaphor for the struggle for civil rights of American ethnic minorities.
With or without politics, 12 Angry Men is a powerful film, and its director Lumet should be really praised for making it so with a small budget and in so unappealing a setting. Lumet’s achievement is even greater when we take into account the fact that it was his first major film. On the other hand, we could say that he had an easy time, since few directors enjoyed the privilege of working with such a stellar cast. Always reliable Henry Fonda is only a nominal lead, being partnered with eleven great character actors. Thanks to Lumet’s meticulous pacing and editing, each of them used the opportunity to give a splendid performance. Only one of them, Lee J. Cobb (Juror #3 and the most ardent member of the “guilty” camp), got an Oscar for the role in this film, but every other member of the cast deserved it too. Perhaps 12 Angry Men should have been the opportunity to introduce a new category of Oscars – given for collective performances. The excellent acting was supported by good photography from Boris Kaufman and also by an ascetic but suggestive musical score from Kenyon Hopkins. The only thing that does not look perfect in this film is the ending, which seems somewhat abrupt and the epilogue is unnecessary. However, this flaw is a minor one, and 12 Angry Men completely deserves its high status as an undisputed classic.
Another thing that makes 12 Angry Men important is its educational value. This film is a great combination of an adult theme and a treatment suitable for a younger audience. Therefore, 12 Angry Men is a film that should be viewed not only by those who want to educate themselves about the inner workings of the American judicial system.
RATING: 9/10 (++++)
(Note: The text in its original form was posted in Usenet newsgroup rec.arts.movies.reviews on December 21st 1999)
==
Blog in Croatian https://draxblog.com Blog in English https://draxreview.wordpress.com/ Cent profile https://beta.cent.co/@drax Minds profile https://www.minds.com/drax_rp_nc
Brave browser: https://brave.com/dra011
BTC donations: 1EWxiMiP6iiG9rger3NuUSd6HByaxQWafG ETH donations: 0xB305F144323b99e6f8b1d66f5D7DE78B498C32A7
Movie URL: https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/389-12-angry-men Critic: AAA
