The Department of Justice will have heard all manner of excuses, all means of mitigation, and all modus operandi for crimes committed within a government, and the court’s jurisdiction. There are few lengths, defendants guilty or otherwise, will not go to in order to free themselves from the jaws of the law, and potential incarceration. Yet, it is not from the accused that the judiciary will have given their ears to the worst form of deception, but in fact, those that aren’t even facing prosecution at all: prospective jurors. Think “my dog ate my homework, sir,” but rather than one disorganized student employing that justification, it’s half the class.
MOVIEWEB VIDEO OF THE DAY
DOJ offices are inundated with bags full of mail every day, most of which aren’t conviction appeals or attorney correspondence, but thousands of forged doctor’s notes, letters from student faculties signed off by a “Professor” that retired 20 years ago, and “lack of child care” from parents whose kids have moved out. These are just as clichéd as “my dog ate my homework,” and unquestionably the most overused reasons for requesting a pardon from jury service. There is a common joke made about trusting those who find themselves casting their verdict from the jury box, being too stupid to not have avoided participation. It’s a statement that certainly rings partially true for 10 of the jurors in director Sidney Lumet’s 1957 movie, 12 Angry Men. 65 years since its release, and Lumet’s definitive masterpiece translates just as wonderfully in 2022.
Whose Film is This?
United Artists
12 Angry Men tells the story of a group of jurors in 1950s New York City, who is sent away by the courtroom’s judge to come to a verdict over the trial of a man accused of first-degree murder. Set predominantly in one sweltering jury room, the writing is proverbially on the wall for the defendant, with the punishment being death by an electric chair. Despite 11 of the 12 jurors being in agreement that the accused is guilty, Davis (aka Juror 8) is convinced that the prosecution has not proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that lengthier discussions are required to truly ascertain a case that is not as cut and dry as it first seems. With so much going on, and the audience trapped in a claustrophobic, hot room with 12 characters, it’s easy to ask: Whose movie is this?
It’s Henry Fonda’s, obviously. With his passionate rationale and reasoning, he brings truth to the phrase “fair trial.” Yet, as the protagonist who is at the forefront of the criminal inquiry, he shares the hefty load with his 11 fellow jurors. Despite the relatively short runtime of just 90 minutes, director Lumet and his magnificent cast do such a miraculous job at cramming in an attentively detailed portrayal of each juror.
The Characters Are Why 12 Angry Men Remains so Great
The 12 jurors butt heads in such an inharmonious way that they inadvertently strike up a cacophonous tune. An entire political, emotional, personal, and moral spectrum is on display within the confines of those four walls. From Juror 3 (Lee J. Cobb), an aggressive, ignorant alpha-bully who is adamant about the defendant’s guilt, to the old-aged, unshaken stubbornness of Juror 10 (Ed Begley), to Juror 9’s wisdom and observational skill, each character in 12 Angry Men is wonderfully unique.
The rate of character development is arguably unparalleled in any film, either before or since. The level of personality exhibited by the film’s cast and through Reginald Rose’s script really allow the audience to get to the crux of each character with rapid but organic speed. From their temperament and the ability for objectivity (or lack thereof) in a high-pressure environment, to really understanding the true depths of their mentality and their past, Lumet’s film is a masterful character study.
12 Angry Men is a corroborative exercise in proving that one way to make a brilliant film only requires two things — flawless dialogue, and actors dexterous enough to convince. The entire movie is channeled through these 12 men, strangers who battle it out over an 18-year-old boy’s life fueled by compassion, integrity, anger, self-loathing, and prejudice.
12 Angry Men and the Justice System
While a sign of its time, with 12 presumably straight white men presiding over the future of a working-class, troubled, and underprivileged young person of color, 12 Angry Men is still a poignant reminder of the inherent injustice within the judicial system. It explores how flawed the entire jury process is in serving as a reliable governmental structure that delivers public justice. Pitching 12 men together, at random, all shaped by their own life experiences, prejudices, morals, and political views, Lumet’s classic points toward the bigger issue at hand, which is the preposterousness that this archaic system is still founded upon such imprecise methods.
As Davis (Fonda) exclaims, “Prejudice always obscures the truth,” with Juror 3 indirectly punishing the defendant because of his own resentment over his son, and therefore youth (troubled or not) in general. The whole premise of a jury-based justice system relies too heavily on fairness and common-sense prevailing, something that 12 Angry Men demonstrates that not everyone has. It’s a practice designed for someone of Davis’ methodology, pragmatism, integrity, and inquisitiveness, and not people blinded by sensationalist headlines, personal baggage, and biased rhetoric. In many ways, 12 Angry Men inspires audiences to be more like the former, even 65 years later.
