I have watched 12 Angry Men (1957) countless times and every time I get to the end of the movie, it's with a satisfied nod and acknowledgement that, 'yes, this is still one of the best darn movies out there!'
.jpg) |
| 12 Angry Men (1957) Poster |
Much has already been said about this classic and I likely will not be adding much to the whole discussion but 12 Angry Men has been such a significant part of my own film-watching journey that I can't help sharing my two cents.
I will, in my post, refer to the main cast members as Juror #{something} according to their juror number labels in the movie. With Juror #8 though, I'll mention Henry Fonda's name to make it more obvious I'm referring to him. Henry Fonda gets this privilege because if we try to answer the question of whose film 12 Angry Men is, it is obviously Henry Fonda's.
 |
| Henry Fonda in 12 Angry Men |
In a room with 11 jurors in unanimous agreement about the guilt of a murder defendant, he stands as the sole dissenting voice at the start of the movie to proclaim that he has reasonable doubts about a 'Guilty' verdict. The entire plot of the movie actually hinges on this dissent. As I explore certain character interactions, it would be interesting to relate back to him and mentioning his name, would thus, make that connection easier to follow.
12 Angry Men have many things going for it! Let's take a trip through the movie, looking at some of these crucial aspects that have led to it being the wonderful film that it is.
LOTS OF SPOILERS coming up so navigate away if you are not ready for them!
1. The Amazing Casts
 |
| The 12 Amazing Jurors |
If we are speaking about what's great about 12 Angry Men, we would be remiss in not bringing up the cast. Henry Fonda might be the most well-known name of the casts but there can be no doubt that every other actor pulled their own weight. Each character feels like a real person. Whether logical or prejudice, they are extremely relatable. Their issues, thoughts and feelings are things we might encounter in daily living.
As I recollected each of the characters, I thought it would be fun to come up with a short stereotypical phrase to describe them. Also went a step further and classified them according the kind of feeling I got from them (Red - Negative, Blue - Neutral, Yellow - Positive)
See if you agree with them..
Juror #1: The Take-Charge Guy
Juror #2: The Nervous Boy
Juror #3: The Emotional Fool
Juror #4: The Logic Man
Juror #5: The Take-No-Nonsense Guy/ The Silent, Impactful One
Juror #6: The Upright Citizen
Juror #7: The Self-Serving Prick
Juror #8: The Dissenting Voice
Juror #9: The Supportive Friend
Juror #10: The Prejudiced Pig
Juror #11: The Impactful Voice
Juror #12: The Creative Dude
Even though I tried to chalked these characters up with the above phrases, they are by no means caricatures. The characters feel real and multi-dimensional.
The actors definitely did a fine job embodying their roles and this was possible largely thanks to the writing. Which brings us to the next point...
2. The Great Writing
The screenplay of 12 Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose, was originally written for a one-hour teleplay. It was then adapted into a movie directed by Sidney Lumet.
Often in movies with multiple characters, we feel like certain characters are less fleshed out than others. We wished we knew more about them or that the film had perhaps utilised them a bit more. This was never the case with 12 Angry Men.
Even the character who gave his opinion the least, Juror #1 (we never really hear his opinion on why he thought the defendant is the murderer), had a unique personality. He took the initiative to do a ballot voting with the hope to resolve the thing quickly, kept the group calm but yet, got riled up at some point when someone called him a 'kid'.
 |
| Juror #1 gets riled up |
Juror #2, the most timid of the 12 is not just a caricature either. He had his moments in the movie when he stood up for himself or others. There was a moment when he called a condescending Juror #10 "loudmouth" that had me quietly cheering for him!
 |
| Juror #2 |
3. The Masterful Directing of Sidney Lumet
I can't claim to know a whole lot about directing but even regular filmgoers have the innate ability to realise when they are being steered through a movie by a masterful director. And 12 Angry Men definitely checks that box.
Your attention stays hooked on the screen from the first shot and it never lets up. We follow the camera greedily as it guides us through the actions, occasionally pausing so that we might dwell longer on the actions or dialogues of certain characters.
Close ups are shown at significant points, highlighting meaningful and poignant moments to audiences. There was a scene in the first third of the film when Juror #3 speaks to Henry Fonda about his son and how he grew up to be a great disappointment to Juror #3.
Rewatching Henry Fonda's close-up after Juror #3's narration, we know immediately that Juror #8 sees clearly how this man has come into jury duty with a preconceived prejudice despite his dialogue early on that "I have no personal feelings about this. I just want to talk about facts.". We, as audiences, become clearly aware at that point that he is NOT about facts and has NOT come by his verdict in a neutral, unbiased manner.
 |
| Henry understanding and reading more into the words uttered by Juror #3 |
4. The Social Commentary
Whatever other joys one might derive from 12 Angry Men, there is no denying that there is much that we can learn from it. The points made in the movie are still as relevant today as they were then. Prejudices and biases are real problems which, in this case, could go so far as to label someone a murderer and willingly commit him to the death sentence despite certain glaring facts that should have given one pause and raise reasonable doubts in their minds.
We witness the innate biases of certain characters - against the poor, the foreign-born, the elderly. And as we watch them act out their prejudices, we are filled with a disquieting feeling because we know these things are not limited only to reel life.
We do see some hope, though, at various moments when characters stood up for each other, like when Juror #6 stood up for Juror #9 against Juror #3, who was displaying flagrant ageism or even a small moment when Juror #2 said, "They are all gone, my friend" in reply to the aggravating Juror #10's request for cough drops.
 |
| Juror #6 standing up against Juror #3 |
 |
| "They are all gone, my friend" |
Significant Moments in the Film
The masterful directing of Sidney Lumet highlights important moments in the movie that guides us along to its inevitable conclusion. There are so many note-worthy moments in 12 Angry Men but let's take a look at the ones that will linger in the minds of the movie-watchers long after the credit rolls.
1. The Second Switchblade Knife Reveal
Perhaps one of the most parodied moments of 12 Angry Men, the second switchblade reveal is a significant moment in the film, made so due to the direction by Sidney Lumet. It was a loud moment to be sure but made all the more impactful by the big reactions of the characters.
Up till that moment, the character were sharing their opinions of why they thought the defendant was guilty. Henry Fonda had not really contributed much points to counteract their points. And then he sticks the switchblade in the table, making his point loud and clear that not all the evidence was a 100% reliable.
 |
| Characters stunned as a second switchblade is revealed |
2. Second Voting and Another Dissenting Voice Emerges
Another significant moment happened when Juror #9 lent his support to Henry Fonda's lone dissenting voice in a secret ballot. Owning up to placing the "not guilty" vote, Juror #9 explained his action by stating that "it's not easy to stand alone against the ridicule of others" and it hit hard because we wish someone would stand with us in those challenging moments when we stand up against our own personal bullies.
 |
| A second Not Guilty vote comes in |
3. Toilet Conversation between Juror #6 and 8
With Juror #6 very convinced that the defendant is the murderer, he spent a scene trying to understand why Juror #8 remains unconvinced of the defendant's guilt. Their rounds of supposing gives us a moment of pause when the scene ends off with 'Supposing you talk us all out of this and the kid really did knife his father, huh?' Because, of course, that was a very valid supposition.
 |
| Juror #6 bringing a moment of reality check to the situation |
4. Juror #9 Speaks about Wanting to Gain Recognition
Understanding the psyche of one of the witnesses, Juror #9 enlightens the group about the thoughts of a "quiet, frightened, insignificant old man who has been nothing all his life."
His proclamation of "Gentlemen, that's a very sad thing to mean nothing" resonates deeply with us because we know we are secretly afraid of achieving nothing, having meandered through life one insignificant moment after another.
 |
| Juror #9 explaining the need for recognition |
5. "You Don't Really Mean You Will Kill Me, Do You?"
At the height of their conflict, Juror #3 could be seen rushing at Henry Fonda shouting, "I'll kill him, I'll kill him". To which, Henry Fonda calmly responds with, "you don't really mean you will kill me, do you?" thus making his point that not everyone uttering these words truly mean them.
We, the audience, already had an inkling of that fact but it was still fun watching Juror #3 being made aware of it.
 |
| Juror #3 wanting to "kill" Henry Fonda |
 |
| Calmly making his point |
6. Demonstrating the Downward Stabbing Motion with the Switchblade
A particularly tensed moment in the film happened surrounding the discussing of the possible stabbing motion of the murderer and how it could have been carried out with the switchblade knife. Juror #3 generously steps up and offered to demonstrate the motion on Henry Fonda.
Up till this point, we have seen the two constantly at loggerheads with each other and even nearly coming to blows. So when Juror #3 raised his arm to demonstrate the stabbing motion, the rest of the characters rose in alarm that real harm might come to Henry Fonda. It is not a particularly insightful moment but definitely a very human one.
 |
| Juror #3 demonstrating the downward stabbing motion of the knife |
7. Juror #10's Rant
No doubt a loud scene, Juror #10's rant is definitely an important one to emphasize. When someone is so blind to their own prejudices and refuses to listen, sometimes the best thing to do is to just ignore them when they are at their loudest. Don't offer them the satisfaction of your attention!
Throughout the senseless prejudiced rant, one by one, each juror, moved away from the table and faced away. It clearly proclaims that whomsoever displays such patent prejudice shall stand alone. Isolated and condemned. Definitely one of my favourite scenes.
 |
| The other jurors refusing to listen to Juror #10's prejudiced rant |
8. Final Concession by Juror #3
A recurring theme in the movie is the challenging relationship between a father and son. And no juror better demonstrated this than Juror #3. His issues with his son kept him biased against the defendant till the very end. He did find a measure of closure through his emotional outburst towards the near end of the film, but we know the estrangement with his son will continue long after the credits of 12 Angry Men rolls.
No matter your opinion of him throughout the film, you will come to have at least a tiny amount of sympathy for him and the situation with his son by the end.
 |
| Juror #3 having an emotional moment |
Favourite and Least Favourite Juror
Favourite Juror: #11
 |
| Juror #11 - the voice of reason |
What do I say about Juror #11 except that he is that constant voice of reason everybody needs when things start to get chaotic. Many a time he supplied really good counterpoints and logic. Sure, there were others like Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) and #4 who also showed the voice of logic trait. But Juror #11 had a really important dialogue - 'Don't make this a personal thing'. And how very true in the film's setting but boy, is it ever relevant even today in daily settings.
How many of you have been guilty of involving your personal feelings and opinions, allowing your innate prejudices and biases to come in the way of your work or relationships? Humans are sensitive beings and more often than not, make things personal and about themselves rather than the actual critical point.
Juror #11 has no problem speaking up when he feels a situation calls for it. Like when a second dissenting vote emerged and some jurors were calling for the person to reveal himself, Juror #11 voiced out that the person does not need to reveal himself as there was the understanding that the vote was going to happen through a secret ballot.
 |
| Juror #11 making it clear that the ballot was a secret one |
Juror #11 also did what the audience felt was coming for a long time - confronting Juror #6 about his cavalier attitude in casting his vote. His in-the-face admonishment of, "Who tells you that you have the rights to play like this with a man's life?" is iconic and very much deserved.
 |
| Who tells you that you have the rights to play like this with a man's life? |
Least Favourite Juror: #10 (like there is any doubts about that)
 |
| Juror #10 - the nasty ass |
Juror #10 was prejudiced right from the start with no apparent reason. I agree that Juror #3 was also heavily prejudiced. He allowed his personal issues with his son to cloud his judgement and this lent the immediate hateful feeling he had towards the defendant. If you noticed carefully at the start of the film, he had the most angry look directed to the defendant within the courtroom.
Somewhere, though, I feel his anger was at least relatable. Juror #10 though, was a nasty fellow who spewed hateful narratives about anyone and everyone. He is rude. He is dismissive. He thinks badly of everyone. He has absolutely no redeeming qualities!
I'm not sure how they got him to drop his "Guilty" vote. Probably got to do with his embarrassment that he could not get away with his disgusting behaviour among this group of men.
A Satisfying Conclusion
And as we reach close to the end of this post, hopefully in as organic as manner as 12 Angry Men reached the unanimous 'Not Guilty' verdict, I will end off by saying that 12 Angry Men gives us a hopeful conclusion.
We saw that despite the many prejudices, biases and initial impressions of the characters, they could be reasoned with to see beyond their narrow minds. And even if they don't still agree to be reasonable, the force of conviction of a few righteous men could turn the tides towards a positive outcome.
Ultimately 12 Angry Men isn't about whether the defendant is guilty or not. It about the human condition and how flawed humans are. It is about how we can be so much better just by listening, reasoning and not making everything "personal". By keeping an open mind and having more positive thoughts.
Before I finish off this post, I gotta say is that this boy owes a lot to Henry Fonda's Juror #8.
 |
| The Defendant |
I only hope I can quiet the remaining niggling thought in my head - Is he really innocent of the murder that the 12 men had expended so much time and energy upon. But then I remind myself, that's not what the 12 Angry Men is about.
** Did you enjoy the 1957's 12 Angry Men? What was your favourite part of the movie?
For more film reviews, you can check out my take on One Cut of the Dead or the award-winning Korean film Parasite.
Comments
Post a Comment