The movie ’12 Angry Men’ is a curiously lawful and justly righteous film directed by William Friedkin and produced by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Adapted from the 1957 film of the same name, ’12 Angry Men’ reveals the impassioned atmosphere in a room of a deliberating jury. It is a Legal Drama, conveying to the audience of the danger of preconceived notions, narrow mindset and anger.
The movie follows a 12-member jury as they meditate the conviction or acquittal of an 18-year old charged with first degree murder on the basis of reasonable doubt, the process causing a shocking incongruency between the facts of the case and the biases of the characters. The names of the jurors remain unrevealed and are simply referred by a number in serial order.
A damning case with two witnesses, a murder weapon and strong motives prompt all but one man to vote ‘guilty’, yet, juror 8 defines his abstinence from the popular vote as a necessity to prevent the slim possibility of an innocent man being condemned to a death sentence. His urge to consider improbability instead of jumping to conclusions deepens the fault lines in a seemingly homogenous group of men on the basis of race, religion, age, education, socio-economic background, nationality, moral values and temperament.
Tension and emotion rise as all the components of the evidence is slowly proved circumstantial, and the morality of one man who wishes to deliberate the life of even an alleged criminal convince the members of the jury one by one to change their vote. The ‘anger’ in the title seems appropriate, fueled by sweltering heat of their immediate surroundings, leading to physical violence, furious speeches, and a storm of emotional distress as significant as the summer rain outside their windows.
The excellence in the premise of the movie lies in the diversity of its characters, all a representative of the common man given the very real opportunity and power to bestow justice. The audience is constantly reminded of the facts of the case which are observed to be distorted by the personality of the people who quote them and the twelve men who make up the jury- a peaceful foreman, a meek and initially undecisive bank teller, a hot-tempered businessman who is estranged from his son, a logical minded stockbroker, a health care worker from a lower social background, a respectful painter, a wise old man, a loudmouthed black supremacist, an observant watchmaker, a fickle-minded executive, a rude and impatient man more concerned about baseball tickets than the actions of the jury and lastly an architect who serves as the moral compass in the group, repeatedly questioning the evidence.
A large focus of the movie involves a common man’s fight against mob mentality and the capacity to willingly endure taunts, gaslighting and belittlement in the face of a majority opposition. There is depiction of hesitancy in further deliberation when such an action is denounced by the group as well as representation of fair weather decisions supporting the mindset the current majority irrespective of the individual’s own opinion, showcasing a very relevant desire to conform to social groups.
The movie delineates the races – African American and the Whites in a group of men- as well as class; displaying the whole social fabric from working class Whites to well-educated Blacks. The movie emphasizes on the idea of reverse racism and works to promote the erasure of the idea that the historically oppressed cannot be racist.
This notion is explored through a character who although is racially an African American, sees the members of the same race but economically underprivileged as ‘different’ and a ‘them’; separating his identity from those whose lives filled with hardships succumb to addiction; prejudicing his vote against the accused who arises from a similar social background.
There is close association between certain character’s mindset and vote in the movie with the psychological impact of their past. Juror 2 especially, becomes the movie’s self-appointed public avenger, loudly proclaiming the danger of a criminal on loose, condescending on any other juror differing in his opinions and emphasizing the tenuous relationship between the accused and his murdered father. His strong declaration of the defendant’s guilt seem rooted in personal reasons and not facts as the above mentioned relationship forms a parallel to him and his own son, filling him up with bitterness and finally leaving him in sobs when advised not to let his past cloud the actuality of his present.
The directorial choices in the language, setting and the dialogue of the movie create an engaging visual thriller with small idle moments of conversation, references to pop culture, sports and casual profanity serve as a deep contrast to the more serious and morally dissociative segments in the film. The unity of time and action are impressively maintained with the entire plot taking place in a single room over a span of a few hours.
The wide shots in the initial of the movie encompassing the entire room slowly centre on individual faces towards the end, creating a sense of claustrophobia in the audience who are forced to confront heightening emotions taking precedence over space occupied by the individuals themselves in a room.
Although the narrative and the premise of the movie provide a compelling invitation, a modern audience may question the lack of female characters despite their role in juries being historically accurate and equally important.
One can only wonder what complexities in dialogue and plot can be introduced with well-rounder female characters as well as the probable changes in the initial verdict and final outcome of the movie due to the presence of female characters. Nevertheless, the film takes is rightful place as a classic, both from a popular and critical perspective due to highly engaging drama powerful enough to keep the viewer spellbound.
The greatest message that can be conveyed through the claustrophobic walls of this movie is the fact that no individual can have a monopoly over truth. The actuality may be distorted to fit one’s narrow-minded ideals or be nearly implausible and thus indiffrentiable from a lie.
The foundation of this film lies on the ideal that if truth is not absolute, then neither should the punishment for circumstantial crime be absolute. The movie provides the exploration that the linear understand of evidence- and hence also of the social fabric of life- can bring a person close to death. It is thus, the duty of every person regardless of age, race, religion or occupation to view the world through the lenses of compassion, justice and equality.
By: Kriti Daga
Write and Win: Participate in Creative writing Contest & International Essay Contest and win fabulous prizes.
