By Colton Silva
Over the summer, I was sitting down on my couch and finally decided to watch the award winning drama, “12 Angry Men.” After the credits rolled, I was left with my whole mindset and perspective on law and life changed for the better. Though at the time of its release ( April 1957 ) it didn’t do well at the box office, it left those who saw the film with a similar experience. However, the film overtime has seemed to be forgotten or overshadowed by other big thrillers or pieces of its time period. I believe that not only should be up there with the ranks of special classics from its time period with beloved films like “Some Like it Hot” or “Casablanca”, but also should be analysed and re-released for the modern times for the state of the world and how people should see not all cases are as black and white as they seem.
12 Angry Men was written by Reginald Rose and directed by Sidney Lumet. The story revolves around a possible murder case with a teenage boy at the helm of suspicion. The rest of the film takes place only in one room, the jury room, following 12 jurors deciding upon the boy’s fate. At first, the case seems to be a done deal and already proven guilty without thought by any of the jurors as every juror states guilty, all except one. The film tackles the nature of justice and the concept of “reasonable doubt,” exploring the importance of scrutinizing evidence and challenging assumptions.
First off; I love how the film isn’t like most legal dramas you see today. Most shows or movies nowadays with a court case or moments of the pending question of guilty or not guilty would rush the scene and instantly get to the verdict, even if this film was made today it would just turn into a short film more than anything and after Juror #8 states the case as not guilty, the rest of the film would be shortened after him just making a point or two and then everyone else would be on board in a snap. This film however, keeps it realistic and slow. Takes it time. Just as the other jurors are quick to get to the end of it all, most studios, if they were to make this film today, would do the same. I love that the film drags out the meeting and that Juror #8 isn’t exactly sure of his thought process. Along with everyone else overtime. It isn’t just people who are instantly convinced one by one. Every single one of them goes back and forth from the idea of not guilty and guilty so it leaves suspense because the audience doesn’t know themselves.
The entire film, Juror #8 isn’t already convinced the boy is innocent and that everyone else is wrong. He isn’t sure. The only reason he doesn’t vote guilty is because he states that there is still a possibility the boy is innocent. Even though all the evidence seems clear as day that he did it and that the odds of him being not guilty are a million to one, to Juror #8, that 1% is still a possibility to him. Again, he isn’t fully convinced. All he knows is that this is a person’s life on the line and he wants to be sure of the facts before he makes the decision to have him take the chair.
Another aspect I love about the film is that we never get any of the real names of any of the jurors or much detail of their backstories. We get small bits here and there of their lives outside of the room, like how some of them have kids or the jobs they have but not enough for them to be known as full fleshed out characters. Which leads me to my next point; none of these guys have anything to do with the courts. What I mean by this is, these are all ordinary people with regular jobs and lives. None of them are lawyers or have experience in the legal system or anything like that. Which makes more sense when they only hear about the facts and instantly try to make a decision before thinking because they were not taught to do so.
Along with that fact, it has been heavily noted over the recent years that another thing that could be a big factor for the time period and the immediate want of nearly all the jurors to have the boy to get the chair is pure bigotry. All the jurors are all white males and the only shot we have of the boy shows he is of a different race. Of course that isn’t the main reason shown in the film as to why most of the jurors are ready to jump the gun on the penalty, but after a few rewatches, it is clear that there could be some signs to show some deeper meanings at least for two of the jurors (Juror #10 and maybe Juror #3).
Again, it is great that the film takes its time and doesn’t get straight to the verdict. What is a really cool aspect that makes you feel immersed and invested is the fact that throughout the entire film and even at the end, you don’t know if the boy is guilty or not. There are no flashbacks or shots of the boy pleading or anything. We are only basing it off the information we know, just like the jurors in the room. Also, as the meeting goes on and the film progresses, we are finding more information about the case as the jurors remember the rest of the information overlooked. It gives another intriguing aspect for the audience because we are discovering and connecting the dots alongside the rest of the men in the room at the same time and it just gives a “wow” factor for the viewers and keeps people engaged and on the edge of their seats.
Overall, I could go on forever about this film. It is masterfully written and put together with so many fun and interesting aspects you can look into that leaves people to theorize and engage. It’s not like any films I’ve seen and that deserves credit on its own remark. This doesn’t just work as a suspenseful film about a murder case, it’s not just a film either, it’s a representation of the flawed judicial process, modern discourse, and moral courage and, what I believe, is what the world needs to see today to reflect how we can do better if we just take some time and think before we do. Because maybe, just maybe, the cover is not the book and if in some cases it is, then it’s time we change the cover.
beniciapaw.com 