Brief
reflections on “12 Angry Men” (1957)
Directed
by Sidney Lumet
Script
by Reginald Rose
Starring
Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Ed Begley, Joseph Sweeney et al.
Twelve male jurors are
directed to retire and consider their verdict in a first-degree murder trial
and, if found guilty, the eighteen-year-old accused of murdering his father
will be sentenced to death. In reaching their verdict, the jurors must exercise
judgement not just of the accused but also, at least to some extent, the system
of justice, the jurors themselves and the society that helped form them all and
their outlooks.
The film opens with a
view of formidable steps leading to the imposing façade of a courthouse which symbolises
the grand principles of law and order and the awesome responsibility of seeking
justice. The trial has come to an end and the judge informs the jury of their
duties and the conditions within which they must reach their verdict,
emphasising the importance of reasonable doubt to be applied to their
deliberations. The judge appears somewhat perfunctory and mechanical, perhaps
due to the excessive heat in the courtroom, and the jurors themselves appear
largely blasé or indifferent, nearly all convinced of the guilt of the accused.
Only one juror, number eight, is concerned enough to propose discussing the
case in detail since they will be deciding if a young man is to live or die.
Juror number eight takes
his responsibility seriously and invites the others, who appear largely
disaffected, condemnatory or self-centred, to do the same. If justice is to be
truly served and if buildings, constructed as monuments to principle and
ideals, are to be more than just façades, men and women, not some higher
authority, must make justice work through objective assessment, critical
thinking and consideration of evidence that must be tested or validated.
Juror eight advocates and
emphasises the importance of “reasonable doubt” in the proceedings. The burden
of proof lies with the prosecution as the accused is presumed innocent until
proven guilty and guilt must be proved beyond question or challenge. To find
the accused not guilty, it is therefore sufficient to cast doubt on evidence
seen as suggesting guilt, or any other stimulus to find the accused guilty.
Reasons for the jurors’
judgements of the case and especially their evaluations of the accused are
explored and, by applying reason and objectivity, issues such as environmental
influence, bias, prejudice, racism and personal preoccupations are exposed, all
weakening the case for finding the accused guilty.
Reason and logic are
equally applied to witness statements which, at face value, appear to condemn
the accused, but critical thinking casts doubt on the security and validity of
these statements, eventually leading to a complete turn-around in the jurors’
perceptions and verdict.
Toward the end, after
some bitter argument and recognition of the influence of personal traits and
character flaws, at least one juror who resisted reason and change of heart to
the very end, is devastated by the experience, but he is shown compassion by
juror eight. The path to fairness may not be easy and it may be painful, but it
is a noble endeavour that should be punctuated by humanity and compassion. I suggest
that the “lesson” of the film regarding fairness and how to achieve it extends
beyond the confines of the courtroom with the implication that we should recognise
the existential responsibility we all have in our dealings with one another.
This is a film I find
totally absorbing due to a combination of factors, including inspired, almost
claustrophobic, one-room direction that creates tension, depicts pressure and
conveys emotion, along with superb characterisation contained within the well-paced
and beautifully constructed script, and the uniformly excellent performances of
all involved.
This 1957 film and the
1954 teleplay on which it is based were, perhaps, the product of their time, a
time in which McCarthyism was rife, a time when reason, objectivity and
fairness were in danger of being abandoned, replaced by trial by alarmist rumour,
innuendo, unfounded accusations and the manipulation of the masses through the
stirring of fear and insecurity, a time that may have echoes in our present
day. As such, this film may be viewed as a plea for reason and discussion in
the face of ignorance, assumption and lack of integrity, and, sadly, it may be
just as relevant today as it was some seventy years ago.
My thanks for taking the
time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.
Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)
No comments:
Post a Comment