I have watched 12 Angry Men in both iterations several times but I always manage to get reminded of how profound it is as well as notice new concepts and ideas. At face value this is a black and white film where jurors discuss a case but after a while it’s something more. If you pitched this film to someone on that alone they would nominate it for the most boring concept ever conceived. People tend to hate court and especially all the conversations that go on surrounding legal proceedings but what makes 12 Angry Men so great is the fact it’s truly not about the judicial system at all but about something far greater, humanity. The judge’s enthusiasm acts as a commentary on people’s unwillingness to care about others. This correlates with what the move is really about.
I think a lot of this film’s true purpose is being a case study in empathy and responsibility. This movie has very little screen time devoted to the actual trial and essentially only uses the opening shots of the court case in order to show the boy on trial and also the lack of enthusiasm that the judge has toward the case. The judge seems to have already sealed the case and is merely waiting for the guilty verdict to be reached so he can leave and this would have been correct if it was not for juror number 8. From every facet and perspective the boy seemed to be guilty but was not unequivocally proven to be so and therefore juror number 8 felt that he had a duty to stand up and vote non guilty. In doing so he went against the inclinations of the other jurors and became a target of their animosity.
One of the primary drivers of animosity in the film is the environment that is present. It is the hottest day of the year with no a/c, the baseball game is that day, and everyone simply wants to get out of there. This creates a situation where the jurors want to come to a quick conclusion and be on their way. They cling to hasty answers and not well thought out ideas because they want to believe in something but almost all of their ideas come from stereotypes and jaded perspectives that they harbor toward the case. Essentially they all insert their life experiences in the case and use that evidence as conviction. For example, the defendant. Juror number 3 believes that people that identify as the race of the defendant, we are not told in the movie what race he was, tend to lie and are untrustworthy; essentially alienating the defendant. He also brings his relationship with his son into the trial and views sons in a very negative light in regards to their relationship with their fathers. Using this evidence he cannot conceive a case in which the boy is not guilty.
Once juror number 8 speaks his opinion on the trial and mainly uses the weight of the conviction as his motive for not coming to a hasty conclusion, the other jurors slowly start getting a sense of empathy for the jurors. They pull back prejudice and step out of their own predispositions and instead step into the witnesses and defendants perspectives. This shift represents the transformation that the jurors go through. They all begin to slowly buy in more and become increasingly passionate about the outcome. Some of the jurors are quick to change sides but others are not so willing to realize that there was reasonable doubt. They do not cling to the evidence but instead cling to their personal experience and connection with the case. Juror number 8 thinks of himself as the murdered father and the murder being the son he has not talked to in years and therefore feels he knows that the son is guilty.
Ultimately the film culminates with empathy when juror 8 gives juror 3 his jacket back that he forgot symbolically showing that he understands his perspective even though juror 3 was his enemy in the courtroom.
In Robert Ebert’s critique of the movie he talks about how the movie is really about sending a boy to die and not about simply solving a trial. He alludes to this sort of morality that really drives this movie. He also speaks of the responsibility that they should owe this boy and how Fonda’s character specifically states that they owe the boy at least a little bit of time because of the weight of the conviction. As a person I would hope I would have a Henry Fonda type character in my corner making my case be heard.
Another thing that Eberts points out is the fact that this movie is pertinent now because of the amount of cases that have been tried guilty on unreliable evidence. This movie still stands pertinent today because not much dates it besides the lack of a/c, lack of diversity, and men in suits.
The essay about the film brings up the idea of social loafing that I think describes the start of the film perfectly. It brings up the fact that the environment plays a huge role in cultivating group think and this can be seen throughout with all the different weather conditions and inability to leave. Ebert’s did mention that the film tries hard to close in on the characters and create a sense of claustrophobia. I think in ideal conditions humans can stand with their values but once confronted with any sort of obstacle they need to rationalize whatever they have to in order to return to a more comfortable space even if this means taking the life of an innocent. The baseball game seemed to be more important than the child’s life to one character but he would obviously never state that this was the case if he was asked directly but instead chose to just say the case was obvious.
The film does an amazing job of creating a philosophical scenario in order to reveal something about human tendencies and character. It’s a timeless movie and serves as a stark reminder of how selfish humans can be.
