Reginald Rose first found inspiration for 12 Angry Men when he served on a jury in a manslaughter case, over which the jurors fought bitterly for some eight hours. This became the impetus for the teleplay, 12 Angry Men, which aired on CBS as a live one-hour drama. It was immediately successful and led to further development, culminating in its film version in 1957, starring Henry Fonda and directed by Sidney Lumet. (1)
The 96 minute film is about a group of jurors sitting in a room on the hottest day of the year, and having the task to decide the fate of an 18 year old boy. The judge states in the opening scene that it is a premeditated murder in the 1st degree, if found guilty will automatically receive the death penalty. The 18 year old male is accused of killing his father with a “one of a kind” switch blade, in their home.
We learn that the defendant has had a rough life thus far between living in the slums, roughly dealing with his abusive father, and having a criminal record.
The 11 jurors are convinced of the young man's guilt, while one juror is not sure. The problem is that the decision to be lawful, it has to unanimous. Undecided juror # 8 (Henry Fonda) slowly begins to reconsider the facts of the case, changing and casting light on the suspicion of other conclusive thoughts, and in particular by irritating aggressive and loud juror # 3 (Lee.J.Cobb).
It's clear that the jury resents the inconvenience of his decision, but after questioning his sanity they hastily decide to humor the juror #8 by agreeing to discuss the trial for one hour
Through this discussion we learn the following facts about the case: an old man living beneath the boy and his father testified that he heard upstairs a fight, the boy shouting, “I’m gonna kill you,” a body hitting the ground, and then he saw the boy running down the stairs. The boy claimed he had been at the movies while his father was murdered, but couldn’t remember the name of the movies or who was in them. A woman living across the street testified that she saw the boy kill his father through the windows of a passing elevated train. The boy had, that night, had an argument with his father, which resulted in the boy’s father hitting him twice. Finally, the boy has an extensive list of prior offenses, including trying to slash another teenager with a knife. (1)
While we are unsure whether he is right or wrong, 8th Juror is one of the only jurors who is unaffected by any kind of negative prejudices. He respects the system and the value of life, causing him to want to consider the case more carefully than others. He is motivated simply by the idea of surviving justice and no other personal gain or affirmation comes into play.
When a discussion about the murder weapon, which was identified as the knife purchased by the defendant, a “one-of-a-kind” knife, begins, 8th Juror surprises the others by presenting an identical knife he had purchased in a pawn shop two blocks from where the boy lived a few nights prior, shattering the claim that the knife was so unique and identifiable. (1)
As the movie progressed the jurors ended up changing their minds as new evidence was brought to their attention by simple facts that were overlooked by the police and prosecutors in the initial investigation. The eye witness testimonies ended up being proven wrong and some of the evidence was thrown out because it was put there under false pretense.
Film accomplishes this factual ambiguity by never actually allowing any of the jurors to definitively prove his innocence. Instead, they are only really able to prove that he is not definitely guilty, or "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." There are many reasonable arguments as to why he may very well have been guilty, but they ultimately don't prove strong enough to convict. (2)
Film depicts a judicial system that is essentially flawed because of its dependence upon twelve “angry” Caucasian men who possess different views, personalities and personal agendas. (3rd Juror compares defendant to his own son, with whom he was estranged, and 10th Juror reveals strong racist tendencies against the defendant.) Specifically, and through the use of a real-time deliberation process, the movie emphasizes how the integrity of the judicial system is undermined when the jurors arrive at the table clothed in their own personal experiences and prejudices. (quote from the 10th)
It is unequivocal that the legal drama Twelve Angry men imparts the notion that ‘reasonable doubt’ is a portentous part of America’s judicial system and it is of greater concern than the truth. Rose demonstrates this though the jury, a microcosm representation of a cross-section of America, who works together to form a just, unanimous decision. The variety of symbolic techniques show how Rose supports the ‘not guilty’ verdict and his view that ‘reasonable doubt’, if applied rigorously and insightfully, can expose personals aspects and agendas that may conspire to affect a fair trial. Ultimately, Rose reveals he is less concerned about the guilt or innocence of the accused but that a vote of ‘reasonable doubt’ is better than wrongly putting an innocent man to death and acts as a safeguard in the justice system. (2)
12 Angry Men- A Lesson in Staging
Sidney Lumet is one of those directors that still today you should be able to learn from. Every scene is composed in a way that keeps the action moving and the audience engaged. This is in large part due to Lumet's integration of camera movement and actor staging. Pinpointed, pre-planned, and deftly executed, each frame is used to its maximum capability.
Andrew Saladino of The Royal Ocean Film Society breaks down the strategies Lumet employs to achieve this in the video essay below :
"Modern directors sometimes limit dialogue to characters just standing or sitting and nothing else, When you get those actors on their feet, moving in the manner of their character, and physically interacting with their environment, it gives them an opportunity to explore and make discoveries that will most likely end up benefitting the film. This also keeps the scene energized—the audience will never feel as if the action is stagnant.''
(1) Grade Saver, 12 Angry man
(2) English Work, 12 Angry Men: Sample essays (justice/jurors)