In "12 Angry Men" (easily one of the best courtroom dramas of
the twentieth century) Juror #3 declares this to be an “open and shut case”
but in actual fact that is far from the truth. Sidney Lumet adapts Reginald Rose’s teleplay to the big screen to bring us a fascinating tale of personal
prejudice, moral judgement and the issues with the criminal justice system.
Juror #3: "What's the matter with you guys? You all know he's guilty! He's got to burn! You're letting him slip through our fingers!"
Brief Plot Overview:
The film begins with the judge giving his final remarks to the jury before they go to decide the verdict of the trial, making them aware that a guilty verdict will result in the death sentence. It is indirectly told to the viewer that the trial is about a teenage boy from slum origins who is accused of murdering his father. Once the 12 men are settled in the juror room it becomes obvious that they all think he is guilty and decide to immediately take a vote. However a single juror - juror #8 (Henry Fonda) votes not guilty, believing that they should not send the boy off to die without discussing the case first. From then onwards, Fonda's character methodically criticises and analyses every piece of evidence in the case in an attempt to change the minds of the rest of the jury to a not guilty verdict or at least think about their choice first. As the film progresses, it becomes apparent that the major opposition to Fonda comes from juror #3 (Lee J. Cobb) - an aggressive, lose-tempered man who has fallen out with his son, juror #4 (E.G. Marshall) - a calm, intelligent stockbroker who bases his judgements on facts rather coincidences and juror #10 (Ed Begley) - a loud, disrespectful man who is controlled by his own prejudices rather than the evidence of the case. The film comes to a close as the jury comes to a unanimous verdict of not guilty and all the men go their separate ways out of the courthouse, back to their normal lives.
Juror #10: "He's a common ignorant slob. He don't even speak good English."
Juror #11: "He doesn't speak good English"
Verdict:
Henry Fonda is excellent as one his most iconic and beloved characters. The fact that almost the entire film takes place in one room creates a deeply tense a claustrophobic atmosphere. This, along with the changing weather outside, expresses the attitudes and emotions of the men as the film progresses. The weather progressively gets worse as the film goes on and the men become more exhausted, angry and agitated which eventually results in the outbreak of a thunderstorm and outbursts of rage from some jury members. Despite some underlying sentimentality, one of the genius aspects of this film is that we never find out who committed the murder, only that the jury is unsure of the boy's guilt , leaving the ending somewhat open to interpretation as the boy might have still killed father or the true murderer is still at large. Nevertheless, "12 Angry Men" highlights the problems with eyewitness testimony and emphasises the importance of the principle "Innocent until proven guilty". Additionally the film raises issues with the jury system with some of the juror's attitudes being counter-productive and even immoral. One such juror is #7 who votes with the majority in order to hurry along the proceedings so that he can go to a baseball game that evening. What the jury lacks in diversity of race and gender, it makes up for in diversity of ideas and opinions. Each of the twelve represents a different character that could appear in a jury and all the actors portray them perfectly. Standouts are Ed Begley as juror #10 and Lee J. Cobb who so brilliantly portrays the aggressive, troubled father juror #3 that the film (or at least in the eyes of Cobb's character) becomes a power struggle between his belligerent brute force and Fonda's respectful and rational juror #8. Although, clearly representing different types of people, none of the actors go over the top with their characters to the point where it becomes unrealistic. Staying in one room means that there is no real physical action and instead relies on the actors to keep the audience gripped with dialogue and gestures which results in some brilliant scenes including juror #10 long, intolerant speech which disgusts the rest of the jury and juror #3's outburst of rage stating that it is imperative that the boy be put to death after one of the key pieces of evidence (the testimony of the elderly neighbour) is found to be inadequate. Nearly 60 years after its initial release, "12 Angry Men" still holds up today with its intriguing plot, important moral messages and wonderful acting, cementing its place as one of the all-time Hollywood greats.
Juror #10: "He's a common ignorant slob. He don't even speak good English."
Juror #11: "He doesn't speak good English"
_03.jpg) |
| One of the film's many heated arguments between juror #3 (Lee J. Cobb) and juror #8 (Henry Fonda) |
Henry Fonda is excellent as one his most iconic and beloved characters. The fact that almost the entire film takes place in one room creates a deeply tense a claustrophobic atmosphere. This, along with the changing weather outside, expresses the attitudes and emotions of the men as the film progresses. The weather progressively gets worse as the film goes on and the men become more exhausted, angry and agitated which eventually results in the outbreak of a thunderstorm and outbursts of rage from some jury members. Despite some underlying sentimentality, one of the genius aspects of this film is that we never find out who committed the murder, only that the jury is unsure of the boy's guilt , leaving the ending somewhat open to interpretation as the boy might have still killed father or the true murderer is still at large. Nevertheless, "12 Angry Men" highlights the problems with eyewitness testimony and emphasises the importance of the principle "Innocent until proven guilty". Additionally the film raises issues with the jury system with some of the juror's attitudes being counter-productive and even immoral. One such juror is #7 who votes with the majority in order to hurry along the proceedings so that he can go to a baseball game that evening. What the jury lacks in diversity of race and gender, it makes up for in diversity of ideas and opinions. Each of the twelve represents a different character that could appear in a jury and all the actors portray them perfectly. Standouts are Ed Begley as juror #10 and Lee J. Cobb who so brilliantly portrays the aggressive, troubled father juror #3 that the film (or at least in the eyes of Cobb's character) becomes a power struggle between his belligerent brute force and Fonda's respectful and rational juror #8. Although, clearly representing different types of people, none of the actors go over the top with their characters to the point where it becomes unrealistic. Staying in one room means that there is no real physical action and instead relies on the actors to keep the audience gripped with dialogue and gestures which results in some brilliant scenes including juror #10 long, intolerant speech which disgusts the rest of the jury and juror #3's outburst of rage stating that it is imperative that the boy be put to death after one of the key pieces of evidence (the testimony of the elderly neighbour) is found to be inadequate. Nearly 60 years after its initial release, "12 Angry Men" still holds up today with its intriguing plot, important moral messages and wonderful acting, cementing its place as one of the all-time Hollywood greats.
No comments:
Post a Comment