Innocent Until Proven Guilty
A Review of "12 Angry Men"
Allison Wilson
Issue date: 2/19/09 Section: Entertainment
It is the possibility of innocence, not guilt, on which our justice system ought to be based. The 1957 film Twelve Angry Men, directed by Sidney Lumet, illustrates this point in a particularly striking manner. The film centers on a jury of twelve men who deliberate the case of an 18-year-old boy from the slums who is accused of stabbing his father. If he is found guilty, he will receive a death sentence. The judge, before sending the jury away to deliberate, reminds them that the presence of reasonable doubt in their minds obliges them to return a verdict of "not guilty."
Upon entering their chamber, however, the jurors immediately give the impression that the case could not be more clear-cut - the weak alibi of the boy and two eyewitness accounts, along with a plethora of smaller details, condemn him beyond doubt. Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) casts the only dissenting vote. The remaining eleven jurors regard him with anything from respectful skepticism to impatient ridicule. They begin to go around the table, each attempting to convince Juror #8 that he is merely delaying the inevitable with his dissenting opinion, and each convinced that he will surely come around.
The exercise gets disrupted as tempers begin to rise; the men live up to the expectations to which the title of the film holds them. Juror #8 gives his first speech of many. The remainder of the movie follows the jury, with frequent outbursts revealing the true character of each of the men, as they (sometimes unwillingly) pick apart each piece of evidence, test it, and discuss whether it leaves room for reasonable doubt.
The clear-cut appearance of the case, they soon come to learn, is superficial. As doubt enters the jurors' minds one by one, one fact becomes clear; many present have ulterior motives which affect the way they vote. Juror #7 (Jack Warden), for instance, has tickets to a baseball game and wishes only to get a verdict in with time to spare for him to attend. When the vast majority votes guilty, he votes guilty. When the majority threatens to shift, he reconsiders.
Upon entering their chamber, however, the jurors immediately give the impression that the case could not be more clear-cut - the weak alibi of the boy and two eyewitness accounts, along with a plethora of smaller details, condemn him beyond doubt. Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) casts the only dissenting vote. The remaining eleven jurors regard him with anything from respectful skepticism to impatient ridicule. They begin to go around the table, each attempting to convince Juror #8 that he is merely delaying the inevitable with his dissenting opinion, and each convinced that he will surely come around.
The exercise gets disrupted as tempers begin to rise; the men live up to the expectations to which the title of the film holds them. Juror #8 gives his first speech of many. The remainder of the movie follows the jury, with frequent outbursts revealing the true character of each of the men, as they (sometimes unwillingly) pick apart each piece of evidence, test it, and discuss whether it leaves room for reasonable doubt.
The clear-cut appearance of the case, they soon come to learn, is superficial. As doubt enters the jurors' minds one by one, one fact becomes clear; many present have ulterior motives which affect the way they vote. Juror #7 (Jack Warden), for instance, has tickets to a baseball game and wishes only to get a verdict in with time to spare for him to attend. When the vast majority votes guilty, he votes guilty. When the majority threatens to shift, he reconsiders.
Be the first to comment on this story