Atomized

Sidney Lumet: 12 Angry Men

Somehow, I ended up getting exposed to a lot of classic films when I was a child. In some cases, as with “Citizen Kane,” I just didn’t get it. Others, like this film, left a strong impression. And it holds up, even some twenty years after I first saw it, and nearly fifty years after it was made.

This is a film is truly remarkable. It takes place in only three locations: a brief scene in the courtroom, two brief scenes outside the court. The rest of the film takes place in the jury room, and follows the debate of a jury on a murder trial. The story is entirely character-driven, no small feat for a film with fifteen primary characters.

Even though two primary characters (the witnesses for the prosecution) get no screen time, and the accused only gets a brief, silent shot, the characters are just as filled-out as the rest. This is quite a feat, and subtly echos the structure of “Rashômon (羅生門).” We’re told about several different versions of the events, both from the points of view of the witnesses, then the reexamination of their stories by the jurors.

Most of the jurors assume that the boy is guilty. The judge seems disinterested, even bored as he tells them to come to a verdict. The jurors shoot guilty glances at the accused boy as they shuffle out of the courtroom.

But one juror isn’t so sure. “There’s always one,” laughs another.

Detail by detail, the lone juror tears apart the case, convincing one juror after another that the boy might be innocent. He repeatedly states that he isn’t sure if he’s innocent or not, but that he thinks there’s room for doubt.

It’s a fascinating story about the difference a single man can make. While it initially comes of as fairly typical Hollywood fare of the era, the story has a much darker undercurrent. Mr. Lumet seems to be warning us that trusting people who have an agenda is dangerous, that complacency can be deadly, that people in positions to choose life or death don’t take their responsibilities seriously, and a condemnation of the herd mentality.

I wonder what he thinks about our country’s political situation today.

Discussion

This is a favorite movie of mine, I even took a “bit” of a liking to the TV remake. One of the few DVDs I would probably refuse to sell and one of the first ones I picked up when I started buying.

In regards to your comments about the movie’s “darker undercurrent” as you put it, I would certainly agree with your belief that Lumet was pointing out that people don’t take their responsibility of being in power, whether they want to be (judge) or not (some jurors) seriously enough.

I personally think that the other perceived focus areas in this movie that you mentioned fall into place because of that issue of responsibility. I feel that the commentary on what can occur due to wasting that power, or worse off, abusing that power, provided a lot of the reasoning for the side plotlines.

Due to the lack of care by the juror with the baseball tickets, he was fine with letting the child get convicted. He was bothered (as I am sure many others were) to even be there.

Of course you have the angry father who had it in for damned teenage kids being assholes to adults (insert agenda point). The father had the responsibility to take care of another child, but instead, felt it was best to be vengeful and assume guilt; why wouldn’t another kid burn him in the end?

The examples obviously go on. Then comes in Fonda [badass]. He is the one who is there to take that responsibility, filter out his personal opinions, listen, and be willing to understand that the child is not guilty until him and the other jurors say so based off the evidance given to prove his guilt. He is the one who understands his duty to the country as a citizen, to the child as an adult, and to the other jurors’ as their peers.

So to conclude. Great movie.

Mark Stanislav

2005/05/21

Participate