Movie musings: 12 Angry Men (1957)

Note: Light spoilers included

I’ve heard about this movie 12 Angry Men (1957) a lot. It was mentioned in a movie subreddit as one of the movies people watch again because it’s so good. The iconic scene at the movie’s climax (more on this later) was featured in many YouTube videos (The most iconic scenes in the history of cinema, etc). I bought this movie on iTunes a few months ago but whenever I sat down to watch it, other shows always won over because of their relevance and the social currency they provide (The Bear etc). What did for me was the movie Conclave (2024), a movie about electing a new pope. I watched it a few weeks ago with my mentor and I liked it a lot. One of the reviews I read about the film compared it to 12 Angry Men, and that was the moment I took it as a sign that I need to finally watch the movie. I watched it, and boy, is it one of the best movies I’ve ever seen.

This movie is a courtroom drama with 12 juries tasked with deciding on the fate of a boy accused of killing his own father. Everyone but one jury thought the boy was guilty at the initial discussion, but this one jury, equipped with reasonable doubt (the key theme of this movie), empathy and patience, persuades other juries over a few rounds of discussions and voting processes. The movie doesn’t rely on flashback or sensational scenes when describing what happened (or rather, what the juries think happened) at the crime scene — instead, the intense dialogues and interactions between the juries convey what might have happened at the moment of crime and what has been discussed at the trial before the jury session began. The movie doesn’t even show if the boy was pleaded guilty or not, unlike a lot of other courtroom movies that would have the moment of vindication as the climax of the movie. This storytelling choice was very intersting to me and I salute to the directory’s audacity to make this creative storytelling choice. Also because of this, the movie feels a lot like a theatrical play. The dialogues and interactions between the characters render truthful moments in front of us sincerely.

Beyond the synopsis and cinematic storytelling, this movie made me have a lot of thoughts about people’s perception of truth, qualities of a good leader and the poetic nature of silence against instigators.

• Truth takes a lot of efforts to uncover, so most people just choose an easy way out: It’s the hottest day of the summer, and they’re summoned for jury duty and got thrown to this small, almost claustrophobic room. The fan’s not working, and throughout the whole movie these poor guys sweat profusely. In these settings, a lot of people might already be inclined to conclude the jury session early to just get out. Sure enough, at the very beginning of the movie, every jury but one already made their mind to decide that the accused boy was guilty based on what they heard and saw during the trial. The only person who didn’t agree with everyone else was willing to cast reasonable doubt on the details of the case. As the movie proceeds, the more they dig into the details, the more flaws in the stories the witnesses told at the trial are discovered. More juries change their minds as more evidences are debunked and found contradictory to one another. It required a lot of reasoning, conversations and collaborations between the juries to get them to this point.
  Not all of juries were willing to do their part to make this happen. Most notably the jury who’s a big baseball fan, had a game to attend but was upset that the jury session’s holding him back from going to the ball park. He was definitely not interested in making the right decision for justice, keeps horsing around that annoyed the rest of the group and was willing to flip his decision without any hesitation so he can just get it over with and go to his ball game. Someone’s life’s at stake, but all he cares about is to complaining about missing his ball game. It almost felt like an allegory to a lot of people in light of current political climate — The future of the nation is at stake, but people don’t care much about their duty and power to be a part of the decision-making process and take an easy way out (ie. going with the flow or general sentiment). This baseball fan was the most outstanding example of indifferent mass in our society, but many other juries were more or less the same — swayed by the narratives the two key juries make about guilty or not guilty. It was great though that most juries came to their senses as the discussions proceeded and did their part by sharing their insights and acute observations so all of them could work toward making a reasonable decision. But that baseball fan jury, smh indeed. Also on a personal note, he also reminded me of someone I really didn’t like and cut all ties with. I hated him so much throughout the whole movie. Back to the main program… the individual characteristics of each 12 jury was an epitome of our society and its contituents — the few opinion makers and the rest swayed by their beliefs and desires.
• Be a rational stakeholder and bring others along: The character portrayed by Henry Fonda is the jury who cast doubt against what all other juries got behind (ie. the boy is guilty) and played a crucial role in getting the group to reach a reasonable consensus at the end. Reminding of other great characters (Atticus Finch from To Kill A Mocking Bird most notably), he was an embodiment of great leadership qualities — empathy, active listening, calm demeanor, courage to stand up for their beliefs, intellectual reasoning and the ability to tell a great story to name a few. One might say he’s a typical mid-century modernistic hero (vs. the post-modern “anti-heroes” who are flawed and more identifiable for us and inspires us by carrying on the journey to accomplish their personal saga). It’s definitely true that the movie is reflective of its own time. All juries are men, and there’s only one immigrant who’s ridiculed by other juries. Henry Fonda’s character might reflect the idealistic American man of the 1950s. Still, the image of the leader he portrayed in the movie conveyed a timeless quality of leadership to me. I wish there are more leaders like him in this 21st century who’s patient and equipped with reasonable doubt. As someone who’s more of an introvert and less of a self-assured person, I very much liked this alternate archetype of leadership Henry Fonda presented. Do we have any leaders these days who can confidently say “I’m not sure, so I wanted to discuss”?
  Another notable moment that portrayed everyone’s getting more invested in the decision making (ie. from bystander to stakeholder) was this jury who debunked the claim made by another jury (the demagogic instigator who maintained his stance till the last moment) by showing a more probable and proper way of using a switchblade based on his past experience of living in a slum. Watching the juries contributing to uncovering the truth using their skills, experience and perspective while persuading their opponents was a great portrayal of how democracy works.
• The beautiful silence: This scene is definitely the climax of the movie. This jury (the antagonist, a demagogic instigator whose arguments had been debunked by more probable logic and common sense) rants at other jurors in an effort to turn their minds to his side. His harangue is charged with personal emotional motive and doesn’t makes sense logically, but he still keeps going on and on. Soon, other juries, one by one, slowly stands up and turns his back on the instigator jury. It’s such a poetic and powerful scene that showed how people can express their discontent and disagreement solemnly and with dignity. A moment later, the instigator faces the solemn and gazing faces of all other juries, communicating silent condemnation on him.
  It might feel like a group version of cold shoulders or silent treatment, but the sequence and cinematography were executed with such grace. It also made me think of ways such non-verbal communication could be possible between two different factions when words aren’t just enough to bring them on the same page.

Due to the current political events, I couldn’t help but associating the details of the plot and characters with the people and events we’re going through these days. I’d prefer not to share more details on this except for this parting thought — the system, the process, and the archetypes of dutiful citizens portrayed in this movie were the definitive traits of the United States the rest of world looked up to and strived to emulate. These days? Oh well.