Spoiler Alert: It’s not always innocent until proven guilty

Movie: 12 Angry Men

Rank: 87

Year: 1957

Director: Sidney Lumet

Cast: Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, Lee J. Cobb, E.G. Marshall, Jack Klugman, Edward Binns, Jack Warden, Henry Fonda, Joseph Sweeney, Ed Begley, George Voskovec, Robert Webber

---

The first time I watched 12 Angry Men, I was in a middle school drama class for the easy A. At the time, I enjoyed the black and white movie that took a couple class periods to watch. It was one of my first examples of a movie being compelling in a singular setting with a real-time plot.

The second time I watched 12 Angry Men, I was a 25-year-old staying up later than was responsible for having work the next day. I came at this movie with some familiarity, but also with a greater understanding about filmography, politics, social issues and the justice system.

To say my take-aways from this film were the same in both instances would be a blatant lie. Now I see the lasting power of this film: whether or not it is a good thing, it still reflects a very real sense of prejudice within our society against people of different backgrounds and class structures which bleeds into the way we seek justice and punish people of presumed guilt.

As the title implies, this was simply 12 men, angry to be holed up in a jury room at the courthouse debating the guilt of a man on trial for killing his father. Putting this movie into historical context, no women or people of color are represented. The young man on trial, though shown for only a second, is likely also some variety of Caucasian. Done in a modern lens, which has been attempted over the years, a greater sense of diversity would be added and the topic of race would almost inevitably be a major factor.

“It’s always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth.”

– Juror 8, 12 Angry Men

In the initial shot of the film, there’s a slow pan to the inscription on the courthouse reading, “administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good.” Through my above-average googling skills, I have come to find out the quote reads in its entirety: “The true administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government.”

The administration of justice is the main point of the film. A group of men ready to deliver a guilty verdict without even a discussion is only stopped by one lone voice. The supposed firmest pillar, held up in this film by Juror 8.

These 12 men are seemingly as different as can be, with men of status, of charisma, of humility, of emotion, of logic and, certainly, of ego. With the anonymity of a jury, their various backgrounds should play no part in their nameless debates. However, it becomes clear by presentation and persona which men come from a more pronounced place of privilege.

This duty, which seems to be a burden at first, is to decide not only the guilty or not-guilty verdict, but more importantly, whether or not the defendant will live. I don’t know if it is the time period or a plot point, but to be found guilty of murder in the first degree carries a mandatory sentence of death by electric chair. A mandatory death is quite a finite requirement and heightens the stakes of this case.

The mandatory death sentence seems to also be a bit much given the fact the defendant has been battered by his father throughout his life. I am not sure how much that factors into these cases, but that would seem to provide some cause for self-defense.

The men work their way through the case, choosing for the burden to not be on proving his guilt, but rather his innocence.

One point of presumed guilt? As a child, he threw a rock at a teacher. My own brother bashed a brush against my head hard enough to literally snap the hard plastic as a kid. Unless there are some hidden skeletons in the family closet, children showing some signs of aggression does not inherently mean a murderer has been made. Especially if the instance is only once.

The defendant’s father was killed with a switchblade and since it is illegal to buy one, then the fact the kid has one certainly makes him maniacal right? In a harsh environment where people are getting stabbed, it is impossible to see why he would simply own one for self protection.

I would like to take a moment and call out the ballsiness of Juror 8, who went and committed a crime in order to verify the innocence. With an inkling things weren’t adding up, he left after court one day and bought a switch blade just to prove his point. He also acts out certain elements of the evidence despite the annoyance of everyone else, and with an overall quiet demeanor, stands up to some boisterous and bigoted men.

Despite a lot of the logical answers, a clear hold out for some in the case is the place this boy called home. He came from a poor community filled with crime, therefore making him a criminal in the eyes of some of these men. One juror even has to out himself as growing up poor in the same community to challenge these notions.

“Look, they’re lushing it up and fighting all the time and if somebody gets killed, so somebody gets killed! They don’t care! Oh, sure, there are some good things about ‘em, too!”

– Juror 10, 12 Angry Men

While the bigoted comments are allowed for a while, an eventual tirade brings Juror 10 down. His points may sound similar to arguments made today. The community breeds criminals. They are born dangerous. They are drunks and killers who don’t bat an eye at crime. Oh, but there may be some good qualities. Everyone who is offended should stop being so sensitive.

I wish bigotry on a grander scale could be dealt with the way Juror 10 was. One by one, the others walked away and turned their back to him. No words, no fight, just cutting off the oxygen to his fire until his fury is exiled to the corner. Obviously, not quite as simple of a way to deal with it in the real world.

Points to the juror who corrected the grammar of Juror 10 during this tirade.

Through their arguments, certain slivers of their lives’ truths come out. Juror 3, the last hold-out, was embarrassed his son ran away from a fight so they haven’t spoken in two years. In a fit, he even tears up a picture of his son. Overall, that reaction was a lot and a clear example of toxic masculinity.

Juror 12? A man so desperate to be liked, he switches his vote and inflates stories. Despite his best attempts, no one is fooled by his stories of power and privilege in the board room.

After a painstaking attempt to turn the tide, in a room with a broken fan, the 12 sweaty men come to a conclusion of not guilty and disperse into the street.

A movie which could have been dull is moved forward by deft writing and the dynamic story-telling of unfolding the details of the defendant’s supposed crime piece-by-piece as discussed.

This cast boasts men from influential Hollywood families, steady-working actors and even a friend from the Hundred Acre Woods. Which friend? PIGLET! The voice of piglet works his way through the case, almost as if the human version of piglet. Could you imagine navigating life as piglet? Anyways, I digress.

I must also say, Ed Begley looks more like Gary Marshall than his own son, Ed Begley, Jr.

“The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn’t even have to open his mouth. That’s in the Constitution.”

– Juror 8, 12 Angry Men

12 Angry Men? The real impact of the film is in asking yourself, what if there were no Juror 8?