12 Angry Men Review

Many old films do not survive the scrutiny of the modern viewer who is used to action, sex, and violence, but the 1957 film, 12 Angry Men defies the odds and is as relevant and enjoyable in the age of technology as it was 53 years ago when it first hit the theatres. The story briefly shows a courtroom where a judge tells a jury that it is time for them to deliberate the verdict. The defendant, a young “boy” from a poor neighborhood, is accused of murdering his father. If he is convicted of the murder, he will receive the mandatory death sentence. If he is acquitted, he will be free. Did he commit the murder? Is there a reasonable doubt? Can the jury sentence this disadvantaged young man to his death for the murder of his abusive father? The jury must decide and their decision controls the fate of the “boy.”

The movie is filmed in black and white and the entire action, except for a few short minutes at the beginning and the end, takes place inside the room where the deliberation takes place. This setting may seem too simple, but it is not. We begin to feel the tension caused by the long and slow deliberation. We feel confined along with the men. We begin to wonder if we were part of the jury, would we suffer through discomfort and trouble to get to the right verdict?

One juror, played by Henry Fonda has a different opinion than the rest of the men. His ideas cause the conflict in the movie and

drive the action. The movie works and has long lasting appeal because of the acting. Henry Fonda plays the part of an honest and good, and decent American citizen who understands his duty and will not make his decision without careful thought. Each other juror plays a part that copies those of people we all know. One juror is loud and rude, one juror is an immigrant who is happy to be an American, one juror is old and experienced, one juror is a guy from the slums, like the defendant, who because of circumstances has improved himself. Every single juror shows his emotions and the audience sees the thought process that each member of the jury needs to go through to reach their final verdict.

The director, Sidney Lumet uses camera work effectively closing in on the characters as the viewer learns more and more about the personal problems and motivations of each man. The action takes place in a closed room with one window and the audience is made to feel the intense heat of the day. Lumet gets emotion out of every juror, we begin to understand why they feel as they do. Everyone has a story to tell. The film is not just about the life of the accused boy, but about the success and failures of the men who will decide his fate.

This film is also a lesson in social psychology. Examples of different types of leadership, different methods of persuasion, ideas of prejudice, stereotypes and practically every type of group dynamic are all illustrated. This movie will surely be viewed in psychology, law, and sociology classrooms for many years to come.

The movie, 12 Angry Men shows that there are different types of people in a jury. Some people care about their duty and make thoughtful comments and discussions. Others do not really care and avoid their duties. Many jurors let their individual prejudices, experiences and emotions determine their judgement, rather than thinking through the evidence carefully like Henry Fonda’s character. It shows the dangers of a jury system, which is only as good as the individual jurors. If you are ever on trial, you can only hope to have someone as conscientious as the juror played by Henry Fonda. Definitely rent this movie, it has a lot to teach every American about the justice system. I give 12 Angry Men 5 stars.