12 Angry Men (1957)
You don’t really mean you’ll kill me, do you?
THE SUMMARY: 12 jurors deliberate in the murder trial of an 18-year-old man - only one defends his innocence and slowly but surely persuades the others to acquittal. For a movie that’s almost exclusively in one room, it left me with plenty to appreciate and think about thematically and philosophically, even if it is old enough to be my dad. Is it a thriller I look forward to watching again? No. Is it a movie I appreciated watching once? Yes.
FROM MOVIE-PICKER AMANDA: A classic in its own right, this movie is the epitome of what I consider a near-perfect script. While a simple premise, it does a fantastic job across barely 96 minutes exploring the nature of regular people and how they interact with one another. It’s got fantastic dialogue and wonderful acting with 99% of the movie taking place in one room. It’s a classic for a reason. And a bonus for Blonde - no women in this one!
THE BEST:
The power of one: The obvious theme of the movie is the power one person has to change minds and outcomes if he just has the courage to stand up to the mob. It’s a useful moral lesson to defend what’s right despite any pressure otherwise always, but particularly currently after a demonstration of the consequences otherwise over the last two-plus years. If we had a few more juror number 8s - people willing to question the seemingly obvious narrative presented to them, demand evidence, and refuse to bow to pressure - we’d be in a much better place.
(Which is also dangerous): However, the power of one is only good if that one is, well - good. In this case, we’re supposed to believe juror 8 has commitment to principle, evidence, and fairness. But does he? As considered below, did he actually persuade the 11 others to justice, or did he talk his way into letting a murderer off? The reason I include this under the movie’s praise is because it does exactly what I say a good movie does - it gets me thinking.
I’m not saying that juror 8 is evil or wrong - I don’t know if he is, and I think that’s part of the point of the movie. I’m saying the power of one is a weapon that is wielded by both good and evil. The power of one person means the courage to stand against the mob in defense of what’s right, but that power of one can corrupt the entire group just as easily too.
If juror 8 is a good guy, this story is a triumph for justice. If juror 8 is a bad guy, this story is a murder unpunished. And either way, one man is all that separates the two.
The moral? Leadership matters. Specifically, good leadership matters - good in both skill and morality. It’s clear that several of the jurors are making their decisions not by their own independent assessment of the facts, but by arguments made by others, even pressure made by others. Juror number 2 outright says it - asked to explain his reasoning why he’s initially voting guilty, he says ‘It's hard to put into words. I just think he's guilty. I thought it was obvious from the word, 'Go'. Nobody proved otherwise.’ If it’s hard to put into words, you don’t really understand it. And nobody is supposed to prove innocence, but the opposite, in fact. This juror wasn’t persuaded by facts. He was persuaded by leadership.
12 Angry MEN: As movie-picker Amanda writes, there is a noticeable lack of women in the deliberation room. That too got me thinking - was that a deliberate decision by the writer, or was that just the norm of the time? Women’s suffrage was of course instituted by the 19th Amendment in 1920, but that didn’t mean women were serving on juries. In fact, at the time of the 19th’s ratification, only 12 of 48 states called women for jury duty - the territories of Wyoming and Washington had also done it prior to their statehood.
By the time this movie was released though, nearly every state was seating women on juries - all but three: Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina (Alaska and Hawaii had not yet become states). It’s a little more complicated than that, because many states offered women special exemptions, or had additional barriers, but regardless - women on juries at the time of this movie’s production was common, even if juries were not a 50/50 split.
That leads me to believe the exclusion of women in this movie was something of a deliberate choice, instead of just a norm of the time. If so, it’s interesting to speculate why - was there a particular dynamic among men the writer was trying to illustrate? And what would the movie have been like if it was 11 Angry Men and 1 Hysterical Chick? What if the movie was 12 Premenstrual Females? Would the outcome be the same if the facts are? Things to think about, which I always enjoy.
THE WORST:
What is the truth of the story?: I’m including this as a gripe even though I could include it as praise, because I’m confident the ambiguity is the intent of the writer. But was justice actually served, or not? I’d like to know, and to know, I’d need more detail about the actual murder story. We can partially piece it together through the juror’s debates, but I’d like to hear something more like the prosecutor’s actual case.
If almost every juror went to deliberation persuaded of guilt, there’s likely good reason why. Here’s the available evidence as discussed:
A few hours before the murder, The Kid was heard loudly arguing with his father, at one point shouting words to the effect of ‘I’m gonna kill you!’
An elderly man in an adjacent apartment testified that he saw The Kid flee the murder site immediately after he heard the old man scream.
A woman who lives across the street from the murder site testified that she actually saw The Kid stab his father to death through the windows of a passing elevated train.
The Kid’s alibi for the time of the murder was that he was at the movies, but when questioned the very same night, he couldn’t remember any details of the pictures he saw - titles, stars, anything.
The murder weapon - a switchblade knife - was, by The Kid’s own admission, identical to one he owns, and had been seen in his possession. The Kid claimed to have lost his knife that very night.
As juror 8 argues, each one of these pieces can be explained away as coincidence individually - but the likelihood that all of these are just unfortunate coincidences falsely implicating the Kid? Almost impossible. There’s credible, if not compelling case the jury got this decision wrong, but no be sure, I’d need more details from the writer.
90 minutes is a long time in a single room with the production value of a high school play: If you’re not in the mood for the effort of paying attention to dialogue with no scenery, this is not the one for the moment. The movie is actually quick, an hour and a half, but in ways it felt like half the day (admittedly I was tired when watching it though). My appreciation for the movie came after watching it and thinking about it later, not necessarily during it. If you’re not making active effort to pay attention and think about it, you might be more attracted to paint drying elsewhere.
THE RATING: 4/5 Wickies. When I started on this review I had 3 in mind, but upon writing far more of interest and praise than complaint, I figured I was underselling this movie. It’s not a thrill, but it is a thinker, and that’s what I always claim to praise. So I will.
YOUR RATING: Vote here ⬇
NEXT WEEK: Rocky (1976) - Last week’s vote rejected the list, and so this week’s movie is #209 on IMDb’s top 250.
AFTER THAT? YOU PICK - VOTE! April’s movie nominations are from listener Amanda. Since a random movie was selected last week, the list remains the same for one more week this week. Next week the nominations will refresh for May.
Want to be the movie nominator for the month? Here’s how - fill out the form below.