It's...Movie Time!!
In the brutally hot days of August, let's take a look at a classic film about 12 men stuck inside a hot, sweaty room as tempers flare hot to match the humid gloom of their sweltering exile.
From 1957, it's 12 Angry Men, the directorial debut of Sidney Lumet. It seems the jury is ready to call it a day and convict the defendant.
- The cops wouldn't have arrested him if he wasn't guilty.
- The prosecutor wouldn't say he was guilty if he wasn't.
- And just look at the kid. You know his kind. Those people. Of course he's guilty.
One lone juror ain't so sure.
And thus our story begins.
The jurors are not identified by name so here is a list of the actors who play the jurors and a brief description of their characters.
- Martin Balsam The foreman; a calm and methodical assistant high school football coach.
- John Fiedler A meek and unpretentious bank teller who is easily flustered, but eventually stands up for himself.
- Lee J. Cobb A hot-tempered owner of a messenger service who is estranged from his son; the most passionate advocate of a "guilty" verdict.
- E. G. Marshall An unflappable, conscientious, and analytical stockbroker who is concerned only with facts, not opinions.
- Jack Klugman A Baltimore Orioles fan who grew up in a violent slum, and is sensitive to bigotry towards "slum kids".
- Edward Binns A tough but principled and courteous house painter who stands up to others, especially over the elderly being verbally abused.
- Jack Warden An impatient and wisecracking salesman who is more concerned about the Yankees game he is missing than the case.
- Henry Fonda A humane, justice-seeking architect and father of three.
- Joseph Sweeney A thoughtful and intelligent elderly man who is highly observant of the witnesses' behaviors and their possible motivations.
- Ed Begley A pushy, loud-mouthed and xenophobic garage owner.
- George Voskovec A polite European watchmaker and naturalized American citizen who demonstrates strong respect for democratic values such as due process.
- Robert Webber An indecisive and easily distracted advertising executive.
The trial has concluded for a poor 18-year-old boy accused of murdering his abusive father.
It's time for the jury to render a verdict.
- If there is any reasonable doubt, the jurors must return a verdict of "not guilty".
- If the verdict is guilty, the young man will receive a mandatory death sentence via the electric chair.
- The verdict must be unanimous.
The case for the defendant does not look good. The testimony of witnesses, physical evidence and lack of a viable alibi all point to put the young man at the scene of the crime.
Well, it seems like an open and shut case and they have places they rather be than this cramped room with no air conditioning. There seems to be a consensus to just vote guilty and get this over with.
Except Juror #8 votes "not guilty".
He thinks if they're going to send this kid off to die, they should discuss it first.
There's some considerable animosity towards Juror #8. What's there to discuss. Some jurors are motivated by expediency; they just want to go home.
Others express complete confidence in a judicial system that would not have put the young man in the hot seat if they weren't sure of the facts.
And others are given to more base impulses, an aversion to the boy's "kind" whatever that means.
Juror #8 pokes some holes in the prosecutions case but fails to move the collective group of men. He presses for another vote. If all eleven still vote "guilty", he agrees to change his vote as well.
The second go round, Juror #9 joins in with a "not guilty" vote. He agrees there needs to be more discussion of the case.
Juror #8 points out contradictions between the witnesses that don't line up with the sequence of events on the night of the murder.
Jurors #5 and #11 change their votes.
More inconsistencies reveal themselves as they argue and debate the case.
Juror #3 is pissed off and yelling a death threat, tries to attack Juror #8.
Jurors #2 and #6 change their votes.
The jury is now evenly split.
After more debate, Juror #7 changes his vote but not out of any conviction that the boy is innocent but out of impatience. Guilty or not guilty, who cares, just get this over with!
Another vote changes the votes of Juror #1 and Juror #12.
There are now only three "guilty" votes.
Juror 10 goes on a bigoted rant that's just plain awkward for everybody.
But even he changes his vote to not guilty when the testimony of one of the eyewitnesses is called into question.
Juror #3 is now the lone hold out for a guilty verdict. It's his turn to launch into rant about the failings of young people and how sons do not respect their fathers and so on. It's clear he's projecting his broken relationship with his own son on the defendant.
Breaking down in tears, Juror #3 changes his vote to not guilty.
Juror #8 graciously helps Juror #3 to his feet as the men file out of the jury room.
-------------------
My experience with jury duty was nowhere as dramatic as was demonstrated in 12 Angry Men. But it was nonetheless fraught with it's own drama.
It was a civil case where an elderly woman was seeking financial restitution from the young woman who caused the accident that led to the elder woman's injuries
Several jurors sought to estimate her medical expenses and some modest figure on top of that for pain and suffering without being overly punative to the defendant.
The other jurors sought to award millions of dollars to the woman because, hell, the young girl who caused the accident has insurance that will cover it, right? Insurance companies have shit loads of money and can afford it.
I was on the side of the former, not the latter. Ultimately that was the side that prevailed.
After the trial, we found out the young girl did have insurance which did offer the older woman a settlement of hundreds of thousands of dollars but she thought she could get more.
I found the experience stressful and looking back on it, I wish younger me had not been such a conservative prick and backed a more generous settlement.
That was a civil case. Damned if I could handle a criminal case.
I almost did make it to the jury for a criminal case one time but once the jury the was selected, the defendant changed his plea and took a deal.
He saw Dave-El was on his jury and knew he was fucked!
Anyway...
12 Angry Men began life as live TV production where the limited scale and environment of 12 men locked in a room engaged in heated discussions was perfectly suited for television.
The movie version of 12 Angry Men marked the beginning of an important film career in director Sidney Lumet.
It also represents the birth of semi-independent New York arthouse filmmaking, America's most successful answer to the European art film.
Actor Henry Fonda was also a producer on the film, championing the story to be moved from television to the silver screen. Fonda liked that this story addresses social problems while ending on a note of hope and affirmation.
Fonda's project had a low budget so they needed a new, untried director. This was Sidney Lumet big chance, applying himself to the difficult task of making twelve men sitting and standing around a table an interesting feature length film.
12 Angry Men almost plays out in real time as the 12 jurors debate the merits of the case.
Except Jurors #3 and #10 whose objections to a "not guilty" verdict has less to do with the merits of the case and their own strong prejudices.
Alfred Hitchcock took on the challenge of shooting an entire film in a single setting, a drifting Lifeboat. There are other elements to provide some kick to the narrative, changes in time from day to night, changes in weather, the motion of the sea, the ongoing threat of limited resources.
Director Sidney Lumet has less to work with in 12 Angry Men: not just a single setting but a single time frame and the only threat is the jury's own building frustration.
Lumet takes his time to establish each man's personality, staying fairly loose in the beginning as he moves about the jury room, allowing us to size up these men for ourselves. He moves in for tighter shots and more frequent cuts as the tension and the temperature rises.
Lumet is working with a very tight and powerful script by Reginald Rose which systematically peels back the layers of these jurors as they discuss, ruminate and argue, exposing themselves as they do.
Joining Henry Fonda is a strong cast of actors known more for their work on stage and television, actors with the talent and craft of knowing how make people sitting around a table talking actually interesting.
12 Angry Men may be a bit dated. It's right there in the title: "men", no women. And no people of color. But it remains a remarkably powerful film.
___________________________
Tomorrow, Doctor Who Is CLASSIC is back!
No comments:
Post a Comment