12 ANGRY MEN

US, 1997, 117 minutes, Colour.
Jack Lemmon, George C. Scott, Hume Cronyn, James Gandolfini, Tony Danza, William Petersen, Ossie Davis, Courtney B. Vance, Armin Mueller- Stahl, Edward James Olmos, Mykelti Williamson, Dorian Harewood, Mary Mc Donnell.
Directed by William Friedkin.

12 Angry Men is a classic film, directed by Sidney Lumet with a screenplay by Reginald Rose. It starred Henry Fonda and a cast of prominent character actors of the 1950s.

Fifty years later, this remake was filmed for cable television. It also has a very strong cast and is directed by Oscar winner William Friedkin (The French Connection, The Exorcist).

The screenplay is updated to the 1990s, with particular references, for example to films, to racial themes in the United States, to Islam.

However, Reginald Rose’s screenplay remains the core of this screenplay and adaptation. The film opens in the court, with Mary Mc Donnell as the judge. The audience as well as the jurors have a glimpse of the accused, a young Hispanic man.

Most of the film is spent in the jury room. The twelve jurors go in, all male. There is a guard that they can call on at any time for further information or for their needs.

The group gradually settles into the room, many being in a hurry to get out, most of the jurors already holding a guilty verdict. As the drama develops, with one juror wanting more time to be fair before they made a decision to sent a person to life imprisonment or death, the tensions begin to arise. Jack Lemmon is in the Henry Fonda role, a man of integrity who raises questions, who wants to treat people with respect, who wants the jury to discuss the matter seriously. George C. Scott is in the Lee J. Cobb role, a bullying man who reveals that he has a very bad relationship with his son and that influences his decisions. He is prone to outbursts as well as a continuing impatience. Hume Cronyn has some dignity as an older man. James Gandolfini is an ordinary worker. Tony Danza is the cynic, wanting to get out to go to a ball game, not taking the matter too seriously until he is confronted. William C. Petersen is a salesman, rather superficial in his approach, playing on words like slogans, being called to book and becoming more serious when the groups demands. Ossie Davis is the elderly African American man. Courtney B. Vance is the African American foreman of the jury. The other African American is played by Mykelti Williamson, a rabid Muslim, upwardly mobile, despising the African Americans who remain in the ghettos. Armin Mueller- Stahl is a lawyer, a man of dignity, a professional man who is strong in his opinions but eventually has to listen to fairness and reason. Edward James Olmos is a migrant, offended by many of the attitudes of the variety of jurors. Dorian Harewood is another African American juror, an ordinary man, who is offended by Mykelti Williamson’s outbursts and begins to question whether the verdict should be guilty.

As the film goes on, we are offered twelve portraits of a cross-section of American men. This is interesting in itself, interesting because of the shift of emphases as the group considers the evidence, as the men interact amongst themselves, as the evidence is open to question. Ultimately the jury decides to offer the verdict of not guilty.

1. The status of the 1957 classic? Memories of the film? As drama, the performances, the issues?

2. The value of a remake? Moving to the 1990s, the references, the film, Secrets and Lies? The race issues? Islam? Made in colour? For a cable television audience?

3. The quality of the writing, of the original, the adaptation, characters and interactions, crises?

4. The shifts in the nature of the verdict? Questions asked, people taking stances, the beginnings of uncertainty, questioning of evidence? The appeal to the jury to give time and consideration for a life?

5. The court sequence, the judge, the accused, his appearance?

6. The drama, the twelve men, going to the room, their numbers, the role of the foreman, the guard outside? In the room, getting ready, the places at the table, the heat, the impending storm, the windows? The air-conditioning? The washroom?

7. Beginning to get to know each other, or not? Those in a hurry, those who were detached, those who were sure?

8. The strong cast, bringing different characters to life, as individuals? The fact that it was men only? The range of backgrounds, ages, ethnic, wealth, professional?

9. The process: beginning quietly, the initial vote, the one standing out, his giving his reasons, wanting to be fair, giving time and energy when a life was at stake? The angers of those who were so certain? The disinterest of a number, flip remarks, ignoring the proceedings? The beginning of insults? The further votes, the change of mind of some of the jurors? The reactions, the dogmatic types? The others listening? The harangues, the confrontations? The continued votes, open or secret? The layers and layers of the discussion? The range of the evidence, the time, the eyes of the person watching through the train passing, the number of steps, the short time of the train passing, the time taken to walk to the door, issues of hearing, looking? Assumptions made? The discussion about the psychology of the witnesses, the woman made up, the old man, making something of himself? Talk of killing, the boy and his delay in coming back, the issues of the ethnic background of the boy? The beginning of doubts? Shaming those who were objecting? The personal agendas of each of the voters? The continually changing votes? The end, some integrity, the casual people being convinced, others being embarrassed? The nature of reasonable doubt?

10. Jack Lemmon’s performance, his age, integrity, manner, interest in fairness and respect, his cough and the drops? His reaction to the George C. Scott character, to the old man? Gradually persuading people but not harassing them? His dramatising the walking to the door? The role of one good man?

11. The contrast with the character played by George C. Scott, burly and bullying, obvious in his attitudes, in a hurry, his antagonism towards the young, his disparagement of the younger generation, the revelations about his son, his violent attitude towards his son, his son’s ingratitude? Growing anger? Reading into the situation his own family experience? His violent outburst and threatening to kill? His being restrained? The confrontation, Jack Lemmon’s speech? His being shamed?

12. The old man, his interventions, the need for respect? His motivations?

13. The foreman of the jury, his having to be objective, keep order, get the evidence back in, the documentation, dealing with the guard?

14. The Tony Danza character, callous, wanting to get to the game, presumptuous, lacking regard for others?

15. The James Gandolfini character, a working man, listening, his interventions, in the washroom, changing his mind?

16. Mykelti Williamson’s character, racist, religious, superior, talking down to people, thinking the blacks inferior, haranguing and walking around, his violence? People attacking him? His harsh stances, his background, his agenda?

17. The Dorian Harewood character, African American, his experience, his being offended, changing his mind?

18. The Edward James Olmos character, quiet, the listener, the migrant, race issues, fairness?

19. The William C. Petersen character, in business, his flip remarks, the slogans, his having to backtrack, his being affected by people’s opinion, his superficiality?

20. The Ossie Davis character, his age, experience, thinking the boy guilty, listening, being affected, African American?

21. The cumulative effect for the audience, listening to the evidence, listening to the debates? The reasonable doubt on the part of the audience?