TWELVE ANGRY MEN
US, 1957, 95 minutes, Black and white.
Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, E.G. Marshall, Jack Warden, Ed Begley, Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, Jack Klugman, George Voskovec, Robert Webber, Edward Binns, Joseph Sweeney.
Directed by Sidney Lumet.
Twelve Angry Men is considered something of a classic. It was produced by Henry Fonda, who starred. He had been away from films for almost a decade when he returned in War and Peace in 1956. That film and the present one were the beginning of his second career, very long and successful, in films. The screenplay is by Reginald Rose, writer of many screenplays over decades, even into the late '70s with the action film The Wild Geese.
The film is an excellent courtroom drama - but with the emphasis on the jury in the jury room. Twelve men, ordinary men, have the responsibility of life and death for a young New York boy. The film explores motivations, character approaches to the questions of justice, innocence and guilt. The interaction is excellent, not only from the writing but also from the uniformly expert playing. (Many of the stars, here at the beginning of their careers, have had long and successful careers in both cinema and television.) Direction is by Sidney Lumet, a television director making his debut here. He was to work with Fonda on Stage Struck and then to have a successful career, especially with plays adapted for the screen including Tennessee Williams' The Fugitive Kind and Blood Kin, Eugene O'Neill's Long Day's Journey Into Night, Peter Shaffer's Equus, Chekhov's The Sea Gull. He also nude such interesting features as The Group, Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon as well as Murder on the Orient Express. While some of the techniques and the melodrama seem contrived for modern tastes, nevertheless a very good film.
1. The classic status of the film - in its time, presentation of American justice, character acting? Its impact in later decades?
2. Audience interest in jury room drama? Its confined nature? The establishing of the characters and focusing on them? Devices for getting audience attention, identifying each character, understanding how the character ticks? Identifying issues and stances with each character? Interactions and dramatic tension? Climax? How well did this film achieve audience identification with and understanding of its characters? And the issues of justice?
3. The importance of the screenplay and its techniques for establishing the characters, showing their change of attitudes, conflicts and development? For presenting the issues of the crime? For presenting the evidence? The examination of the evidence? The cumulative dramatic momentum until the final vote-taking? The various stages of the film marked by voting and decisions? The black and white photography, the long takes for establishing mood? The various angles and profiles for the characters? The editing and the pacing? Audiences experiencing the confinement of the jury room? The passing of time? The oppressive weather and the storm breaking? The background music?
4. Themes of American justice: the opening and the theme of "and justice for all"? The courtroom? The young boy on trial? The nature of the jury system, the picking of the jury, the background of the jurors? The jury room and the discussions? The nature of voting? Dissent? The theory of the 'reasonable doubt'? Justice being done and being seen to be done? The testing of individual and group integrity for the justice of the jury's decision?
5. The nature of the jury: ordinary men, various walks of life, various backgrounds? Prejudices and presuppositions? Backgrounds providing reasons for prejudice? The understanding of the law and abstracting from morality? The nature of evidence? Circumstantial evidence? The jury and the discussions going to and fro? The change of vote? The discussion by the jurors of the impact of the lawyers and their effect? Jury men accepting responsibility, understanding it? How fair a picture of an ordinary group of men was this? How necessarily heightened for the sake of the drama?
6. The young boy, the glimpse of him in the courtroom, the superimposition of his face awaiting verdict? His background? The various opinions of the jurors about him, his class, conditions? The building up of the story of what he had done? The nature of the evidence? Henry Fonda and the making clear of the issues of the crime? The rights and responsibilities that the boy had? Fonda pointing out the anger and oppression of the boy as part of his way of life? The highlighting of inner city life and anger and oppression? The clarifying of the role of the witnesses ? even to their getting into the limelight and enjoying it? Altering their evidence unwittingly? The chances for true justice to be done?
7. The nature of evidence: the lawyers and their commitment to prosecution and defence, nuances, objective presentation? Details being interpreted in many ways? For example the knife being unique and Henry Fonda buying another? The angle of stabbing? The passing of time? Distances walked? How was this evident in the discussions about the witnesses ? the old man and his shuffling, seeking attention? The woman and her make?up and her glasses? Justice with the reliance on this kind of witness and circumstan~ tial evidence?
8. The jury men ready to believe statements made in the courtroom e.g. as regards the knife, the train, noise, the titles of the films seen, the flickknife techniques? The presenting of evidence and the various changing of views? The value of evidence?
9. The cross-section of men and their being focused on in the title? The glimpse of them at the beginning, the gradual self revelation, feelings and thoughts? The audience getting to know them well? The influence on one another? Professions, work? Sense of responsibility? Americanism and migrants? The prejudices emerging within the room ? even amongst men of goodwill working for justice together? The inevitability and ease of clash?
10. The development of the discussions - the head juror and his votes, Henry Fonda and his reaction and asking to be heard, the various aspects of listening? The building up of tension, re-enactments, abuse? Votes and wavering? The final turning of the tables with the possibility for Lee J. Cobb to start the process again? The jurors walking out to their life once more affected by what they had done?
11. Henry Fonda: a man of integrity, his background as an architect, as a type? Meeting the others, looking out the window, small talk, reflection, waiting? His attitude towards listening? His plea to the men for talking? Time? The support of the old man? The various pressures of the group against him? His buying a second knife? His discussions about memory? The violent attacks by Lee J. Cobb? The threat to kill, the re-enactment with the knife? His asking for votes? His protest against Ed Begley's prejudices? The interaction with each of the men? The clash at the end? The importance of his remaining and helping Cobb leave the room? The gesture to the old man? An image of integrity?
12. The old man, being in the bathroom? His vote and support of Fonda? His emphasis on rights? The group abusing him? His observations about the witness, especially the vanity of the old man? His memory of the woman's eyes and need for glasses? His protest against Ed Begley? His gesture towards Henry Fonda at the end?
13. Martin Balsam, first juror: young, businesslike, sensitive to criticisms of how he was running things, getting the evidence from the guard, looking for ideas, his general friendliness, his stories about coaching and his relationship with Fonda? A just man?
14. The bank teller: his appearance, being pushed around, his precision, his remarks that everything was interesting, cough drops, his inviting bullying reactions? His observations of the evidence, discussions about his approach to judging things, his becoming excited as the clashes went on? The quality of his integrity?
15. Jack Klugman: his life in the ghetto, his understanding of prejudices, its being presumed that he was initially supporting Fonda? His support for Fonda? The information about the knife and how it was used?
16. Robert Webber: the slick advertising man, his playing noughts and crosses, lack of interest, advertising sayings, his wavering and changing his mind?
17. Jack Warden: his emphasis on getting to the sports match, his lack of care about the boy, full of prejudices, disinterested, the clash with Fonda, the various reactions to him? Anger at him? His prejudice against the European migrant?
18. The European migrant, his clarity, his confrontation of Warden about prejudice, his explanation of the American judicial system and the contrast with Europe? His appeal to the group?
19. The workman: his work on the construction, his criticisms of Lee J. Cobb and standing up to him, even physically, his sense of values, his listening to the evidence, his taking a stance?
20. E.G.Marshall: a businessman, his sense of propriety, suit and sweating, calm? Integrity? His strong stances and determination? His not being aggressive? His remaining at the table unlike the others, listening to Ed Begley and then telling him to keep quiet? The strength of his convictions on such evidence as the titles of the films and this being tested with his own memory? His reliance on the evidence of the woman, and the point about her wearing glasses? His changing his mind on the basis of this evidence?
21. Ed Begley: blustering, saying "you know", the elements of his bigotry, referring to people in the slums as "these people", his shouting speech, the whole group ignoring him or walking away, hid humiliation and inability to say anything more? Did he deserve such humiliation?
22. Lee J. Cobb: tough, unwilling to change, shouting, ignoring the evidence, challenging the jurors, angry with Henry Fonda, the emphasis of his son and the explanation of his story, his attack on the younger generation? The shouts about death and the violence and the knife? His disgust with Begley? Final breakdown and confrontation? His strong emotional outburst ? and self? realisation? His being assisted at the end by Fonda?
23. The high points of the film - Begley's speech and the group walking away, Marshall and the evidence about the glasses, the confrontations with Cobb?
24. What was the audience left with in terms of understanding judicial procedure, the nature of the work of the jury, insight into human nature, the variety of motivations, the inevitability of clashes? Judgments made? Response to Fonda's final gesture towards Cobb and the group going out, having done their work?
