Cyanna's Film Vault: Twelve Angry Men

Written by: Cyanna

If there's a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused, a reasonable doubt, then you must bring me a verdict of not guilty. If however, there is no reasonable doubt, then you must in good conscience find the accused guilty. However you decide, your verdict must be unanimous. In the event that you find the accused guilty, the bench will not entertain a recommendation for mercy. The death sentence is mandatory in this case. You are faced with a grave responsibility. Thank you, gentlemen.

This statement made by the judge sets the tone for the rest of the film. I am not lying when I say this is one of the greatest movies ever. I kid you not. “Twelve Angry Men� is a very simple film from a technical standpoint and yet the actual story and the characters involved in it is one of the most complicated I have ever seen.

Almost all of the film takes place in a cramped jury room. The basic plot of the story is 12 jurors trying to decide if a teenage boy is guilty of murdering his father, which could result in the death penalty.

This film is not about flashy effects. Iit’s a black and white film. It’s not about fancy scenery. Most of it takes place in a bare room containing nothing but a table, chairs, a water cooler and a malfunctioning fan. It’s a film about people and how they react when their way of thinking is challenged. The most prominent part of the film, in my opinion, is the script. Reginald Rose not only provides a complicated court case that has the jurors doubting the boy’s guilt one by one, but the characters themselves are an accomplishment as each one is truly his own person and not just a face in the crowd.

All of the jurors are unnamed and are listed in the credits as simply “Juror #1� to “Juror #12�. Throughout the movie, they do not refer to each other by name. They do not take the time to learn each others name. Being the angry men they are, most of the identification is done through eye contact and finger pointing.

As I mentioned before, each character has their own personality. Juror #8 starts the film being the only man who is hesitant to vote the boy guilty. To everyone else, his guilt is certain. He comes off as the compassionate one of the group. His primary opposition is Juror #3 who seems utterly determined to see the kid die. It is implied throughout the film that he has a son whom he does not get along with at all. Another juror has tickets to a ballgame and wants the process to end as quickly as possible. Another in an immigrant who’s English is not so great and has a great respect for the American judicial system. Another is a wealthy businessman with an air of arrogance and another as a bigot who separates the world into “us� and “them�. It is the personality traits between all of the men involved and they way they work with each other that make the movie interesting.

The film also has a minor detective element as well. Juror #8 takes it upon himself to make sure to prove that the supposedly solid evidence provided by the prosecution, can actually be doubted, thus the teen’s guilt is not certain and the sentence must be “not guilty.�

I know my other film vault selections have been a little out there. Chances are that the only way you’d be able to see them is to stumble onto them by accident in the used DVD rack. But this movie is a must see. It’s one of my faves, not as a student sitting in a film class, but as a person who just likes a good movie with good characters.