‘12 Angry Men’: The Verdict Doesn’t Matter
The Greatest Study of The Human Psyche Shown on Film
1957 was an incredible year for film. It saw the release of “The Bridge on the River Kwai,” the winner of the Best Picture award, legendary director Akira Kurosawa’s “Throne of Blood,” and influential director Ingmar Bergman’s double releases, “The Seventh Seal” and “Wild Strawberries.” The anti-war film “Paths of Glory,” which would go on to be one of the best films made about war, was also released as well as “Witness for the Prosecution” by director Billy Wilder, the man who seemed to have a golden camera and the secrets to filmmaking. But one film stood tall against all of these timeless classics, and that is a film from one of my all-time favorite directors, Sidney Lumet. Sidney Lumet announced himself with “12 Angry Men.”
I have always been fascinated with stories set in one-room settings. Hitchcock was a master at this; his films “Rope” and “Rear Window” are masterpieces that have influenced many films to come after them. Lumet achieved what Hitchcock did in his films before and did it just as well. “12 Angry Men” is the best directorial debut of all time, ranking №5 on the IMDb Top 250 with a rating of 9, and №3 on the Letterboxd Top 250 Narrative Feature with a rating of 4.6. In its basic form, “12 Angry Men” is a courtroom drama but also a study of the human psyche, social justice, moral responsibility, and peer pressure. The film has a brief setup and briefer epilogue at the start; the rest of the film takes place within a small New York courtroom, where 12 men debate the fate of a young defendant charged with the murder of his father.
“12 Angry Men” doesn’t care about the real outcome of whether the boy is innocent or guilty; its focus is whether they can prove he is innocent or guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This film internalizes the justice system, showing 12 strangers deciding the fate of a young boy, with the innocence or guilt only mattering to the point of the prosecutor’s and the defendant’s cases. The principles of reasonable doubt and innocent until proven guilty are the cornerstones of American justice.
“I have sat on many juries; it’s an open and shut case,” says Juror №3 (Lee J. Cobb) to Juror №2 (John Fiedler) as they all gather in the claustrophobic courtroom on the “hottest day of the year.” The judge, too, seems to think this is an open-and-shut case, his almost nonchalant body language, a tone of voice that has given up.
A ballot takes place swiftly, with 11 jurors agreeing to Juror №3’s statement, but there is one holdout: Juror №8 (Henry Fonda). Talk about being alone. Juror №8 is cornered, 11 men breathing down his neck, a life in his hands, and the stage is set for what will be an enthralling 95 minutes.
“12 Angry Men,” in its basic shell, is a courtroom drama film, a genre that has been exhausted to the world’s end, but “12 Angry Men” is the most profound film of its genre, a film that has stayed unique. Nothing before or after has been done like it. The film tackles racism in one of its most powerful scenes when Juror №10, who has been showing racist tendencies from the beginning, goes on a heated monologue filled with racial prejudice about “slum” people. Everyone turns their backs to him, refusing to listen to the hate-filled rant. Some jurors turn away to not associate with his views while the others do it because they realize his biases could lead to an unjust verdict, something he also realizes when everybody has abandoned him. The commentary is evident; it tackles racism but also shows the sad reality of American society at the time.
Peer pressure is the most instrumental part of this film, the central theme. Are your opinions shaped by your identity or by somebody else? I have been guilty of forming many opinions due to influence from something or someone. Juror №8 could easily have been persuaded to let this go, complete the proceeding in 5 minutes, hand out the verdict, and go home to his wife and three kids, but he chooses to face 11 angry men for justice.
What makes “12 Angry Men” truly exceptional is how it delves into the human psyche. The film meticulously dissects each juror’s biases, backgrounds, and personal baggage, revealing how these factors influence their judgment. Juror №3, for instance, is driven by his strained relationship with his own son, projecting his anger onto the young defendant, “Well that’s it, that’s the whole case” he shouts as he throws his wallet down on the table and sees his son’s photo. Juror №5, having had his own battles with his childhood traumas in the slums, makes him more empathetic towards the defendant and more aware of the other jurors’ prejudice. Juror №4 is a stock analyst and quite smart, but for the first time in a long time, he finds himself not the smartest in the room. Even though he might be open-minded, his ego doesn’t let his mind be open, so he resists for long. Juror №2 is meek and timid, allowing the majority’s opinion to sway him until he reaches the point where he prepares himself and presents his own opinion, no longer afraid of what people might think or say. Juror №12 lets his opinion be swayed by the last person he talks to. Juror №1 takes charge of the situation. Juror №9 is wise.Juror No 6 is honest and has integrity. Juror No 11 is an immigrant and so does not take the American justice for granted. Juror No 7 is flippant and impatient. Each man’s motives, beliefs, and responsibilities are studied, each man has his own reasons, and each man has a moral responsibility and a civic duty, yet not everybody takes a different meaning to it, some even uninterested in it. A manifesto for every man, development for every juror is what makes this film so perfect.
Lumet’s direction combined with Boris Kaufman’s cinematography creates a parable sense of claustrophobia and tension. The use of close-ups and changing angles makes you feel the emotional stakes and the rising tensions of the room. The film’s style is minimalist and expressive.
The film lacks a score but uses sound so perfectly, it allows the dialogue and performances to take centre stage. The movie is almost shot in real time. The ambient sounds, like the ticking of the clock or the rain outside fills the dread and the tension.
“12 Angry Men” is a masterclass in storytelling, character development, and thematic depth. Each juror’s transformation, as they grapple with their own prejudices and preconceptions, is a testament to the film’s nuanced script and powerful performances.
Yes the film is about the law, guilt and innocence but it’s a medium to study human nature, the social fabric and group think.
Boris Kaufman was already an established cinematographer at this point, having won an Academy award for “On the Waterfront”. Kaufman used light and shadow to portray moral and ethical dilemmas. The confined setting brought to life with dynamic compositions.
The cast is exceptional, strong performances all over the place, everyone a portrays a personality that defines societies. The impact wouldn’t have been nearly as much without the nuanced approach of the actors and them delivering on full throttle.
“12 Angry Men” is still very relevant to this day, it challenges us to look at our own prejudices and preconceptions, to question the influence of peer pressure and to consider the moral implications of our decisions.
In “12 Angry Men” the verdict doesn’t matter, the film isn’t looking for who killed the father, the film is concerned about how they get there, what they choose to do, how they come to that decision with every man having some sort of dynamics related to the case, an exploration of reasonable doubt. The film is a social commentary, its a personal transformation for every man.
“12 Angry Men” is a timeless masterpiece and it remains relevant, powerful, resonating with the audience. A defining portrayal of Justice, mortality and complex nature of humans.
