Sidney Lumet's 12 Angry Men tells the story of a jury of 12 men in charge of deciding the fate of a poor, young boy who had killed his father. The film opens in a courtroom with the defence and the prosecution presenting their evidence before the judge. After the oral pleadings, the jurors are instructed by the judge to retreat and determine the verdict. The judge also says that the jurors must return a 'not guilty' verdict if they find any reasonable doubt.
From the beginning of the film, we can see that the jury room is split into two opposing sides: 'guilty' and 'not guilty'. Juror 8 and Juror 3 are the most significant characters as they are the only ones who vote not guilty and guilty respectively at the beginning of the film, thereby initiating the conflict. In a way, Juror 8 represents the boy's innocence while Juror 3 represents the boy's guilt. Although Juror 3 says that he is merely stating the facts of the case, which undoubtedly point to the defendant being guilty of the crime, it is later revealed to the audience that he has a personal motivation to convict the young boy. Juror 8, on the other hand, is more compassionate towards the boy and therefore puts more thought and effort into the case than anyone else.
The film contains many elements that help us examine the functioning of the American Justice System in the 1950s. The conflict between Jurors 8 and 3 is perhaps the most important of all as it almost entirely drives the narrative of the film. The discussion between these jurors gives rise to another element i.e prejudice which plays another significant role in driving the narrative. It influences their judgements and prevents them from analyzing the case in a fair and rational manner. Almost all the jurors enter the room with bigoted notions and irrational thoughts. Jurors 3's and 10's prejudiced views are revealed to the audience in the initial parts of the film. Jurors 4, 7 and 10 also openly state their prejudices by judging the defendant based on his background and race. The other jurors are relatively less prejudiced. Juror 5 takes offence to other juror's views as he himself comes from a difficult background. Juror 11 also relates to him. It is clear since the beginning of the film that Juror 8 is the least prejudiced of all given the fact that he is the only one who doesn't harbour any preconceived notions and believes that the case requires an in-depth discussion before deciding the verdict.
The conflict between the jurors sparks another discussion on the authenticity and reliability of evidence presented by the prosecution which leads to reasonable doubt becoming another element of the film. All of Juror 8's actions throughout the film are based on reasonable doubt. He re-examines the evidence, questions the witness's testimonies and introduces some new information. This makes the other jurors realize that there is some uncertainty regarding most of the evidence and as a result, they question their initial vote. Juror 8 is the only one who encourages the members to consider reasonable doubt as a possibility rather than jumping to conclusions hastily which can ultimately impact the boy's life. Thus reasonable doubt also plays an important part in driving the narrative of the film.
All these themes do not exist in isolation rather they are interconnected. Without reasonable doubt the conflict between Juror 8 and Juror 3 wouldn't have been generated and thus there would have been no exploration of the case. It is this conflict that further gives rise to prejudice which in turn reveals the personalities of the characters to the audience.
-Devansh Sahu
Comments
Post a Comment