12 Angry Men is an emotional legal drama that spans generations, professions, and cultures. Enjoyable acting, heartbreaking dialogues and arguments, demonstrations of inductive conclusions by characters – all this and much more made this film a diamond among other films of the 1950s. Sidney Lumet would direct many more legal dramas, such as Insult and The Verdict. Still, his early work, which impressed viewers with its emotional charge and lively ethics, remained a resounding success. Being a real creative success, 12 Angry Men makes some legal mistakes, which is not surprising for achieving an emotional result.
Most of the mistakes were made, probably deliberately to create a hopeless atmosphere and emphasize the desperate situation of the young guy. His incompetent lawyer is demotivated by his work and leaves the jury free rein (Lumet, 1957). Such an attitude towards the client is unacceptable for a lawyer in the United States. The second mistake is to provide only circumstantial evidence and take the case to trial with them. The jury makes a colossal mistake by providing a knife as new evidence. Special mention should be made here of the work of the witnesses, who both offered dubious evidence to support the allegations. The plot made the following mistake: the jury discredited one of the witnesses (a woman with glasses). One of the jurors has racial prejudice against the boy and does not want to defend him. He does not hesitate to demonstrate this, but in reality, he would be removed for making such statements that the boy is a priori cruel by birth. The court hastily forms evidence in the case and seeks to bring it to an end, not at all sparing the young guy’s life. The behavior of the members of the process suggests that they consider this case to be another and unremarkable one; therefore, they do not think it essential to focus on it.
Reply to the Student
Thanks for your review; I think you paid attention to essential things in this film. I agree with all the mistakes you highlighted and would like to add that Henry Fonda’s character initially looks like an imposter. He begins to protect the boy immediately, which casts doubt on the sincerity of his motives for clarifying the circumstances of the murder. Just as the court seeks to close the case quickly, Henry Fonda tries to acquit the boy. Sometimes it seems that he does it because of non-conformal beliefs. The attitude towards the evidence in the film is quite contradictory: the jury either does not understand them or deliberately tries to simplify their decoding. The jury considers this evidence in parts and not in its entirety, peering into the defendant’s position.
It seems that most viewers question the legitimacy of conducting their independent investigation. Moreover, the jury, led by Henry Fonda, is considering the option of self-defense, describing the murdered father as a ferocious person. However, instead of further developing the idea of ​​self-defense, which would be more plausible and closer to legal realities, the jury only talks about this topic. Subsequently, the jury could re-classify the murder from hostility to murder by negligence or in the heat of passion. The mitigating circumstances would have allowed the boy to avoid the death penalty, but they would not have wholly justified him. As you have stressed, I do not think Sidney Lumet filmed 12 Angry Men to showcase the trial truthfully. It is a drama about complex ethical and emotional situations, exposing human weaknesses.
Reference
Lumet, S. (Director). (1957). 12 angry men. Orion-Nova Productions.