“You've listened to a long and complex case, murder in the first degree. Premeditated murder is the most serious charge tried in our criminal courts. You've listened to the testimony, you've had the law read to you and interpreted as it applies in this case. It's now your duty to sit down and try to separate the facts from the fancy. One man is dead, another man's life is at stake. If there's a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused – uh, a reasonable doubt – then you must bring me a verdict of ‘Not Guilty.’ If, however, there's 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're faced with a grave responsibility.”
– The judge in “12 Angry Men” (1957), in one of the earliest scenes of the movie
Some comments on this movie, and how I personally prefer it to the 1997 remake …
In 1954, the screenwriter
Reginald Rose wrote a
teleplay that was to debut on CBS. The
teleplay was “Twelve Angry Men,” and it would soon become a classic. It aired on September 20th, 1954, and was soon adapted for the stage in 1955. But the most famous adaptation of the play was the
1957 movie, starring
Henry Fonda in the lead role. There was
another movie that updated it somewhat in 1997, forty years after the original film came out. The remake has many positive virtues, including a more ethnically diverse cast. The original film has an all-white cast, although both films had an all-male cast (at least for the twelve jurors). Both films have superb acting, and I think the acting quality is just about neck-and-neck for these two
movies. But in some ways, I still tend to prefer the earlier version, because it had much less
profanity. The
1957 version had maybe two swear words in the entire movie. The
1997 version is filled with
profanity, and earned a
PG-13 rating for this reason. This is not really my cup of tea, and makes me want to avoid the remake for the most part.
A brief overview of the plot (warning: may contain spoilers) ….
Every version of this story seems to work well as a drama – at least, for those versions that I have seen. But the movie is also
philosophically interesting in many ways. It is not just about twelve characters who happen to be thrown together for a few hours of intense debate – the movie also tries to profile our jury system as a whole. The movie is an interesting character study, because the characters bounce off of each other throughout the movie, debating the complex details of this particular case. But the movie also shows that what can seem “cut-and-dried” at first is seldom quite as straightforward as it seems. (I must give a spoiler alert for this next part, for those who have not seen this film.) Testimony that seemed credible at first is thrown into serious question later on, and witnesses that seemed reliable no longer seem to be such in the end. At first, eleven of the jurors think that the boy really is guilty, and only one of them initially votes “not guilty.” But eventually, this lone juror converts all of the others to his point of view, and convinces them to vote for the defendant’s acquittal. Before the movie finishes, issues of prejudice, incompetent legal counsel, and the default
presumption of innocence all come into play. The movie makes the point that the jury system was supposed to be impartial, and is not supposed to be based on
charm or
demographics – or any other ultimately irrelevant factor.