University of the West Indies, St. Augustine.

Name: Shantel Cooper

ID#: 812002828

Course Code: CRMJ 6012

Course Title: Crime, Media and Society

Faculty: Social Sciences

Lecturer: Dr. Allan Patenaude

Assignment: Film Review of “12 Angry Men”

 An Analysis of 12 Angry Men |Page 1 of 10

Introduction

The film “12 Angry Men” was released on the 13 th April 1957 in the United States

and was directed by Sidney Lumet. It was produced and distributed by the Metro-Goldwyn-

Mayer Studios Incorporation. This film is a representation of a crime, courtroom drama

which reaped in 2,000,000 in Box Office sales. The major characters were; Henry Fonda,

who played the fact-finding, juror number 8, Lee J. Cobb who played angry juror number 3

and Martin Balsam acting as the jury foreman and juror number 1. This black and white

courtroom drama was filmed primarily in Fox Movietone Studio, New York, USA and a New

York County Courthouse. The scenes of this movie occurred predominantly in a make shift

juror deliberation room. 12 Angry Men was premised on a jury holdout in which one fact

finding juror attempts to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

The film begins in the New York County Courthouse where a judge is seen advising a

jury on points of law; further reminding them of their duties as jurors. The 12 jurors then

retire to deliberate on the fate of an 18-year-old Puerto Rican boy accused of murdering his

father. An initial vote reveals that 11 of the 12 jurors believe that the young man is guilty as

charged. It is later revealed that juror number 8 (Fonda) ; described as an architect who always

seeks the truth, is the hold out vote and is sceptical about the evidence presented. He is not

convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. Due to the requirement of a

unanimous verdict, Fonda’s “not guilty” verdict sparks a heated discussion among the jurors.

Fonda notes that because the accused life is at stake, their deliberations should involve some

dialogue. As the deliberations ensue, the jurors’ individual personalities, preconceptions and

biases, begin to unravel. Furthermore, Fonda gradually begins to poke holes in the

prosecution’s case thus creating doubt in the minds of the other jurors. The dynamics begin

to shift as toward the end of the film as the majority of jurors decide that the case was not
 An Analysis of 12 Angry Men |Page 2 of 10

convincing beyond a reasonable doubt. The final deliberation returns a unanimous “not

guilty” verdict for the accused.

Analysis of the Film

Historical and Social Context

12 Angry Men is set in small New York City jury room in 1957. According to Rose

(2016, 6) the film is intended to paint a portrait of a small portion of American society in the

1950s. Rose goes on to note the social and historical characteristics of this period in the US.

He argues as America emerged successful from the Second World War, there were struggles

to negotiate its place in the global political arena. Its ongoing conflict with the Soviet Union

further compounded this struggle for political, social and economic dominance.

Simultaneously, Westheider (1997) noted that African Americans returning home from the

Vietnamese War lamented over having fought for their country and having to return to this

society which practiced open discrimination. This saw the beginnings of the Civil Rights

Movement which was premised on ending discrimination and promoting freedom and equity.

According to Rose (2016) 12 Angry Men is set against the backdrop of these external and

internal political, social and economic conflicts in 1950’s America. These conflicts are

influential and parallel to the domestic conflicts occurring in the jury room during

deliberations.

Plot Elements

The setting of the film begins in a jury box in a courtroom after which it is shifted to a

jury room for the rest of the movie. The audience is introduced to 12 jurors without any

reference to their names, rather they are referred by their numbers. The first rising action in

the film is a character versus character conflict; where the initial poll is taken and juror

number 8 is the only juror who renders a “not guilty” verdict. Juror number 8 at first does not
 An Analysis of 12 Angry Men |Page 3 of 10

have a solid reason for his verdict other than he is not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

Juror number 12 then suggests that they convince juror number 8 as to why the accused is

guilty. The second rising action occurs when angry juror number 3 talks about his past with

his son which provides context for his prejudicial behaviour toward the accused and

foreshadows the future elements of the plot. The third rising action occurs when the votes

became deadlocked at 6 guilty and 6 not guilty verdicts. These votes are swayed as such

following juror 8’s re-enactment of the old man’s (a prime witness for the prosecution)

testimony and juror 8 demonstrating that people can say “I’ll kill you!” in a fit of rage

without meaning it, following juror 3’s similar outburst.

The climax of the film occurs when juror 8 pokes holes in the testimony of the

glasses-wearing neighbour who claims she witnessed the murder. Juror 8 argues that common

sense would dictate that no one wears their glasses to bed and further the time taken to put on

would not have been enough to witness the murder. This revelation eventually sways rational

juror number 4 who is the eleventh to render a “not guilty” verdict. The falling action occurs

when juror 8 corners angry juror number 3, who is still convinced that the accused is guilty.

He notifies him that he is alone in his decision to which he responds, “I don’t care! I have a

right!”. Juror 3 in a futile last attempt tries to convince the other jurors that the young man is

guilty but eventually breaks down. At resolution, the audience sees that through tears,

argument, persuasion and perseverance, all 12 jurors, unanimously decide a “not guilty”

verdict. Juror 3 and 8 are the last to exit the room and have a final confrontation where juror 3

hands the knife (replica murder weapon) to juror 8.

Manifest vs Latent Messages

The period in which the film is set is implicated as the main reason for the jurors

being all male and all white. This may be viewed as manifest bias to the audience as the jury
 An Analysis of 12 Angry Men |Page 4 of 10

which is intended to be representative or a jury of peers, was all white while the accused was

Puerto Rican. The accused was also from a disadvantaged neighbourhood while the members

of the jury were predominantly middle class. Some jurors openly demonstrated bigotry, bias

and prejudice toward the accused; for example, juror 10. Juror 10 was of the stereotypical

belief that all persons from socially disadvantaged neighbourhoods were wrongdoers and

measured the accused by this standard. He explicitly made statements like, “Slums are

breeding grounds for criminals” and “Those people are violent by nature”. Similarly, angry

juror 3 is negatively prejudiced against the accused and it is revealed that these feelings are a

result of his strained relationship with his own son. Conversely, juror 8, the protagonist, who

also has children, is seen as calm, reasonable and rational in deciding the fate of the accused.

It can be stated that juror 8 may have possessed empathy for the accused based on his

relationship with his children.

Several latent messages were also revealed in the film. It was noted that the film

occurs in a small New York jury room on the hottest day of the year. The weather in the film

is seen changing simultaneously with the emotions occurring in the jury room. The jurors are

placed in a small, cramped room with no air condition, a fan which initially does not work

and one small window. As the effects of the heat surmounts, so too do the jurors’ irritability,

tension and anxiety in quickly deciding a verdict. When the weather changes; with heavy

rains and thunder and the fan starts to work, there is a break in the building tension. Another

vote reveals a deadlock of 6 guilty and not guilty votes at this time. The foreman remarks on

the weather to juror 8 “Look at that come down will ya! Do you think it will cool things

down?” to which juror 8 replies, “I think so”. This dialogue is synonymous to the change in

weather as it is implied to the audience that the tension will “cool down” with the rain. When

the jurors have arrived at a resolution, the rain has stopped, thus showing that the tension had

been released.
 An Analysis of 12 Angry Men |Page 5 of 10

The jurors’ dress code also provides the audience with latent messages. The

protagonist; juror 8, wore an all-white suit; and the colour white is traditionally associated

with what is good and righteous. Hay (2007) makes an analogy of juror 8 as “the saviour” of

the young man, further making reference the link between this concept and his white linen.

Conversely, the main antagonists in the film; juror 3 and 10 who possess strong convictions

and are ready to sentence the accused to death, wear all-black suits; a colour usually

associated with villainy. Juror 7’s striped coat denotes that he was not truly on any side and

was solely interested in attending the baseball game, while the greyish coats of the other

jurors are symbolic of their undecided convictions and their tendency to be swayed in either

direction of voting. Aside from the jurors’ dress code, non-verbal cues were also utilised to

express the characters’ emotions. For example; when juror 3 is alone in is guilty verdict and

the other jurors stare silently at him. This symbolizes the jurors’ weariness with his

stubbornness and he interprets these stares as intimidation which provokes him to anger. He

slams his fist on the table in defeat and contorts his face as he begins to break down. These

non-verbal forms of communication reveal to the audience that the group has decided and

juror 3 was alone in his decision; which contrary to what he states, does intimidate him.

Criminological Issues

This film primarily examines due process of the courts in affording an accused their

right to a fair trial. The primary criminological issue presented in the film is juror competence

and the reliability of the criminal justice system. According to, Hans, Vidmar, and Zeisel

(1986, 19) a common argument levelled against the retention of the jury system, is that a

jury of twelve laypersons of average ignorance, may not be competent in deciding the fate of

an accused person. Frank (1945) further contends that a jury “applies law to facts it can’t get

straight.” In the film, before juror 8 intervenes, the jurors allow their preconceptions, biases

and personal circumstances to influence their verdicts. For example, it is revealed that juror 7
 An Analysis of 12 Angry Men |Page 6 of 10

gives guilty verdict solely because he wants to leave deliberations to attend a baseball game.

Some of the jurors are close-minded and unwilling to consider each other’s view due to their

personal biases; juror 3 and juror 10. To an average individual, particularly those who are

unable to secure a skilled defence counsel, a life of crime may appear unappealing because a

jury of peers can be subject to human error and bias. To the audience, this may paint the jury

system as an unreliable arbiter of justice. Conversely, the film’s resolution may reveal to the

audience that justice prevails at the hands of the jury where there is protection of the rights of

individuals; particularly those that are socially disadvantaged. The film’s resolution

demonstrates that the jury and ultimately the criminal justice system is indeed a beacon of

justice and freedom on which the public can rely.

Rhetoric versus Reality

Rose Reginald, the writer of 12 Angry Men, states that his inspiration for writing the

play came from his own experience as a juror in a manslaughter trial (Rose 2016). He notes

that he was overwhelmed by the prolonged deliberations of the jury and decided to make a

good television drama about the experience. This testimonial provides evidence which

demonstrates that the portrayal of the jury in the film is synonymous to that of juries in

reality. Papke (2007) contrarily argues that the jury in 12 Angry Men is not an archetype. The

author utilised 12 Angry Men as a point of reference for contemporary American juries. He

notes that 12 Angry Men simply distinguishes itself from other popular culture

representations of juries. In reality he notes that the public has abandoned their perception of

the jury as a manifestation of popular sovereignty, but he questions the extent to which the

jury in 12 Angry Men represents juries in reality. Hans (2007) argues that much empirical

research demonstrates that minority votes prevailing in the jury, rarely occur as they did in

the movie. Hans cite the scene in the film in which juror 8 tells the other jurors if he does not

convince them after an hour of discussion, he would go along with the majority vote. Hans
 An Analysis of 12 Angry Men |Page 7 of 10

note that based on empirical research on jury decisions, this scene aligns with reality in which

individual dissenters go along with the majority vote or agree to disagree in order to deliver a

verdict. On the other hand, the film contradicts reality because these individual dissenters

rarely ever try to convince majority voters on their point of view.

 References

Judge Frank. (1945). Courts on Trial: Myth and Reality in American Justice. A more
detailed critique can be found in Judge Frank's opinion in Skidmore v. Baltimore &
Ohio Railroad, 167F.2d 54 (2d Cir. 1948).

Hans, Valerie P. (2007). Deliberation and Dissent: 12 Angry Men Versus the Empirical
Reality of Juries. Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 82: 579.

Hans, Valerie P., Neil Vidmar, and Hans Zeisel. (1986). Judging the Jury.
New York: Plenum Press.

Hay, Bruce L. (2007). Charades: Religious Allegory in 12 Angry Men. Chi.-Kent L. Rev.
82: 811.

Papke, David Ray. (2007). 12 Angry Men Is Not an Archetype: Reflections on the Jury in
Contemporary Popular Culture. Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 82: 735.

Rose, Reginald. (2016) Twelve Angry Men. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Westheider, James E. (1997) Fighting on Two Fronts: African Americans and the Vietnam
War. NYU Press,.