On a hot summer day in the New York County Courthouse, the trial phase has just concluded for an impoverished 18-year-old boy accused of killing his abusive father. The judge instructs the jury that if there is reasonable doubt, the jurors must return a verdict of "not guilty". If the defendant is found guilty, he will receive a mandatory death sentence via the electric chair. The verdict must be unanimous.
At first, the case seems clear. A neighbor testified to witnessing the defendant stab his father, from her window, through the windows of a passing elevated train. Another neighbor testified that he heard the defendant threaten to kill his father, and the father's body hitting the floor; then, as he ran to his door, he saw the defendant running down the stairs. The boy had recently purchased a switchblade of the same type that was found, wiped of fingerprints, at the murder scene, but claimed he lost it.
In a preliminary vote, all jurors vote "guilty" except Juror 8, who believes there should be some discussion before the verdict. He says he cannot vote "guilty" because reasonable doubt exists. When his first few arguments (including producing a recently purchased knife nearly identical to the murder weapon that was thought to be unique) seemingly fail to convince any of the other jurors, Juror 8 suggests a secret ballot, from which he will abstain; if all the other jurors still vote guilty, he will acquiesce. The ballot reveals one "not guilty" vote. Juror 9 reveals that he changed his vote; he respects Juror 8's motives, and agrees there should be more discussion.
Juror 8 argues that the train noise would have obscured everything the second witness claimed to have overheard. Jurors 5 and 11 change their votes. Jurors 5, 6 and 8 further question the second witness's story, and question whether the death threat was figurative speech. After looking at a diagram of the witness's apartment and conducting an experiment, the jurors determine that it is impossible for the disabled witness to have made it to the door in time. Juror 3, infuriated, argues with and tries to attack Juror 8, yelling a death threat; jurors 5, 6 and 7 physically restrain Juror 3. Jurors 2 and 6 change their votes; the jury is now evenly split.
Juror 4 doubts the defendant's alibi, as the boy did not recall specific details. Juror 8 tests Juror 4's own memory to make a point. Jurors 2 and 5 point out the father's stab wound was angled downwards, although the boy was shorter than his father. Juror 7 changes his vote out of impatience rather than conviction, angering Juror 11. After another vote, jurors 1 and 12 also change sides, leaving only three "guilty" votes.
Juror 10 goes on a bigoted rant, causing Juror 4 to forbid him to speak for the remainder of the deliberation. When Juror 4 is pressed as to why he still maintains a guilty vote, he declares that the woman who saw the killing from across the street stands as solid evidence. Juror 12 reverts to a guilty vote.
After watching Juror 4 remove his spectacles and rub the impressions they made on his nose, Juror 9 realizes that the first witness was constantly rubbing similar impressions on her own nose, indicating that she also was a habitual glasses wearer, even though she chose not to wear her glasses in court. Juror 8 remarks that the witness, who was trying to sleep when she saw the killing, would not have had glasses on or the time to put them on, making her story questionable. Jurors 4, 10 and 12 all change their votes, leaving Juror 3 as the sole dissenter.
Juror 3 vehemently and desperately tries to convince the others of his argument, but realizes that his strained relationship with his own son makes him wish the defendant guilty. He breaks down in tears and changes his vote to "not guilty". As the others leave, Juror 8 graciously helps Juror 3 put on his coat. The defendant is acquitted off-screen. As the jurors leave the courthouse, Jurors 8 and 9 reveal their surnames to each other before parting ways.
A humane, justice-seeking architect and father of three; initially, the only one to question the evidence and vote "not guilty". The closing scene reveals his surname is 'Davis'.
A thoughtful and intelligent elderly man who is highly observant of the witnesses' behaviors and their possible motivations. The closing scene reveals his surname is 'McCardle'.
An indecisive and easily distracted advertising executive.
Other, uncredited actors in the film include Rudy Bond as the Judge, Tom Gorman as the court Stenographer, James Kelly as the Bailiff, Billy Nelson as the Clerk, and John Savoca as the Defendant.[14]
Themes
Professor of Law Emeritus at UCLA School of Law Michael Asimow referred to the film as a "tribute to a common man holding out against lynch mob mentality".[15] Gavin Smith of Film Comment called the film "a definitive rebuttal to the lynch mob hysteria of the McCarthy era".[16]
Business academic Phil Rosenzweig called the jury in 12 Angry Men being made up entirely of white men "especially important", writing: "Many of the twelve would have looked around the room, and, seeing other white men, assumed that they had much in common and should be able to reach a verdict without difficulty. As they deliberate, however, fault lines begin to appear—by age, by education, by national origin, by socioeconomic level, by values, and by temperament."[17]
Production
Development
Reginald Rose's screenplay for 12 Angry Men, titled Twelve Angry Men, was initially produced for television and was inspired by a jury summons.[18] Although it is unclear what trial he was summoned to,[a] according to Rose, in early 1954, he served as a juror on a manslaughter case in the New York Court of General Sessions. Though he and the other eleven jurors initially attended begrudgingly, Rose was deeply affected by the impassioned and deliberate atmosphere of the trial and the finality of his and the jury's verdict. Rose began writing Twelve Angry Men upon realizing that very few people knew what occurred during jury deliberations and that they could serve as an exciting setting for a drama.[20][21] While writing the screenplay, Rose cut planned passages of dialogue to account for a fifty-minute time slot on television, leading to the characters to be less nuanced.[22] A live production of "Twelve Angry Men", directed by Franklin Schaffner and starring Robert Cummings as Juror 8 and Franchot Tone as Juror 3, was broadcast on the CBS program Westinghouse Studio One in September 20, 1954 to positive reviews.[23][24] It received four nominations for the 7th Primetime Emmy Awards, winning three on March 7, 1955: "Best Actor in a Single Performance", "Best Direction", and "Best Written Dramatic Material".[25][26]
In February 1955, actor Henry Fonda formed Orion Productions under a three-year deal with distributor United Artists.[27] He reportedly first saw Westinghouse Studio One's "Twelve Angry Men" as a kinescope in a Hollywood projection room following its success in the 7th Primetime Emmy Awards. He was impressed with the story and wanted to star as Juror 8.[28][18][29] In mid-1956, Fonda partnered with Rose to produce a film adaptation of 12 Angry Men.[30][29] As part of the partnership, Rose formed Nova Productions and combined it with Fonda's Orion Productions to form Orion-Nova Productions,[31][32] and production of the film was budgeted at $340,000.[33] To develop the screenplay and characters, Rose restored material he had cut for the broadcast and added dialogue that revealed character's backgrounds and motivations.[34][18]
Fonda and Rose recruited Sidney Lumet to direct 12 Angry Men, his film directorial debut. Lumet had previously directed numerous episodes, including adaptations of Rose's plays, for TV series such as Danger and You Are There.[35] Fonda said he hired Lumet because of his proficient directing skills and because he was "wonderful with actors".[33] Lumet recruited Boris Kaufman as the cinematographer. Kaufman had recently won Academy Award for Best Cinematography for On the Waterfront (1954),[36][37] and Lumet believed Kaufman's "realist style" suited the film.[38]
Filming
The film was shot in New York and completed after a short but rigorous rehearsal schedule, in less than three weeks, on a budget of $337,000 (equivalent to $3,656,000in 2023). Rose and Fonda took salary deferrals.[3]Faith Hubley, later to be known for her Oscar-winning animated efforts with spouse John, was script supervisor for this film.[39][40]
At the beginning of the film, the cameras are positioned above eye level and mounted with wide-angle lenses, to give the appearance of greater depth between subjects, but as the film progresses the focal length of the lenses is gradually increased. By the end of the film, nearly everyone is shown in closeup, using telephoto lenses from a lower angle, which decreases or "shortens" depth of field. Lumet stated that his intention in using these techniques with cinematographer Boris Kaufman was to create a nearly palpable claustrophobia.[41]
Reception
The film was a box office disappointment in the US[42][43] but did better internationally.[3] The advent of color and widescreen productions may have contributed to its disappointing box office performance.[42] It was not until its first airing on television that the movie finally found its audience.[44]
Favorable response
On its first release, 12 Angry Men received critical acclaim. A. H. Weiler of The New York Times wrote, "It makes for taut, absorbing, and compelling drama that reaches far beyond the close confines of its jury room setting." His observation of the twelve men was that "their dramas are powerful and provocative enough to keep a viewer spellbound."[45]Variety called it an "absorbing drama" with acting that was "perhaps the best seen recently in any single film",[46] Philip K. Scheuer of the Los Angeles Times declared it a "tour de force in movie making",[47]The Monthly Film Bulletin deemed it "a compelling and outstandingly well-handled drama",[48] and John McCarten of The New Yorker called it "a fairly substantial addition to the celluloid landscape".[49]
Critical response
Variety noted: "Perhaps the motivations of each juror are introduced too quickly and are repeated too often before each changes his vote. However, the film leaves a tremendous impact."[50]
In 2012, Mike D'Angelo of The A.V. Club questioned the verdict of the jury in the film, writing: "What ensures The Kid's guilt for practical purposes, [...] is the sheer improbability that all the evidence is erroneous. You'd have to be the jurisprudential inverse of a national lottery winner to face so many apparently damning coincidences and misidentifications. Or you'd have to be framed, which is what Johnnie Cochran was ultimately forced to argue—not just because of the DNA evidence, but because there's no other plausible explanation for why every single detail points to O. J. Simpson's guilt. But there's no reason offered in 12 Angry Men for why, say, the police would be planting switchblades."[51]
The film was selected as the second-best courtroom drama ever by the American Film Institute during their AFI's 10 Top 10 list, just after To Kill a Mockingbird,[13] and is the highest rated courtroom drama on Rotten Tomatoes' Top 100 Movies of All Time.[55]
Speaking at a screening of the film during the 2010 Fordham University School of Law Film Festival, Supreme Court JusticeSonia Sotomayor stated that seeing 12 Angry Men while she was in college influenced her decision to pursue a career in law. She was particularly inspired by immigrant Juror 11's monologue on his reverence for the American justice system. She also told the audience of law students that, as a lower-court judge, she would sometimes instruct juries to not follow the film's example, because most of the jurors' conclusions are based on speculation, not fact.[65] Sotomayor noted that events such as Juror 8 entering a similar knife into the proceeding; performing outside research into the case matter in the first place; and ultimately the jury as a whole making broad, wide-ranging assumptions far beyond the scope of reasonable doubt (such as the inferences regarding the woman wearing glasses) would not be allowed in a real-life jury situation, and in fact would have yielded a mistrial[66] (assuming that applicable law permitted the content of jury deliberations to be revealed).
In 2007, legal scholar Michael Asimow argued that the jury in 12 Angry Men reached an incorrect verdict, writing that the amount of circumstantial evidence against the defendant should have been enough to convict him, even if the testimony of the two eyewitnesses was disregarded.[15]
In 2007, drawing on empirical research, legal scholar Valerie Hans noted that while 12 Angry Men's depiction of a lone dissenter converting the majority is rare in reality, the film accurately portrays how quality deliberation, diverse perspectives, and the unanimity requirement can enable thoughtful dissenters to meaningfully influence jury outcomes, particularly when arguing for acquittal.[67]
Adaptations and parodies
There have been a number of adaptations of 12 Angry Men owing to its popularity and legacy.
A 1963 German TV production, Die zwölf Geschworenen, was directed by Günter Gräwert, and a 1973 Spanish production, Doce hombres sin piedad, was made for TV 22 years before Spain allowed jury trials, while a 1991 homage by Kōki Mitani, Juninin no Yasashii Nihonjin ("12 gentle Japanese"), posits a Japan with a jury system and features a group of Japanese people grappling with their responsibility in the face of Japanese cultural norms.
A 1970 episode of The Odd Couple television series (also co-starring Jack Klugman) entitled "The Jury Story" is reminiscent of 12 Angry Men, as it tells in a flashback the circumstances behind the meeting of roommates Oscar Madison and Felix Unger. Klugman (Madison) plays a juror on a panel during a supposedly open-and-shut case. Co-star Tony Randall (Unger) portrays the lone holdout who votes not guilty, eventually convincing the other eleven jurors.
A 1978 episode of Happy Days entitled "Fonzie for the Defense" contains a situation similar to 12 Angry Men when Howard Cunningham and Fonzie find themselves the only members of the jury who are not ready to convict the defendant just because he rides a motorcycle.
A 1986 episode of Murder, She Wrote entitled "Trial by Error" pays tribute to 12 Angry Men. The major twists are originally 10 jurors vote for "not guilty" due to self defense, Jessica votes "unsure" and another juror votes "guilty". Jessica and other jurors recall the evidence, as more and more jurors switch from "not guilty due to self defense" and come to a realization as to what actually occurred the night of the murder.
The 1987 Hindi film Ek Ruka Hua Faisla ("a pending decision") and 2012 Kannada film Dashamukha ("ten faces") are Indian remakes of the film, with almost identical storylines.
Season 1, episode 17a of the Nickelodeon cartoon Hey Arnold! (1996) is a parody of 12 Angry Men. In the episode, titled "False Alarm", Eugene is suspected and accused of pulling the fire alarm, and a student jury is assembled to vote on the verdict, but Arnold is the only one who believes Eugene is innocent. He has to convince the rest of his classmates that Eugene is not guilty of the crime. In this adaptation, it is proven that Eugene was not the criminal but Curly a member of the student "jury" is the actual perpetrator due to the latter's reaction to the former's use of the Winkyland pencil (chewing on the eraser and intense sharpening).
In 1997, a television remake of the film under the same title was directed by William Friedkin and produced by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. In the newer version, the judge is a woman, four of the jurors are black, and the ninth juror is not the only senior citizen, but the overall plot remains intact. Modernizations include not smoking in the jury room, changes in references to pop culture and sports figures and income, references to execution by lethal injection as opposed to the electric chair, more race-related dialogue, and casual profanity.
The detective drama television show Veronica Mars, which like the film includes the theme of class issues, featured a 2005 episode, "One Angry Veronica", in which the title character is selected for jury duty. The episode flips the film's format and depicts one holdout convincing the jury to convict the privileged defendants of assault against a less well-off victim, despite their lawyers initially convincing 11 jury members of a not guilty verdict.
Russian director Nikita Mikhalkov also made a 2007 Academy Award-nominated adaptation, 12, featuring a Chechen teen on trial in Moscow.
A 2015 Chinese adaptation, 12 Citizens, follows the plot of the original 1957 American film, while including characters reflecting contemporary Beijing society, including a cab driver, guard, businessman, policeman, a retiree persecuted in a 1950s political movement, and others.[68]
Juror 8 is a 2019 South Korean adaptation, directed by Hong Seung-wan.
The film has also been subject to parody. In 2015, the Comedy Central TV series Inside Amy Schumer aired a half-hour parody of the film titled "12 Angry Men Inside Amy Schumer".[69][70]
The American adult animated sitcom, Krapopolis also parodied the film in the fifth episode of its first season, titled "12 Angry Goat Herders". In it, Tyrannis invents the court system after Shlub is accused of eating the goats of the goat farmers. Tyrannis represented Shlub while the goat farmers were represented by Brenda the Sphinx.[70]
↑ According to scholar Phil Rosenzweig, although the prosecution of William Viragh was the most likely trial Rose served on according to his account, a handwritten list of jurors that served on that trial does not include Rose.[19]
Related Research Articles
The Verdict is a 1982 American legal drama film directed by Sidney Lumet and written by David Mamet, adapted from Barry Reed's 1980 novel of the same name. The film stars Paul Newman as a down-on-his-luck alcoholic lawyer who accepts a medical malpractice case to improve his own situation, but discovers along the way that he is doing the right thing. Charlotte Rampling, Jack Warden, James Mason, Milo O'Shea and Lindsay Crouse also star in supporting roles.
Sidney Arthur Lumet was an American film director. Lumet started his career in theatre before moving to film, where he gained a reputation for making realistic and gritty New York dramas which focused on the working class, tackled social injustices, and often questioned authority. He received several awards including an Academy Honorary Award and a Golden Globe Award as well as nominations for nine British Academy Film Awards and a Primetime Emmy Award.
A hung jury, also called a deadlocked jury, is a judicial jury that cannot agree upon a verdict after extended deliberation and is unable to reach the required unanimity or supermajority. A hung jury may result in the case being tried again.
Joseph Sweeney was an American actor who worked in stage productions, television and movies principally in the 1950s, often playing grandfatherly roles. His best-known role was as the elderly Juror #9 in the 1957 classic 12 Angry Men, the role he originated in a 1954 Westinghouse Studio One live teleplay of which the film was an adaptation.
Reginald Rose was an American screenwriter. He wrote about controversial social and political issues. His realistic approach was particularly influential in the anthology programs of the 1950s.
Verdict of Twelve is a novel by Raymond Postgate first published in 1940 about a trial by jury seen through the eyes of each of the twelve jurors as they listen to the evidence and try to reach a unanimous verdict of either "Guilty" or "Not guilty". Verdict of Twelve is set in England in the late 1930s. Up to the final pages of the novel, till after the trial is over, the reader does not know if the defendant—a middle-aged woman charged with murder—is innocent or not.
Jury Duty is a 1995 American legal comedy film directed by John Fortenberry, written by Neil Tolkin, Barbara Williams, and Adam Small, and starring Pauly Shore, Tia Carrere, Stanley Tucci, Brian Doyle-Murray, Shelley Winters, and Abe Vigoda.
Edward Binns was an American actor. He had a wide-spanning career in film and television, often portraying competent, hard working and purposeful characters in his various roles. He is best known for his work in such acclaimed films as 12 Angry Men (1957), North by Northwest (1959), Judgment at Nuremberg (1961), Fail Safe (1964), The Americanization of Emily (1964), Patton (1970) and The Verdict (1982).
"One Angry Veronica" is the tenth episode of the second season of the American mystery television series Veronica Mars, and the thirty-second episode overall. Written by Russell Smith and directed by John T. Kretchmer, the episode premiered on UPN on December 7, 2005.
"Mr. Monk Gets Jury Duty" is the sixteenth and final episode of the fourth season of the American comedy-drama detective television series Monk, and is the show's 61st episode overall. The series follows the adventures of Adrian Monk, a private detective with obsessive–compulsive disorder and multiple phobias, and his assistant Natalie Teeger. In this episode, Monk is requested to be part of a jury for a minor crime but discovers one of the jurors is involved in a bigger crime.
12 Angry Men is a 1997 American made-for-television drama film directed by William Friedkin, adapted by Reginald Rose from his original 1954 teleplay of the same title. It is a remake of the 1957 film of the same name. The film aired on August 17, 1997 on Showtime.
Ek Ruka Hua Faisla is a 1986 Indian Hindi-language legal drama film directed by Basu Chatterjee. It is a remake of the Golden Bear winning American motion picture 12 Angry Men (1957) directed by Sidney Lumet, which was an adaptation from a 1954 teleplay of the same name by Reginald Rose.
Twelve Angry Men is a play by Reginald Rose adapted from his 1954 teleplay of the same title for the CBS Studio One anthology television series. Staged first in San Francisco in 1955, the Broadway debut came 50 years after CBS aired the play, on October 28, 2004, by the Roundabout Theatre Company at the American Airlines Theatre, where it ran for 328 performances.
12 is a 2007 Russian legal drama film by director, screenwriter, producer and actor Nikita Mikhalkov. The film is a Russian-language remake of Sidney Lumet's 1957 film 12 Angry Men, which in turn was based on Reginald Rose's 1955 stage play, Twelve Angry Men, itself based on Rose's 1954 teleplay of the latter's same name.
"Twelve Angry Men" is an episode of the BBC television situation comedy programme Hancock's Half Hour, starring Tony Hancock and featuring Sid James, and first broadcast on 16 October 1959. Written by Ray Galton and Alan Simpson, the title is retrospectively applied; the episodes were not originally identified separately.
Twelve Angry Men is an American courtroom drama written by Reginald Rose concerning the jury of a homicide trial. It was broadcast initially as a television play in 1954. The following year it was adapted for the stage. It was adapted for a film of the same name, directed by Sidney Lumet, and released in 1957. Since then it has been given numerous remakes, adaptations, and tributes
"Twelve Angry Men" is a 1954 teleplay directed by Franklin J. Schaffner and written by Reginald Rose for the American anthology television series Studio One. It follows the titular twelve members of a jury as they deliberate a supposedly clear-cut murder trial, and details the tension among them when one juror argues that the defendant might not be guilty. Initially staged as a CBS live production on September 20, 1954, the drama was later rewritten for the stage in 1955 under the same title, and as a feature film in 1957 titled 12 Angry Men. The episode garnered three Emmy Awards for writer Rose, director Schaffner, and Robert Cummings as Best Actor.
"12 and a Half Angry Men" is the sixteenth episode of the eleventh season and the 204th overall episode of the animated comedy series Family Guy. It aired on Fox in the United States on March 24, 2013, and is written by Ted Jessup and directed by Pete Michels. In the episode, Mayor Adam West is brought on trial for murder. Brian Griffin is on the jury and tries to clear his name. The episode was inspired by the 1957 film classic 12 Angry Men.
12 Citizens is a 2014 Chinese suspense crime drama film directed by Xu Ang. It was shown at the 2014 Rome Film Festival on October 19, 2014 and was released in China on May 15, 2015. The plot is based on and heavily references the plot of the 1954 teleplay Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose. Various localization changes were made, such as changing the original, everyman protagonist into a Prosecutor of the Chinese Communist Party.
"The Defender" is an American television play broadcast live in two parts on February 25, 1957, and March 4, 1957, as part of the CBS television series Studio One. A courtroom drama, it was written by Reginald Rose and directed by Robert Mulligan. The cast included Ralph Bellamy and William Shatner as a father-son defense team, Steve McQueen as the defendant, and Martin Balsam as the prosecutor. Rose later spun off the concept into a full series entitled The Defenders, starring E.G. Marshall and Robert Reed in Bellamy and Shatner's roles.
↑ "中村錦之助を長門裕之が逆転 史上最年少で主演賞に"[Hiroyuki Nagato beats Kinnosuke Nakamura, he is the youngest person in history to win the Best Leading Actor Award]. Cinema Hochi (in Japanese). Archived from the original on February 19, 2012. Retrieved September 16, 2021.
Ellsworth, Phoebe C. (2003). "One Inspiring Jury [Review of 'Twelve Angry Men']". Michigan Law Review. 101 (6): 1387–1407. doi:10.2307/3595316. JSTOR3595316. In depth analysis compared with research on actual jury behaviour.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
