591 12 Angry Men

[mfunk9786]

Is he the one boring old guy or that one old boring guy? [/jk]

[knives]

Okay, yeah his performance was good (Cobb and one other guy nearly save the movie for me). Honestly I think the movie would be much more fascinating if they took out the two extreme personalities (as great as Cobb is as that character) and had it be a group of guys who were genuinely unsure about the guilt. As is I find the 'this is a miniaturized America' thing to be too blunt and self assured like a Paddy Chayefsky script and the main plot itself is rather bland and straightforward. The casting of Fonda (I know he's the producer) doesn't help on this level either since he's Lincoln and all that. As is it's too predetermined even if the premise itself is wonderful.

[mfunk9786]

I don't know if my mind can even operate on the level of yours in regards to this film. I feel like it's the most important picture w/r/t the American legal system ever made, and while characters can certainly fall into archetypes that are somewhat easy to predict, nearly 60 years later it all feels as appropriate as it ever was. I guess I sort of understand the point you're trying to make, but what's going to drive the narrative if not for the two characters on either extreme?

[knives]

I would think that the question of is this man innocent and how are we letting our biases see things one way or the other is amazing enough of a conflict that we don't need a good guy or a bad guy. Any of the twelve could be good guys or bad guys to any part of the case. Just leaving everything bare like that would be much more interesting to me.

[mfunk9786]

I'm not even talking about good guys or bad guys - I'm talking about the reality that within this script, 11 out of the 12 men on the jury consider the defendant guilty upon the first vote, and without the character who is on the one extreme, the film would be over within five minutes. There's an importance to there being one person who stands up and asks for at least an hour of discussion before he sends someone to their death.

[knives]

Well Fonda makes the film wholly redundant the second he breaks the law. The rule of double jeopardy goes out of play and the boy will have to be retried at a later date. Fonda's character makes the subsequent hour or so useless because the Jury's decision is based on illegal research amongst other similar things. If you want to start it off with a character swaying the others to speak you probably don't even need a Fonda character and just a few who want to get it over with and not apply themselves versus some who do. If you feel that a Fonda character is still needed, well there are ways he could encourage discussion on the matter in a legal way. Any moral right the film had on pursuing discussion or the other ideas it (rightfully) props up gets immediately ruined by Fonda.

[mfunk9786]

Oh good lord

[knives]

Don't blame me, blame the twenty some odd lawyers in my family.

[stwrt]

I think the defendent's lawyer was aiming for an appeal based on the fact that the prosecution's two witnesses were almost comically unreliable:

Spoiler

one was a cripple who couldn't have run as he claimed and seen the defendant escaping and the other was half-blind so could hardly be expected to see the defendant from 60 feet away in the pitch black.

[matrixschmatrix]

What are you talking about, Knives? What did Fonda's character do that was illegal?

[Jonathan S]

Given Criterion's almost unique ability to license from the BBC, I wonder if they considered including the famous spoof with Tony Hancock in the Fonda role.
The jury room sequence begins 10 minutes in, for anyone wanting to skip to that. Sid James: "Let's cut for it and get off home - anything under a seven and he's guilty..."

[Minkin]

What are you talking about, Knives? What did Fonda's character do that was illegal?

Wasn't it

Spoiler

Fonda bringing in the knife - thus the jury was conducting its own research/ deciding on evidence outside of courtroom

[triodelover]

Watching the feature followed by the teleplay has driven home the realities of being an old man in the 1950s. I cannot imagine talking down to Joseph Sweeney, could you even imagine giving a guy born in the 1880s grief about anything?! He's unspeakably excellent in both the teleplay and the film - and much like the reaction during the screening we had in high school English class, I straighten up and listen whenever the script gives him his moment in the spotlight!

So what you're saying is that old folks get nothing but respect from you youngsters these days but back in the '50s old geezers were ridden out of town on rails? Except at criterionforum.org of course. [-X

Wasn't it

Spoiler

Fonda bringing in the knife - thus the jury was conducting its own research/ deciding on evidence outside of courtroom

Yup. Juries must decide guilt or innocence on evidence presented during trial.

Spoiler

But sticking the switchblade in the table sure had a more dramatic effect than, "Well, they had to make more than one of these so somebody else coulda bought one, couldn't they?

[Jack Phillips]

What are you talking about, Knives? What did Fonda's character do that was illegal?

Wasn't it

Spoiler

Fonda bringing in the knife - thus the jury was conducting its own research/ deciding on evidence outside of courtroom

Yep. But maybe if the jurors keep it to themselves, it will never get back to the judge or the defense attorney so there will be no mistrial ruling or basis for an appeal. Yeah, right.

But here's the most damning thing: we gather, from character asides and what-have-you, that the point of the play is to celebrate America's system of trial-by-jury. We are shown a case where the system works--despite prejudices and personal agendas, the jurors finally come together to acquit an accused man because they find reasonable doubt as to his guilt.
But is this really a typical jury trial, with a typical jury? Although the jury is made up of types, it seems unlikely that "typically" there would be a Henry Fonda type among them. But unless there IS a Fonda, we perceive, the jury would convict on the first ballot. So it's a lottery: if the accused man gets the jury with Fonda, he gets off; if he doesn't, he's convicted by the boobs. The film's attempt to laud a fair system in fact ends up condemning it as arbitrary.

[zitherstrings]

Film doesn't laud, it galvanizes. "BE FONDA! FIGHT FOR JUSTICE!" could be its slogan. We should ask ourselves "Which juror no. am I?" Only then can we be the best. I think the film points out the flaw of the system and hopes we are moved, so in the future all jurors are Fondas.

Also bet the writer didn't know the knife was illegal. Oops.

[LQ]

Exactly. Rather than lauding "the system", the film lauds the citizen(s) that take their position within it seriously and thoughtfully, as a duty to uphold the constitutional promise of a fair trial and the presumption of innocence, instead of a nuisance...and stands as an effective statement to us all that the system is only as fair as the people who participate in it. If I am ever to be picked as a jury member, I would hope that the lessons of 12 Angry Men bubble up in my mind and remind me to approach the duty with clarity and fairness.

[triodelover]

The film's attempt to laud a fair system in fact ends up condemning it as arbitrary.

Film doesn't laud, it galvanizes. "BE FONDA! FIGHT FOR JUSTICE!" could be its slogan. We should ask ourselves "Which juror no. am I?" Only then can we be the best. I think the film points out the flaw of the system and hopes we are moved, so in the future all jurors are Fondas.

Can't it be both? Remember the TV play on which it was based was aired in 1954. The jury room is a microcosm of what happens when everyone falls in line behind one, loud bullying "leader" (Tail Gunner Joe, anyone?) and yet what can happen when someone has the courage to stand up for what's right. Melodramtic, sure. But there wasn't any place for subtlety in Joe McCarthy's America.

[knives]

It would be nice for a little accuracy and forethought though. I think the two above have better described my problems with that part of the film (I also am not a fan of the direction and a few other things) than I could. With your Joe McCarthy line you accidentally admit it is an artifact of the times it came out in. It's sort of like a Kramer movie if that's the case (though I think it's significantly more entertaining than any of those). as an example of trial by jury it fails. As an examination of the little pockets of Americana it's okay by the standards of the day, but than it relies on that story which is already flawed enough to exist in the realm of fantasy only. The problem than comes from how predetermined it is that everything becomes rote and just an other step towards an inevitable conclusion. Maybe if the film were only an hour in length that simplicity would work (in fact I can nearly guarantee that run time alone will make me like the television version more), but as a full fledged super movie it's tiresome to me.

[weinmanj]

I did notice that the line about how buying the knife was illegal was added for the movie -- suggesting that Rose may not have considered the illegality of it when he wrote the TV version, or at least didn't have time to deal with it. It is, in any of the versions, the moment when reality goes out the window, so the line may not even help that much. When he takes out the knife, it's shifted from being a story about a jury deliberation to a story where ordinary people do the work that lawyers and cops won't do.

That's one of the appealing themes of 12 Angry Men in any version, that the American system is broken but that America's founding principles are basically sound (a theme that runs through a ton of American work, liberal and conservative). The legal system is broken, because it gave this kid a lawyer who overlooked the flaws in the prosecution's case; the cops didn't do their job properly. But these non-lawyers and non-cops can pool their experience and, using their combined knowledge, can get back to the basic principles of justice that the system can't provide. Of course it's a fantasy, and just the fact that the Fonda character doesn't want a hung jury is sort of an acknowledgement that it's a fantasy: any other jury would convict him.

I do find that Bob Cummings' casting in the original TV play makes it feel a little more balanced than in the Fonda version, even though I'm not sure if I really like Cummings' performance (he did win an Emmy, but he also seems nervous doing it live). There is this sense that he's not all that sure of himself and is genuinely uncomfortable about standing against the crowd, but he has to speak up and do his duty and talk through the case. If it weren't for the knife trick, you might almost think of him as someone who is discovering his opinions on this case as he goes along. The fact that he's going up against Franchot Tone and Edward Arnold, actors with a considerable amount of experience and authority, makes me feel like he has guts standing up to them; Fonda can't be intimidated by anyone, because he's Fonda, and the rest of the actors are guys a low-budget movie can afford.

[knives]

Actually I'd be more comfortable with the sort of performance you'd described as being in the television version even if the film is still flawed from other angles. That sort of twitchiness would reduce the predetermined feeling.

[triodelover]

It would be nice for a little accuracy and forethought though. I think the two above have better described my problems with that part of the film (I also am not a fan of the direction and a few other things) than I could. With your Joe McCarthy line you accidentally admit it is an artifact of the times it came out in. It's sort of like a Kramer movie if that's the case (though I think it's significantly more entertaining than any of those). as an example of trial by jury it fails. As an examination of the little pockets of Americana it's okay by the standards of the day, but than it relies on that story which is already flawed enough to exist in the realm of fantasy only. The problem than comes from how predetermined it is that everything becomes rote and just an other step towards an inevitable conclusion. Maybe if the film were only an hour in length that simplicity would work (in fact I can nearly guarantee that run time alone will make me like the television version more), but as a full fledged super movie it's tiresome to me.

Of course it's an artifact of the times. Virtually every film reflects to some degree the climate in which it was made. What's wrong with that?

Of course, as I have admitted before, probably the main thing that drives my interest in films is how they reflect the social mores and historical context of the time in which they were made. This film, like many from the period and a number of the TV dramas from which they were sourced, is less about an accurate reflection of reality - i.e. what a jury is really like - than it is about setting an arresting milieu for debating salient issues of the day. We have a group of white men of differing social class wrestling with accusation, discrimination and the fairness of the justice system. This is a group of adult males not unlike many that I can remember from the '50s as a boy. In an America with a McCarthy hangover and a burgeoning civil rights movement, what goes on in that ersatz jury room is very relevant.

That's one of the appealing themes of 12 Angry Men in any version, that the American system is broken but that America's founding principles are basically sound (a theme that runs through a ton of American work, liberal and conservative). The legal system is broken, because it gave this kid a lawyer who overlooked the flaws in the prosecution's case; the cops didn't do their job properly. But these non-lawyers and non-cops can pool their experience and, using their combined knowledge, can get back to the basic principles of justice that the system can't provide. Of course it's a fantasy, and just the fact that the Fonda character doesn't want a hung jury is sort of an acknowledgement that it's a fantasy: any other jury would convict him.

Exactly. Settling for a hung jury would be a sort of Pontius Pilate act. The next jury is going to convict. So Cummings/Fonda have to force the issue to acquittal to drive home the point - that the system is redeemable but it will take effort to achieve that end.

I do find that Bob Cummings' casting in the original TV play makes it feel a little more balanced than in the Fonda version, even though I'm not sure if I really like Cummings' performance (he did win an Emmy, but he also seems nervous doing it live). There is this sense that he's not all that sure of himself and is genuinely uncomfortable about standing against the crowd, but he has to speak up and do his duty and talk through the case. If it weren't for the knife trick, you might almost think of him as someone who is discovering his opinions on this case as he goes along. The fact that he's going up against Franchot Tone and Edward Arnold, actors with a considerable amount of experience and authority, makes me feel like he has guts standing up to them; Fonda can't be intimidated by anyone, because he's Fonda, and the rest of the actors are guys a low-budget movie can afford.

One of my problems is that I can't stand Robert Cummings. He almost ruins Dial M for Murder for me.

I understand your point about Tone and Arnold, but I'm not quite ready to dismiss the rest of the movie's cast as minor league. Cobb has an intimidating physical presence that at times looks like he might overpower the meeker Fonda. Yes, we know he's Fonda, but he really doesn't come across as all that overarching in the film. Marshall gives a stronger performance than Abel. I'll give your Arnold over Begley and I think Klugman, Warden and Binns more than hold their own.

[Tom Hagen]

If I were personally refashioning the constitutional and legal system of the United States, I would probably keep almost everything in the current Constitution protecting the rights of the accused except for the jury system. It's always been weird to me that people look at jury trials as some sort of inalienable human right to get misty-eyed and patriotic about, rather than as a historical vestige of the common law system.

[aox]

If I were personally refashioning the constitutional and legal system of the United States, I would probably keep almost everything in the current Constitution protecting the rights of the accused except for the jury system. It's always been weird to me that people look at jury trials as some sort of inalienable human right to get misty-eyed and patriotic about, rather than as a historical vestige of the common law system.

Interesting. I am curious as to what you would put in its place.

[triodelover]

If I were personally refashioning the constitutional and legal system of the United States, I would probably keep almost everything in the current Constitution protecting the rights of the accused except for the jury system. It's always been weird to me that people look at jury trials as some sort of inalienable human right to get misty-eyed and patriotic about, rather than as a historical vestige of the common law system.

And replace it with what? A single judge? A panel of judges? Because we all know that judges are incorruptible and are not influenced by the voters that put them on the bench in the first place.

Capital punishment: Them what's got the capital don't get the punishment.

I'd be much more concerned about being able to provide each defendant with adequate and appropriate counsel (which is one of the things 12 Angry Men serves to highlight).

[Tom Hagen]

I think Continental European models are a good place to start; bench trials for lower-level criminal offenses, mixed panels of judges and lay jurors (without a unanimity requirement) for more serious criminal offenses. Also: abolish the death penalty, roll back congressional limits that have been placed on federal appellate review of state convictions. It's idiotic that we Americans have a system that preserves the right of defendants to have 12 of their uneducated peers decide their guilt or innocence, but denies them effective appellate review for new evidence, ineffective counsel at trial, etc.