12 Angry Men12 Angry Men12 Angry Men (1957) is the gripping, penetrating, and engrossing examination of a diverse group of twelve jurors (all male, mostly middle-aged, white, and generally of middle-class status) who are uncomfortably brought together to deliberate after hearing the facts in a seemingly open-and-shut murder trial case. They retire to a jury room to do their civic duty and serve up a just verdict for the indigent minority defendant (with a criminal record) whose life is in the balance. The film is a powerful indictment, denouncement and expose of the trial by jury system. The frightened, teenaged defendant is on trial, as well as the jury and the American judicial system with its purported sense of infallibility, fairness and lack of bias. Alternatively, the film could also be viewed as commentary on McCarthyism, Fascism, or Communism (threatening forces in the 50s). One of the films posters described how the workings of the judicial process can be disastrous: “LIFE IS IN THEIR HANDS – DEATH IS ON THEIR MINDS! It EXPLODES Like 12 Sticks of Dynamite.”
This was television-trained director Sidney Lumets first feature film – a low-budget ($350,000) film shot in only 17 days from a screenplay by Reginald Rose, who based his script on his own teleplay of the same name. After the initial airing of the TV play in early 1954 on Studio One CBS-TV, co-producer/star Henry Fonda asked Rose in 1956 if the teleplay could be expanded to feature-film length (similar to what occurred to Paddy Chayefskys TV play Marty (1955)), and they became co-producers for the project (Fondas sole instance of film production).
The jury of twelve angry men, entrusted with the power to send an uneducated, teenaged Puerto Rican, tenement-dwelling boy to the electric chair for killing his father with a switchblade knife, are literally locked into a small, claustrophobic rectangular jury room on a stifling hot summer day until they come up with a unanimous decision – either guilty or not guilty. The compelling, provocative film examines the twelve mens deep-seated personal prejudices, perceptual biases and weaknesses, indifference, anger, personalities, unreliable judgments, cultural differences, ignorance and fears, that threaten to taint their decision-making abilities, cause them to ignore the real issues in the case, and potentially lead them to a miscarriage of justice.
Fortunately, one brave dissenting juror votes not guilty at the start of the deliberations because of his reasonable doubt. Persistently and persuasively, he forces the other men to slowly reconsider and review the shaky case (and eyewitness testimony) against the endangered defendant. He also chastises the system for giving the unfortunate defendant an inept court-appointed public defense lawyer who “resented being appointed” – a case with “no money, no glory, not even much chance of winning” – and who inadequately cross-examined the witnesses. Heated discussions, the formation of alliances, the frequent re-evaluation and changing of opinions, votes and certainties, and the revelation of personal experiences, insults and outbursts fill the jury room.
[A few of the films idiosyncracies: Even in the 50s, it would have been unlikely to have an all-male, all-white jury. However, its slightly forgivable since the play made the jury and trial largely symbolic and metaphoric (the jurors were made to represent a cross-section of American attitudes towards race, justice, and ideology, and were not entirely realistic.) The introduction of information about the defendants past juvenile crimes wouldnt have been allowed. Jurors # 3 and # 10 were so prejudiced that their attitudes would have quickly eliminated them from being selected during jury review. And it was improper for Juror # 8 to act as a defense attorney – to re-enact the old mans walk to the front door or to investigate on his own by purchasing a similar knife. The angry interactions between some of the jurors seem overly personal and exaggerated. ]
This classic, black and white film has been accused of being stagey, static and dialogue-laden. It has no flashbacks, narration, or subtitles. The camera is essentially locked in the enclosed room with the deliberating jurors for 90 of the films 95 minutes, and the film is basically shot in real-time in an actual jury room. Cinematographer Boris Kaufman, who had already demonstrated his on-location film-making skill in Elia Kazans On the Waterfront (1954) in Hoboken, and Baby Doll (1956) in Mississippi, uses diverse camera angles (a few dramatic, grotesque closeups and mostly well-composed medium-shots) to illuminate and energize the films cramped proceedings. Except for Henry Fonda, the ensemble character actors were chosen for their experience in the burgeoning art of television.
The filmmakers, for both their work and the film, chose the right shot on film. Each side filmed in its own right. The camerawork for both films was not high. The camera angle used in the films is relatively simple, it doesn’t come up with a lot of angles and it simply isn’t moving to the left or right. The film was only shot with the camera on the floor rather than on the wall, but it still would have taken two to three minutes and didn’t pose much of an issue in the trial (especially in any courtroom where it might be challenging a jury’s judgement).
The film was shot between November 12, 1942 and March 26, 1943, and was scheduled to air on Broadway on December 5, 1943.
A special feature film, The First Day, was set during the trial and on board the stage, but it was postponed when the trial commenced. The trial was the “tourist for the jury room” but the jury had to be seated right, so the special feature film “The Third Day” is set between the beginning of the trial and the end.
The first feature film to air in the U.S. was the “The Great Wall,” featuring the cast of the show’s protagonists — Richard Daley, George Lucas, Jerry Dyer and Jack Huston. The rest of the cast consisted of:
William Dyer, Jr., Jr., was a former California governor. This actor was a member that time period, and in 1957 was one of the founding directors of California’s first (and now only) television “graphic novel.” In 1959, the book was published in the Golden State and featured six characters.
George Lucas was a director during this time. He wrote the script and edited the film as well. He was also a screenwriter and was responsible for many films from the beginning of the 1970s and into the 1980s.
Joker was the first feature film to feature a woman character, and, like the second installment, was shot in real time. This time, most of the scenes were staged by actors living in Hollywood studios. The main cast was composed of the following:
Peter Jackson, the author and screenwriter, played Daffy Duck. Daffy Duck is a very sensitive and intelligent woman, who always looks out for other women throughout the war who know her best. He always feels that his men have a much bigger advantage over them, and a woman must not be discouraged by them:
“She shall feel as if she were a horse, all to her delight”
-William Daley, The Great Wall
In the film, Daley was also the judge of the trial who was allowed her to make her predictions. The court ruled that she was liable for any damages brought by the production of the book. While Daley was on trial at the time that the movie was set and in fact was set before the trial began, Daley was not in the courtroom at the time when Daley made her predictions