Sidney Lumets 1957 Film 12 Angry Men - Assignment Example

12 Angry Men Director Sidney Lumet’s 1957 film “12 Angry Men” has maintained a firm grip on its position as social commentary since its release 50 years ago. It provides an intimate look into the American justice system, complete with its breakdowns, weaknesses and strengths and has withstood the test of time, holding its own among the classic films of American cinema. Far from the highly colorized, flash and bang of modern cinema, “12 Angry Men” takes place in a single room for almost the entire film and involves 12 ordinary men who are each stereotypical of prevalent societal attitudes at the time of the film’s making, but could as easily be transferred to more modern times, forcing the viewer to focus on the psychological action occurring rather than the latest high-dollar computer graphic imagery or fast-moving car chase scene. The film opens as the judge in a courtroom informs the jury of its duties before releasing them into the jury room. As the judge speaks, the camera pans across the different faces of the men who comprise the jury as well as the big-eared wide-eyed boy defendant. As the judge gives his directions, he makes it clear that this is a capital murder case and, should the jury return with a guilty verdict, the sentence will be death. With this harsh task on their minds, the jury files quietly into the jury room, none of them looking at the defendant as they do so but with the defendant watching each one of them in turn. As the case is presented, it is made clear that the boy, just turned 18, is on trial for his life accused of having killed his own father in an angry knife attack and then callously removing himself from the home to go watch a film. It is up to the jury to decide, by a vote of guilty or innocent, whether this boy lives or dies. Either they let him go free or they condemn him to death. As the jury files into the room, it is obvious some of them are deeply affected by the weight of their decision while others are clearly convinced their conclusions are obvious. As none of the jurymen are identified by name for most of the movie, only two of them exchanging names at the very end of the film, the only way to refer to them is by their jury number, which is made easier as they sit at the table in this order. Casual chatter before they all convene officially indicates that most of the jury members feel the case is fairly solid, the boy is undeniably guilty of the crime. As the film moves forward, the reasons for this assurance are revealed. First, the boy was known to have purchased a switchblade knife of an unusual design, which was the same kind of knife found in the father’s body. There was also a long history of abuse between the father and son, in which the father was consistently beating up on the boy and the boy had recently begun to fight back. In addition, the boy had been brought before juvenile court in the past for engaging in knife fights. Standing in as witnesses were two neighbors, a man who lived downstairs who said he heard the boy shout that he was going to kill his father and then heard the thump on the floor that he presumed was the body falling and a woman who lived across the train track and said she had a clear view of the crime taking place, identifying the boy as the killer. As alibi, the boy claims he left the house to go to a movie the night his father was killed, but he cannot produce so much as a movie stub to prove it nor can he remember what was playing that night. In addition, he is unable to produce the unusual knife that he had purchased claiming that it must have fallen out of his pocket through a hole when he hadn’t noticed. Despite all of this evidence against him, one juror stands against the crowd and says he is not convinced. Juror 8 was seen at the beginning of the film staring thoughtfully out of the window while everyone else assembled. It is assumed at this point that his thoughts are far from the case just as many of the others are. However, his objections to finding the boy guilty immediately reveal that he was actually seriously considering the evidence that had been presented. Juror 8 points to the fact that the boy returned home at 3 o’clock that morning, after claiming to have been to see a film, to a house that was full of police already beginning their murder investigation. The juror can’t understand why a boy already familiar with the wrong side of the law would knowingly return to an apartment where the man he killed, his own father, was lying cold and dead and the subject of investigation. As the juror told the others, this kind of behavior just doesn’t make sense. On the basis of that argument, Juror 8 is able to convince the rest of the jurors to go over the facts of the case again, slowly and one at a time, to try to convince him that the hole in his logic is actually filled. While most of the other jurors remain unconvinced that there is a hole in the logic, the conversation is continued when one juror votes not guilty to provide Juror 8 with a chance to make his point. Juror 9 is not convinced that the boy should not be found guilty, but is instead intrigued by the conviction of Juror 8 that there is reason to doubt. In order to convince the other jurors that he may have a point, Juror 8 produces a switchblade knife of an unusual design that he purchased for a low price at a store not far from the defendant’s house. He uses this as proof that it is not so improbable that someone else, the real killer, could have used the same kind of knife to commit the crime without the boy’s knowledge or participation. This truly gets the conversation moving about the various points of evidence. With the evidence of the knife itself called into question through the very graphic example of two identical knives sticking into the jury room table, the men begin to re-examine the other pieces of evidence. Because of the long history of abuse between father and son and no previous reports of serious injury being inflicted on the father by the son, Juror 8 argues that logically, there is no reason to believe that the boy would have suddenly determined to kill the man just for another ordinary beating. While the boy had been in juvenile court in the past, he had also shown signs of active rehabilitation. There was a movie playing the night of the murder and it would have let out about the right time for the boy to have arrived home when he did and the shock of finding his father dead and being arrested for the murder could have easily confused him regarding what was playing that particular night. However, the jury is primarily concerned with the reports of the two witnesses. The old man who reported hearing the entire crime take place is a respectable man who has never been brought before public notice for anything negative in the past. As Juror 9 points out, he has never been brought before the public for anything positive either and may have made his testimony simply as a means of feeling important for a brief moment – not to lie, but to fool himself into thinking he heard something when he heard it. The reason for this conjecture is because the testimony of the other witness, a woman who lived across the street, placed the timing of the murder just as the train was going by as she could see everything that happened through the lighted windows of the train as if it were happening in the next room. As Juror 6 verifies, a juror who has lived in that area of the city for most of his life, when the train goes by, a person in the vicinity can’t hear himself think, much less hear what is happening in the apartment above him or the hallways outside. With the old man’s testimony conflicted, the woman’s testimony remains the lone incontrovertible evidence that the boy is guilty. After all, she watched him do it. The realization, toward the end of the film, that the woman probably wore glasses based on the tell-tale marks noticed on the bridge of her nose, brings this testimony into question as well. The woman said she had been tossing and turning in bed trying to get some sleep. She’d turned toward the window just as the train was going by and saw the murder take place. All of the jurors but one recognize that she wouldn’t have had time to put on her glasses to correctly identify the defendant as definitely the person who murdered the man. With everyone now convinced the boy must be found not guilty, the lone juror realizes that his resistance was partly due to an intense resentment he felt toward his own son and capitulates to the opinion of the group. To me, the most important piece of evidence in determining the boy’s innocence was the idea that the female witness did not ‘see’ the crime to the degree that she testified she did. An eyewitness to a crime, however right or wrong they are about what they perceived, is a difficult piece of evidence to overcome. The realization that she wore glasses immediately calls her identification of the boy into question, making her testimony rather than the boy’s more questionable, especially when stacked up with the other pieces of evidence provided. However, I believe the boy is innocent simply because he returned home to what was essentially an ambush by the police, walking right into their midst before he knew what was happening without a reliable alibi, plans or tools to dispose of the body or even his own knife to prove he didn’t commit the crime. I believe there are a lot of stupid criminals out there, but one imaginative enough to engage in murder is not stupid enough to return to the scene of the crime hours later without a plan. References Fonda, Henry (Producer) & Lumet, Sidney (Director). (1957). 12 Angry Men [motion picture]. New York: Orion-Nova Productions. Read More