Classical Hollywood Cinema - Essay Example

? Politics and Race in ical Hollywood: Lumet’s 12 Angry Men (1957) 17 August Word Count: 2589 ical Hollywood Cinema spans Hollywood films from the 1930s to 1940s, though other scholars assert that it extends up to the late 1950s (Cook and Bernick 1999, p.40; Schatz 1996, p.4). It was a time of the studio system and star system, when studios and stars had the power to shape the financial viability of production firms (Doherty 1999; Maltby 2003, p.78). One of the most asked questions regarding this era was what Hollywood was for. Richard Maltby (2003, p.16) argued that “[a]nswers to questions about what Hollywood is for must be sought not only in its movies but also in the social, cultural and institutional contexts that surround it.” This essay focuses on one film from the classical Hollywood period, Sidney Lumet’s 12 Angry Men (1957) to answer what classical Hollywood is. 12 Angry Men shows what Hollywood is, a medium for demonstrating real social issues about politics and race and striving to resolve them through the classic narrative structure and classic codes of Hollywood cinema that satisfy American aesthetic tastes and economic demands. Before proceeding to the arguments of this essay, a short overview of the film’s Hollywood context is provided. Hollywood history can be seen as being divided into two historical periods, the period of Old and New Hollywood (Schatz 1996, p.5). Auteur theory asserts that Old Hollywood pertains to films that directors make for their own tastes and needs, while New Hollywood criticises the studio system, the “dehumanizing, formulaic, profit-hungry machinery of Hollywood's studio-factories” (Schatz 1996, p.5). Hollywood, nevertheless, continues to be studio-driven through the studios’ provision of resources and networks to directors. Schatz (1996, p.12) asserts that Hollywood is for depicting real struggles for power to make decisions and to implement them in films, not collaboration. Hollywood history shows struggles for authority and influence, power struggles that affect jurors in 12 Angry Men too. Classical Hollywood cinema follows a certain classic narrative structure that has a realist narrative that is present in 12 Angry Men (1957), especially the manifestation of the politics of the time, including struggles for power and justice. The realist perspective of 12 Angry Men (1957) comes from its alignment with its historical political context. The main conflict in the film involves a teenager from a minority group in a low-income neighbourhood, which provides a space for exploring the politics of people regarding these disadvantaged sectors. The initial voting of the jurors suggest that majority of these characters do not reflect the true essence of what the criminal justice system should be- a system composed of rational individuals who will do everything it takes to deliberate the case and come up with a solid conviction. The beginning of the film shows the camera shot tilting upward to the roof of the court, demonstrating the ascendancy of justice that is blind to physical and other kinds of differences among people. Eleven of the jurors, however, demonstrate varying kinds of biases and indifference that question the essence of their democratic justice system. Juror#3 (Lee J. Cobb), for instance, is highly prejudiced against all teenagers and people from the slum. He assumes that because the boy is poor and a minority, he is most likely to commit crimes (12 Angry Men 1957). His bias indicates that even when the jury system is designed to uphold fairness for all, the jury is not always fair at all, and in this case, their lack of fairness can result to one kid’s death. The film does more than reveal the weaknesses of the jury system however, but says something about larger social issues. Cunningham (1986, p.112) believed that the film does not only criticise the jury system, but also the “American democratic process itself.” The initial attitudes of most of the jurors in the film counter what people may commonly think about jurors in a democratic society. The first contest on power touches on the issue of age. Ageism is present in society, and the film demonstrates the power play that reflects it. In one of the scenes of deliberation, Juror#3 lashes at Juror#9 (Joseph Sweeney). Juror#6 (Edward Binns) gets upset because Juror#3 does not respect old men. The attitudes of other disrespectful younger jurors toward Juror#9 suggest the politics that exist within multigenerational groups (12 Angry Men 1957). Just because someone is old, other people sometimes forget that they can learn something from them. The scene indicates power struggles among different generations, particularly in gaining authority and influence over others. Another realistic aspect of the film is the political issue on what justice means. Justice should be fair to all, and yet not many of these jurors are willing to be impartial toward the defendant. Juror#10 (Ed Begley) is biased against the poor, which is evident when he tells Juror#8 (Henry Fonda): “Listen, I've lived among them all my life. You can't believe a word they say. You know that. I mean, they're born liars” (12 Angry Men 1957). His prejudice against the poor makes him illogical already, which Juror#9 ascertains, when he says: “Only an ignorant man can believe that...Do you think you were born with a monopoly on the truth?” (12 Angry Men 1957). Juror#9 shows that justice should be blind to all colour and social classes, and yet other jurors already judged the defendant, not because of the merits of the case, but because of their presumptions about class and race. Furthermore, the film is realist in its portrayal of social issue of justice because it follows the cause-and-effect sequence of finding out the truth. Juror#8 insists that they should talk about the case more instead of immediately condemning a young man to death. He highlights the importance of deliberation in exploring the various sides of the story and in criticising the testimonies of the two witnesses: “We can't decide in five minutes. Supposin' we're wrong” (12 Angry Men 1957). He has a reasonable doubt in his mind and that doubt is enough for him to think that it is possible that the boy is not guilty, and if he is not guilty, he does not deserve capital punishment. As a result, Juror#8 calls for examination of the causes of motives and testimonies, so that they can arrive at the truth or at least, variations of potential truths about what happened that night, starting with the knife. Juror#2 (John Fiedler) seems to be absolutely positive that the knife is unique and the rest agrees with him. Juror#8, however, produces an exact replica of the so-called-unique knife. This knife is only $6 and is available from a store near the defendant’s house. Cook and Bernick (1999, p.40) asserted the role of linearity in classical Hollywood narrative: “Events in the story are typically organised in a relationship of cause and effect, so that there is a logic whereby each event of the narrative is linked with the next.” Juror#8 underscores the possible other causes regarding the killer and how coincidences might make it look like that the boy killed his father even when he did not. In finding justice, cause-and-effect reasoning helps explore other causes for the old man’s death; thereby assuring justice is being served through impartial deliberation Apart from the political issue of justice, race is an important issue that the film shows, as part of its realist portrayal of society. Though the film does not mention anything about the political issues of its time, since it is shown in the late 1950s, it has the backdrop of the Civil Rights Movement. This movement underscores the role of race in affecting people’s prejudice and discrimination. One of the reasons that some of these jurors are angry is because of their racial prejudice. Juror#10 thinks that children from these slums are usual criminals. Juror#3 supports racist thoughts because of his anger for his own teenage son (12 Angry Men 1957). These people think that because others belong from a certain race, they have a greater disposition to be criminals. In other words, they think that the boy is a minority and poor, therefore there is no questioning that he is a criminal. Juror#8 feels otherwise because he thinks that they should consider the defendant’s socio-economic and family background. He describes the daily life of an abused teenager: Look, this kid's been kicked around all of his life. You know, born in a slum. Mother dead since he was nine. He lived for a year and a half in an orphanage when his father was serving a jail term for forgery. That's not a very happy beginning. He's a wild, angry kid, and that's all he's ever been. And you know why, because he's been hit on the head by somebody once a day, every day. He's had a pretty miserable eighteen years. I just think we owe him a few words, that's all. (12 Angry Men 1957). He is not saying that just because the boy comes from a disadvantaged position, he must be given some slack, and instead, he wants to highlight the intersection of class and race in their times. Juror#8 presents a rational voice to his fellow jurors because he wants to understand how a boy could kill his father when he might have been used to it all his life. This man underscores the role of race in explaining a boy’s identity and now, his destiny for either life or death. One more point about race is that the jury is almost all-white, which can make them less empathetic toward the young man’s plight, and this is a realistic portrayal of human bias. When people harbour racism, it can seep through their words and actions. Whiteness is valued in the American society during the time of racial issues, despite its democratic ideals. Dyer (2003, p.142) argued that colour has power over people because of the meanings that society put on it: “This property of whiteness, to be everything and nothing, is the source of its representational power.” He explains that whiteness has largely held a positive meaning for the Western white culture, while black is maligned, and this thinking affects how racist white people see and interact with black people. Juror#10 is extremely biased against the defendant, asserting the line between “we” versus “them.” After another round of voting that results to only three jurors voting not guilty, Juror#10 states: I know all about them. Listen to me, they're no good. There's not a one of 'em who's any good....This kid on trial here...well, don't you know about them? There's a danger here. These people are dangerous. They're wild. Listen. Listen to me. (12 Angry Men 1957). The danger is not in the relative blackness of the defendant, but the danger of racism that affects the jury system and the criminal justice process in general. Dambrun (2007) learned from his study that racism affects the decision of death penalty. Racism is not the basis of rational decisions, and yet it can result to invalid jury rulings. The film shows how racial attitudes can impact juries and the soundness of their decisions. The last aspect of the classic Hollywood narrative structure is its closure, which restores balance through the resolution of the social disturbance and gaining maximum aesthetic pleasure for the audience that serves the studio’s economic ends. Maltby (2003, p.15) asserts that classical Hollywood represents how Americans want to see themselves. Americans would not want to see a lack of resolution to a biased criminal justice system, and so through the action of Juror#8, he promotes the return to social justice and equity that Americans believe they have in their society. People want to think that despite the existence of indifference and biases, some people can sway others to uphold their personal responsibility to the law and their fellow human beings (Cunningham 1986, p.115). The last man voting guilty is Juror#3, who eventually breaks down after realising that he is projecting his hate for his son to the defendant, when he says: “Not guilty. Not guilty” (12 Angry Men 1957). Through this dramatic ending, a happy ending is attained, which classic Hollywood cinema is all about too. Maltby (2003, p.16) emphasises that happy endings are important to making money in Hollywood. He says that the business of Hollywood is “entertaining its audience, producing the maximum pleasure for the maximum number for the maximum profit” (Maltby 2003, pp.14-15). For him, the main aspiration of classic Hollywood is to make people happy enough to make money out of their happiness. Indeed, the plot of the film is entertaining because of how the hero, Juror#8 slowly plants the seed of doubt in the minds of fellow jurors. His effectiveness is achieved through his patience and rational thinking, which is interesting to watch, as if uncovering a mystery thriller from the jury’s viewpoint. His calm demeanour and rational thinking represents the light that guides the action and moral of the story. Thus, the film satisfies the aim of classical Hollywood of making money through entertaining viewers with a solid happy ending. After discussing the classic narrative, the next is the film’s classic narrative codes, codes which assert that classical Hollywood is all about making sense to the audience through its editing and sequencing. One of the codes is the propelling of the action from beginning to end (Cook and Bernick 1999, p.40). The plot begins with one man’s reasonable doubt that affects other jurors one by one. As the jury’s deliberation continues, Juror#8 speaks with wit every now and then, such as when he says to Juror#3: “You don't really mean you'll kill me, do you?” (12 Angry Men 1957). The action in the film continues through the persuasive character of the protagonist and how he propels the transition from biased to a rational discussion of testimonies and evidence. The next classic code is editing that connects causes and events. The film focuses on the memories of the jurors about the testimonies and the appearances of the witnesses. Juror#9, for instance, describes the old witness quite accurately: “The seam of his jacket was split under the shoulder...to come to court like that... He was dragging his left leg and trying to hide it because he was ashamed. I think I know this man better than anyone here” (12 Angry Men 1957). Their memories build the causes and effects of their arguments. The cinematic codes call for a realistic setting and credible characters too. 12 Angry Men shows people from different classes and races, thereby expanding the diversity of opinions. The setting is credible because of the jury room that impinges on the people to use their personal responsibility in finding the truth. Hence, the film satisfies the classic codes, which suggest that Hollywood is about consistent logic and the preservation of that logic. The classic codes and narrative structure are both designed to satisfy the aesthetic demands of the audience and to make money for studios. 12 Angry Men shows what classical Hollywood is about by showing a realistic aspect that fit the Civil Rights Movement mood of its time. The plot is entertaining because it follows a mystery genre mixed with the plight of a minority and it is entertaining enough to make money for its studio. The elements and codes of the classical Hollywood narrative supports the purpose of 12 Angry Men as a classical Hollywood film- to show that reality can also be seen in the movies and that happy endings can resolve disturbances through the gallant efforts of a single hero who can rally his group toward justice and truth. Bibliography Cook, P. and Bernick, M ., 1999. Classic Hollywood cinema. In: Cook, P. (ed.). The cinema book. London: BFI, 3-42. Cunningham, F., 1986. Sidney Lumet's humanism: the return to the father in Twelve Angry Men. Literature Film Quarterly, 14(2), 112-121. Dambrun, M., 2007. Understanding the relationship between racial prejudice and support for the death penalty: the racist punitive bias hypothesis. Social Justice Research, 20(2), 228-249. Doherty, T., 1999. Criminal codes: gangsters unbound, felons in custody. In: Pre-code Hollywood: sex, immortality and insurrection in American cinema 1930- 1934. New York: Columbia University, 137-170 . Dyer, R., 1993. White. In: The matter of images. London: Routledge, 141-163. Maltby, R., 2003. A classical cinema? In: Hollywood cinema (2nd edn). Maldon, MA: Blackwell, 16-19. ---. The studio system, The Star System & a star is made. In: Hollywood cinema (2nd edn). Maldon, MA: Blackwell, 78-81. Schatz, T., 1996. Introduction: ‘the whole equation of pictures.’ In: The genius of the system. New York: Metropolitan Books, 3-14. 12 Angry Men, 1957. Film. Directed by Sidney Lumet. USA: Orion-Nova Productions. Read More