Everyone giving an honest effort to civic duty is a matter of life or death

Rating: 5/10 (24 July 2013)

12 Angry Men is about the idea that everyone giving an honest effort to civic duty is a matter of life or death. It sets out to prove this idea with two external plots: one plot chronicles the journey of finding reasonable doubt for a Not Guilty verdict, the other chronicles the jury gradually giving an honest effort to the deliberation process. The result of these two plots, both of which end in success, gives rise to the idea that without everyone giving an honest effort, the democratic process would be broken.
The movie is a short, confined story tightly told. It is an important story since the idea at the heart of democracy is a delicate one: that all members of society are innocent until proved guilty and that they each have the right to be judged by their peers. That 12 random people from all walks of life are the ultimate arbiters of what are life and death judgement is scary and liberating at the same time. It's scary in that each of us is a bundle of individual prejudices and hardened views that can sway our judgement. It's liberating in that these 12 random people need to unanimously decide on a single judgement despite their inherent differences.
The movie highlights the democratic process by showing 12 specific individuals who are too busy and prejudiced from the get go to give the judging process an honest go. When only one juror stands between a death verdict and a long uncomfortable debate, the democratic process is on the verge of breaking down. By the individual standing up against his peers to insist on an honest discussion, he starts the process towards due diligence and evidence review that ultimately results in an unanimous Not Guilty judgement.
The idea that it only takes one individual out of twelve to have the resolve for giving an honest effort to civic duty is a powerful one. It is the idea that the foundation of democratic society can rest on a single individual taking their responsibilities seriously. In fact it is the only foundation democracy can rest on.
So the movie is about an important idea.
But the drama of the story gets slightly repetitive in the second half, as juror after juror deals with their own prejudice. The story tries to give each juror a backstory that reinforces their preconceived notions and views, but having to do this for 12 people dilutes their power and makes most of them seem stereotyped and caricatured.
But thankfully the filmmakers keep the story moving in a tight 90 minutes and don't ruin a good thing.
My Story Chart of the movie is at storycharts.ca