Supposing we get it wrong ?

Rating: 8/10 (20 October 2012)

The plot of this film unfolds entirely in a claustrophobic and uncomfortably hot jury room. The twelve angry men of the title are jurors and must decide the fate of a young man accused of killing his father. It does not help his case that he is poor and Hispanic, and not even the tone of voice of the Judge in the case seems to hold out any hope when giving instructions to the jury about their forthcoming deliberations. The evidence to convict, and thus send the man to the electric chair is overwhelming, and the first vote taken by the jurors is 11:1 to convict. Then Juror No 8 (Fonda) starts dissecting the evidence piece by piece in an almost forensic analysis of the facts. Is everything as it seems ? Of course not. The whole film is built around the concept of reasonable doubt and whether our individual prejudices will allow us to see it. The film offers no safe answer, as even the juror who was completely dispassionate about the whole affair turns out to be mistaken. A tour de force performance by Fonda as the Liberal everyman we all wish we could be, but with excellent performances all round, particularly from E G Marshall as the composed and evidence-led Juror No 4, and a scene stealer from Lee J Cobb as Juror No 3. This film is an object lesson in film making. The tension, which ratchets up nicely throughout the film as each successive vote is taken, is created entirely by the friction between the twelve protagonists. We are presented with a cross section of American society in the sixties, and undoubtedly we will agree with some of their perspectives and disagree with others, although in fairness to Lumet the unsympathetic characters are not difficult to spot and there are some powerful moments as their true characters are revealed. There is a valid question raised in the middle of the movie by Fonda's character: there is a man's life at stake: shouldn't they take some time to talk about it ? After all, supposing they get it wrong ? I think that whether you come away from this movie as a champion of the jury system will depend on whether you believe that your peers are indeed "twelve good men and true" as the one point this movie does make is that while the jury system is all we have, it is far from foolproof, an can easily be derailed by ignorance and prejudice. In this case, however it doesn't and this leads me to suggest an interesting aside. I believe that if this film was made again for a modern audience, and here I am also discounting the 1997 remake, so let's say a 2012+ audience, the director might wish to provide an ending where the Fonda character does not win through in the end, and the petty arguments and prejudices of the majority of the jury are too powerful to be overturned. However, for it's time and place, this is an almost perfect film, filled with excellent performances, and a Hollywood morality tale ending where goodness and common sense win through in the end. No wonder Fonda allows himself a Mona Lisa smile as he walks away from the Court House at the end of the movie. Brilliant.