THE classic jury drama, compelling but not without flaws

Rating: 8/10 (24 April 2009)

This is surely the most famous film jury drama, quite riveting in its dialogue, its claustrophobic jury deliberation room setting, its brilliantly depicted characters, its atmosphere of oppressive heat and tension between these jurors. The twelve angry men are admittedly largely one dimensional stereotypes but they are brought vividly to life by a star studded cast including Henry Fonda, E.G. Marshall, Leo J. Cobb, and Jack Klugman.
The jurors include an arrogant stockbroker, a stressed out man from a poor social background, a wise and endearing old gentleman, a quiet and respectful immigrant, an extreme bigot, a loud and pushy businessman with son issues, an advertising executive who sees everything in terms of sales, and a sports fan interested only in getting out in time to see his ballgame. The jury foreman tries to keep the group organized but isn't a particularly bright or thoughtful man himself and seems in over his depth. The (supposed at least) hero of the piece is the intelligent juror number 8, an architect, who appears to take his responsibilities seriously. He encourages full discussion of the evidence when others seem happy to return an immediate Guilty verdict for a young Hispanic defendant accused of fatally stabbing his abusive father. As a result of this juror's persuasive powers, the vote changes from 11-1 for Guilty to a unanimous final Not Guilty verdict.
No one would be interested in watching a movie about twelve calm jurors politely and rationally debating the evidence. Thus we have this drama which makes for compelling viewing but isn't for those preferring some degree of subtlety. The case itself is ultra dramatic 'all or nothing', acquittal or the death penalty with no possibility of life imprisonment. Juror 8 has illegally purchased a duplicate knife to the murder weapon and slams it dramatically on the table. These jurors are constantly bickering. One juror threatens to kill another. Eventually the other jurors all turn their backs one by one on the bigot.
Surely this must be a textbook example of everything a jury should NOT be! While real life jurors do bring their prejudices and life experiences into the jury room, some of these jurors were simply too unbelievable. For example, 'the bigot' seemed to flaunt his bigotry at every turn rather than, as would be much more realistic, making some effort to conceal it. I believe one would need to look far and wide to find a juror with so little regard for human life that he would happily send a possibly innocent kid off to the electric chair rather than miss his ballgame.
As for juror number 8, at first I admired his sense of responsibility and calm, reasoned questioning. However, by the end of the movie, after he had raised doubts (whether reasonable or not is up to individual interpretation) about every single piece of evidence and testimony, I no longer saw him as the heroic champion of justice we're manipulated into believing, but almost felt as though he had some agenda of his own to acquit and would never convict anyone of any crime, whatever the evidence! This jury didn't rationally debate the case at all but as juror 8 would raise some 'doubt', one or other juror would suddenly change his vote, ignoring all the other evidence. A good case could be made that this jury let a murderer go free because they lost sight of the cumulative nature of the evidence as a whole.
While this movie is often classed as a character study, a psychological drama, or a study in small group dynamics, it's also considered a commentary on the American jury system. As such, I feel that the writers should have 'done their homework' and had these jurors follow standard jury instructions rather than the gross jury misconduct they displayed -- juror 8 doing his own independent research by purchasing that knife, their questionable little experiment with the old man's rate of walking, their improper acceptance of one of their number as a switchblade 'expert' and taking his opinion of stabbing techniques as gospel. If all this had become known to court officials in real life, this grievous misconduct would almost certainly have resulted in a mistrial.
I also felt the movie quite manipulative in casting a defendant who could hardly be more sympathetic, a young kid with poor social opportunities, the victim of bigotry and paternal abuse. What viewer would ever want this boy to receive the death penalty? This film would have packed a greater punch for me if the defendant had been a rather despicable character (or at least neutral in terms of sympathy factor), yet the jury been able to acquit him anyway due to finding reasonable doubt.
Therefore, while this film is a 'must see' classic, a thoroughly engaging way to spend an hour and a half, and a masterpiece by comparison with most modern movies, I don't consider it flawless. At least in my case, it hasn't held up well during subsequent viewings and further scrutiny. Entertaining, yes, but I have a big problem with its clearly intended message that this jury, which I see as a lynch mob-turned-group of pushovers, has ultimately served the cause of justice.