And Justice For ALL

Rating: Null/10 (18 September 2011)

With the many great reviews for this film, this is my first time seeing it. It starts with a judge explaining to a jury of 12 men that the only way to come to a decision of guilty is to not have any room for reasonable doubt. The judge then goes on to say if the jurors find the defendant guilty, the guilty verdict will automatically impose the death penalty. The 12 men then go to a jury room to deliberate, which is where the whole movie takes place. The defendant is a teenager accused of stabbing his father to death, with a switch blade knife. All but 1 (Davis, played by Henry Fonda) of the 12 men find the defendant guilty, immediately, without any discussion to the arguments heard during the trial.
The theme for this film is justice. Eleven men were ready to sentence a teenage boy to death without even analyzing the information presented before them. For some, it seemed their verdict was for personal reasons and Davis (juror # 8) was not going to conform to the majority. The men were mean, hostile, demanding, stereotypical, rude, and impatient, but Davis didn't break. Davis went through many of the testimonials from witnesses, even acting out scenarios for the other men to get a better understanding of how he could not convict the boy, also putting doubt in the other 11 men.
The men one by one started to change their votes because or Davis's analysis . The first juror to change his vote from guilty to not guilty was juror # 9, who was later identified as Mr. McCardle at the end of the movie. After many more discussions and possibilities, juror #5 changed his vote to not guilty, followed (in order) by juror # 11, juror #2, juror #6, juror #7, juror #12, juror #1 (the Foreman), juror #10, juror #4, and finally juror #3. Davis made his point many times throughout this movie. An example of Davis making his point includes the fact that humans can mistake things sometimes, and if it was possible that at least one of the witnesses made a mistake in what they heard or saw, they should not find this young man guilty, and if so, no justice will be served.
Another movie that has justice as the theme is The Accused (1988), starring Jodie Foster and Kelly McGillis. Jodie Foster's character is gang-raped and her lawyers job is to convince a jury that this crime has actually committed by these men, and this was not consensual sex. There too were witnesses in this movie and it was also up to the jury to decide if the witness's story was credible and true. Although the opposite of 12 Angry Men (1957) because in The accused (1988), the main character was trying to convince people that a crime had been committed by a group of men for sure, and in 12 Angry Men (1957) the main character was trying to convince people that maybe they had the wrong guy. Yet, both themes for each movie was justice. The move 12 Angry men (1957) was shot in black and white. I believe this movie was filmed this way because during that time period (1957) black and white films were standard. Color television had only been introduced a few years before. Black and white also gives the viewer the option to better focus on the characters, and dialogue, and not what is surrounding. I liked how the camera would zoom into whichever juror would suddenly have doubt and change their vote. During these moments there was no need for dialogue really because after Davis gave another possibility, we knew that another juror would change their guilty verdict to a not guilty verdict during the next vote.
I had to put myself in the shoes of both the teenager and the 12 jurors. I found myself wondering how I would feel knowing that I didn't commit a crime, yet 12 men had my life in their hands, relying on the testimonials of two unreliable witnesses. I also had to put myself in the position of Davis; trying to convince these men that there is absolutely room for doubt when you analyze the evidence, whether the boy committed the crime or not, there was not enough evidence to say guilty. Going into a room and not once talking about the trial, but finding this young man guilty of first degree murder would not have been justice. Only someone with poor morals could do such. The movie was great and I would recommend to all.