A Flawed Classic

Rating: 7/10 (27 December 2009)

I watched this film for the first time about a year ago and rated it 8/10 then. Having re-watched it today I have felt the need to knock another point off.
I really enjoyed this film. I love the premise of having an entire film shot predominantly in a single location in real time. In a lot of ways it is more of a play than a film and this gives it a unique twist (although I am aware of plenty of other films that adopt the same technique).
The positives points of the film are: Character development - We get to know the characters at the same time and to the same depth as those in the room, no more, no less. We are given limited knowledge about them, their backgrounds, their prejudices and are encouraged to judge them in similar vain to how they are judging the defendant on the limited information they have about him. Very clever and the mix of personalities from the shy, retiring to the clearly angry and racist rings true of the likely cross section of personalities that would be found in a real jury room.
The message of the story - I think it rings true today just as much as it did in the 1950's. Trial by jury is a flawed concept and people can be easily manipulated by fellow jurors and lawyers alike. I particularly like how juror 12 flits between guilty and not guilty and how they are all too eager to make a snap judgement without thinking in the first instance. This is a common problem - these people are not lawyers, they do not think like lawyers and will always struggle to set aside their personal feelings and prejudices to look at the facts in the cold, hard light of day taking account of the reasonable doubt issue. The manner in which this film uses its limited set/time frame to achieve the very real feeling of manipulation is impressive to say the least.
The acting - All of the actors play their parts perfectly. You find yourself wanting to know more about them but realise the premise is that you are in the same shoes as the others. To be given such thinly created (in the best sense possible) characters and still want to know more about them (where did the racist undertones come from, what happened between juror 3 and his son, why is juror 8 so eager to prove the reasonable doubt?) is impressive, especially in such an ensemble piece.
So where does it lose points? Simply put I don't like the way that the "innocence" is proved. It flys in the face of the proper court process and is just a little unbelievable and all too conveniently pieced together (do you really think they would be paying such close attention to a witnesses nose??). I understand the need to create the reasonable doubt but feel that it was done too easily with each juror falling into place far too quickly. I was also disappointed that juror 3 gave up his convictions. It would have been a much greater triumph, in my eyes, if it had been a hung jury. I agreed with juror 3 and empathised with the choice he had to make and felt that the "honorable" juror 8 bullied his opinions on everyone else.
The point of the jury is to consider the evidence put before them and to make a judgement on that basis. They should not bring in numerous assumptions (and that is what they did) which colour the evidence they have been given. Doing so will always create sufficient doubt to acquit the defendant. There is too much danger in doing so and I do not believe that in a room of 12 strong characters no one would raise such an objection.
Or I may be missing the point entirely! Maybe the manipulation by juror 8 is the whole point....
In conclusion, therefore, I can see why it is a classic but am at slight pains to understand its high position in the top 250 given the nature of the perceived flaws. Having said this I suggest that if you enjoy thought provoking, well scripted and acted drama this film is a must see.