Current Events > I watched 12 Angry Men

(+) Yeah! (+)

The movie was so competent that it only occurred to me when explaining it to my dad that the whole movie is "in a bottle".

I will say though the two particularly angry old men were very similar in their delivery and appearance so it took a while to figure out who was who. Also seems unlikely in 1957 that 11 people out of 12 would turn their backs on a racist old man like that.

It's idealism over realism. Obviously this neat sort of back and forth argumentation is not how jury deliberations actually take place. I'm not entirely sure if it's true, but I've heard that if a jury member brought in a knive he bought at a street stall like Henry Fonda did it would be an immediate mistrial if the court heard about it.

The old 50s movie? I saw that 10 years ago, and I still think its a powerful movie. Really worth seeing even to this day

there was also a remake in the 90s, which I hear was pretty decent.

Outstanding film.

boxoto posted...

there was also a remake in the 90s, which I hear was pretty decent.

I watched both. Equally great

BurmesePenguin posted...

It's idealism over realism. Obviously this neat sort of back and forth argumentation is not how jury deliberations actually take place. I'm not entirely sure if it's true, but I've heard that if a jury member brought in a knive he bought at a street stall like Henry Fonda did it would be an immediate mistrial if the court heard about it.

I dont know that I'd call it idealism. If anything real jury deliberations are probably way more civil and dudes don't assume an immediate verdict while sitting on tickets to the Yankees game on the first day of deliberation.

It's also not really about solely a jury's duty under the law because Henry Fonda's initial vote of not guilty is based on his growing unease throughout the trial at the defense lawyer's poor performance. Inequality in America is a running theme of the movie and the jury's conclusion is that they have a further affirmative duty, beyond the letter of the law, to find justice in a matter of life and death. The exact rules of jury deliberation is not the focus of the film's endorsement but instead the standard of Presumption of Innocence.

The deliberation is definitely Hollywood-ified and not exactly legal, but juries also have enormous power in regards to verdict, and I don't believe a mistrial can be declared after the defendant is declared not guilty.

Doe posted...

I dont know that I'd call it idealism. If anything real jury deliberations are probably way more civil and dudes don't assume an immediate verdict while sitting on tickets to the Yankees game on the first day of deliberation.

It's also not really about solely a jury's duty under the law because Henry Fonda's initial vote of not guilty is based on his growing unease throughout the trial at the defense lawyer's poor performance. Inequality in America is a running theme of the movie and the jury's conclusion is that they have a further affirmative duty, beyond the letter of the law, to find justice in a matter of life and death. The exact rules of jury deliberation is not the focus of the film's endorsement but instead the standard of Presumption of Innocence.

The deliberation is definitely Hollywood-ified and not exactly legal, but juries also have enormous power in regards to verdict, and I don't believe a mistrial can be declared after the defendant is declared not guilty.

Very good breakdown/perspective - it's one of those movies I watched when I was in middle school that has still stuck with me.

The Equalizer show (also a remake of the 80s show) actually had an interesting episode that recreated part of the scene/dynamics of the movie.

A classic!

Doe posted...

The deliberation is definitely Hollywood-ified and not exactly legal, but juries also have enormous power in regards to verdict, and I don't believe a mistrial can be declared after the defendant is declared not guilty.

The mistrial should have been declared as soon as Fonda's character brought in the knife, because jurors can't conduct independent investigations like that.

The 50s original is one of the best movies I've ever seen. I can't even explain this but when it starts to rain has a feeling to it.
I think about it a lot. I should rewatch it soon.

Fonda is always good.

UnholyMudcrab posted...

The mistrial should have been declared as soon as Fonda's character brought in the knife, because jurors can't conduct independent investigations like that.

What I mean is, the jury was all in on it. Technically a jury "should" not discuss nullification, yet they have the power to deliver any verdict.

Ironically, Juror #8 (Fonda's character) broke the law by investigating the crime himself. Jurors are not supposed to do that.

Doe posted...

Also seems unlikely in 1957 that 11 people out of 12 would turn their backs on a racist old man like that.

He was racist toward a Latino who had been proven innocent. It's not the same as if the defendant had been Black.

Also, old Hollywood was really good about pretending that (almost) nobody was racist while casually acting like some people are just inherently smarter and more motivated than others. I don't think that applies to this film, or the play it's based on, but it certainly is true of a great many movies from the era.