12 Angry Men

That’s the name of the movie I saw recently.

Some of my friends and family have been encouraging me to write. Why? Probably in the hope that it would keep me from talking! Knowing my reluctance for any kind of hard work or anything which prevents me from talking, they even suggested topics, ranging from my experience at work (I am a retail salesman of telecom products) to my limited travel experiences. But, I could never really get down to writing, because in the former case, I don’t think I am qualified enough, and in the latter, I am too forgetful to remember any of the details long enough to actually write it down.

And then I saw the 1957 movie, 12 Angry Men. It’s an all-time classic, with Roger Ebert calling it one of the greatest movies, and Rotten Tomatoes giving it 100% freshness rating! And I wondered what if I wrote about the movie and motivated a few people to see it! After all, many more people would have visited Varanasi or Goa or any other place I have visited than watched Hollywood movie classics from the year 1957!

12 Angry Men is directed by Sidney Lumet, the same person who directed classic movies like Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon and The Verdict. I have seen the first two, both starring Al Pacino.

The story is about 12 jury-men in an American courtroom, who have to decide whether an 18 year old city slum boy, with a history of violence, has murdered his father or not. It seems like an open and shut case, and right in the beginning, the judge instructs that a guilty verdict would mean the death sentence for the boy. Also, the verdict has to be unanimous. The verdict is put to vote, and not surprisingly, 11 out of 12 members of the jury vote for a guilty verdict. A lone juror (played by Henry Fonda) votes not guilty. The next hour and a half shows how Fonda’s character brings out flaws in the prosecution’s case, which show there is “reasonable doubt” to the guilty verdict.

I don’t want to get into the details of the story. But I do want to point out a couple of unique features of the movie. For instance, almost the entire movie is shot in a single room. And, none of the characters are named in the movie.

The movie brings forth some interesting aspects of human nature. It shows how prejudices always influence our decision-making. For instance, one of the jurors (Juror 3) is very rigid in his stance of awarding the guilty verdict because his own son is estranged from him, and he takes out his frustration and anger against the accused (who is the same age as his son) in his decision. Another juror wants the accused dead, because of his prejudice against slum dwellers, whom he considers not worthy of trust or even human enough! On the other hand, one of the juror changes his verdict from guilty to not guilty, simply because he wants to be on time for a baseball game, and he believes, by changing his decision, the case would end faster! The fact that a boy’s life is at stake is lost on him.

What I liked especially was that all 12 characters were explored in detail, and allowed to blossom and show their inherent nature. To do that in 96 minutes, I believe, is remarkable.

What made me write about the movie is the fact that, even 54 years later, I found the story and the portrayal of the men extremely relevant. In our workplaces also, we see this happening all the time. You put 10 or 12 people together and ask them to decide something important… more often than not, you will find personal prejudices, rather than logic, influencing the decision-making. I find this happening not just at my workplace, but even in our small apartment complex. Get 12 families to try and decide on something as basic as whether the building needs a fresh coat of paint and you find 12 different opinions; and, it’s not easy to change someone’s opinion because you have to deal with their egos.

As Descartes once famously quoted, Cogito, ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. And when 12 people start thinking simultaneously to prove their existence, you have a challenge on hand to control or channelize those thoughts, without the help of Jedi mind tricks (Star Wars - Another of my favorites).

12 Angry Men is not just about a court case, but a very good study of human behaviour and how different personalities react to a situation. It also shows ways of dealing with such varied opinions and building a consensus.

A must watch.