More than half a century ago - 61 years to be exact - 12 Angry Men (1957) hit the cinemas. In 2018, the film, nevertheless, continues to ask the most provocative questions about the American justice system that is still relevant today. Is there such a thing as justice? Does our system support it? Will flaws of society work against it? What does it really take to decide on a man’s life? What responsibilities do the jurors have? It’s a love letter to our American judicial system while simultaneously pointing out the faults of those who govern a system that equally protects and serves its citizens.
A film born in the midst of a civil rights movement, 12 Angry Men adopts a worldview of how society, particularly the American society, is ironically breaking down by its own people, which serves as a cautionary tale for many future generations to come: to be more understanding, responsible, and stand by your community/identity. By the end of the film, it’s not a matter of who is right or wrong. Instead, it poses a greater question: can these 12 men with opposing views and prejudices collaborate effectively to reach a conclusion?
The story starts off with a brief introduction to the defendant, and a mesmerizing one-shot take of the 12 jurors entering the courtroom, getting settled in and introduced to others. The setting doesn't change for the rest of the movie. The twists and turns that lie in the plot draw the viewer in once and once again.
After a viewing of the film, I’m inclined to root for the character played by Henry Fonda, and believe he is a symbol of truth and justice. However, with his eloquent and well-thought out arguments, he slowly convinces the other jurors with his side of the argument and proceeds to change the other jurors’ minds from “guilty” to “not guilty”. At the turning point when the debate is split in the middle, we can see a close-up of Fonda’s triumphant eyes, and the anger and disappointment in the character played by Lee J. Cobb. Even though viewers are more inclined to believe in the character of Fonda, could Cobb have been right? The uncivilized manner of which Cobb presented his arguments, along with an underlying motif, is what led to his downfall and the ultimate change of decisions in the courtroom. The pursuit of truth, in this film, comes to a conclusion when the character played by Cobb, breaks down in tears after tearing a picture of what seems like his son and himself. Who is really right here? How does society find truths in itself?
What is the “truth?” Does it even exist? Or do we have our own version of what is right and wrong. Based off of that then, what is justice at the end of the day? Perhaps this film is alluding to the fact that our society is in this never-ending cycle of tug-of-war between our ideologies and belief systems, and that there are unfortunate consequences to that. The film serves as a social commentary but also as an analysis on human nature. When the character of Fonda changes one jurors’ mind, the courtroom breaks into chaos, and the absurdity of the “not guilty” decision echoes in the room. That, however, later changes in the film and proves the jurors wrong. The film is a captivating, thought-provoking masterpiece that is one of my absolute favorites.