12 Angry Men, 1957
This is one of those films whose story started as a radio drama to make it to become a stage drama and later into films in many languages from English to German to Russian to Hindi to Kannada and the story had been featured in many TV Serials including 'Happy Days' where Fonz did his jury duty.
The movie starts with the judge instructing the 12 juries to be ushered to a room for deliberations before deciding on the guilt of a 18 year old Hispanic boy from a broken home who have allegedly stabbed his father to death.
At first look, it looks like a open and shut case to most jury members. The crime and the chronology of events is only made available to us as we listen to the discussion that goes on in the hot and stuffy room.
The 12 members are all Caucasian males of different professions. No names are made available to us, only their professions (car salesman, architect, ad man, architect, watch maker, painter, man who grew up in slum). The heat in the room also took the toll on the mood of the jury. Most of them are eager to finish off their tour of duty as soon as possible and continue the usual lives. So, when the architect (Henry Fonda) suggests that he would like to discuss the case before deciding in the fate of the young man, they naturally get annoyed. They put their decision to a vote. The initially outcome was 11 to 1 for a guilty charge. As the decision was not unanimous, they started talking. They all agreed that the defence counsel, probably working pro bono, did not put his mind and soul to defend such a case as it was not rewarding and the boy was a delinquent anyway.
They also realised that there were pitfalls in the witness' story. An eye witness alleged saw the act from a moving train and another, a hemiplegic neighbour supposed to have dashed at a quick pace to witness the event.
As the discussion goes on, they put the verdict to a vote. As time goes on more and more people started having second thoughts on passing a guilty charge.
More and more people get into each other's nerve.
The story goes on with finally with the vote goes on 11-1 in favour of a not guilty charge when somebody realised that the lady witness could be wearing glasses, hence it was not possible for her to identify the assailant as she was lying in bed and people do not generally wear glasses when they are going to sleep.
The last man standing soon realized that he was recalcitrant because of unresolved issues with his son with whom he was not in speaking terms. He finally gave a not-guilty charge making it an unanimous decision.
This film is very cerebral in nature with all scenes happening in a room with no action, swashbuckling scenes or special effects. And on top of it, there is not a single female in the cast of actors. It gives good lessons in the art of persuasion and reasoning. Jack Klugman (Quincy M.E.) and Jack Warden are the familiar faces in the movie together with Henry Fonda.
The interesting thing about this story is that they stereotype class, not ethnicity. One has to remember it was made before the era of the Black Liberty and gender equality movements. Hence, there were no African Americans and women in the panel of jury. Only a nationalised European (probably Swiss) was there.
Just a thought... I am sure that in the Bollywood version, the producers must have included some dance sequences and some masala as well! If not, it would have brought in any returns at all.
A memorable quote,(Still relevant after 50 over years!)
The movie starts with the judge instructing the 12 juries to be ushered to a room for deliberations before deciding on the guilt of a 18 year old Hispanic boy from a broken home who have allegedly stabbed his father to death.
At first look, it looks like a open and shut case to most jury members. The crime and the chronology of events is only made available to us as we listen to the discussion that goes on in the hot and stuffy room.
The 12 members are all Caucasian males of different professions. No names are made available to us, only their professions (car salesman, architect, ad man, architect, watch maker, painter, man who grew up in slum). The heat in the room also took the toll on the mood of the jury. Most of them are eager to finish off their tour of duty as soon as possible and continue the usual lives. So, when the architect (Henry Fonda) suggests that he would like to discuss the case before deciding in the fate of the young man, they naturally get annoyed. They put their decision to a vote. The initially outcome was 11 to 1 for a guilty charge. As the decision was not unanimous, they started talking. They all agreed that the defence counsel, probably working pro bono, did not put his mind and soul to defend such a case as it was not rewarding and the boy was a delinquent anyway.
They also realised that there were pitfalls in the witness' story. An eye witness alleged saw the act from a moving train and another, a hemiplegic neighbour supposed to have dashed at a quick pace to witness the event.As the discussion goes on, they put the verdict to a vote. As time goes on more and more people started having second thoughts on passing a guilty charge.
More and more people get into each other's nerve.
The story goes on with finally with the vote goes on 11-1 in favour of a not guilty charge when somebody realised that the lady witness could be wearing glasses, hence it was not possible for her to identify the assailant as she was lying in bed and people do not generally wear glasses when they are going to sleep.
The last man standing soon realized that he was recalcitrant because of unresolved issues with his son with whom he was not in speaking terms. He finally gave a not-guilty charge making it an unanimous decision.
This film is very cerebral in nature with all scenes happening in a room with no action, swashbuckling scenes or special effects. And on top of it, there is not a single female in the cast of actors. It gives good lessons in the art of persuasion and reasoning. Jack Klugman (Quincy M.E.) and Jack Warden are the familiar faces in the movie together with Henry Fonda.
The interesting thing about this story is that they stereotype class, not ethnicity. One has to remember it was made before the era of the Black Liberty and gender equality movements. Hence, there were no African Americans and women in the panel of jury. Only a nationalised European (probably Swiss) was there.
Just a thought... I am sure that in the Bollywood version, the producers must have included some dance sequences and some masala as well! If not, it would have brought in any returns at all.
A memorable quote,(Still relevant after 50 over years!)
Juror #3: It's these kids - the way they are nowadays. When I was a kid I used to call my father, 'Sir'. That's right... 'Sir'. You ever hear a kid call his father that anymore?http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Twelve_Angry_Men_Trailer.theora.ogv
Juror #8: Fathers don't seem to think it's important anymore.
Juror #3: You got any kids?
Juror #8: Three.
Juror #3: I got one. Twenty-two years old.
[takes photo from his wallet and shows it to Juror #8]
Juror #3: Aah. When he was nine years old he ran away from a fight. I saw it; I was so embarrassed I almost threw up. I said, "I'm gonna make a man outa you if I have to break you in two tryin'". And I made a man out of him. When he was sixteen we had a fight. Hit me in the jaw - a big kid. Haven't seen him for two years. Kids... work your heart out...
No comments:
Post a Comment