12 Angry Men
12 Angry men was a movie I had hear mostly from a streamer I like watching, Northernlion. He frequently talks about the movies he enjoys on his stream, and it’s a running joke how much he talks about 12 angry men. “We already talk about 12 angry men? I’ve been live about 45 seconds so we’ve already covered 12 angry men.” -Northernlion. I knew it would be good from his reaction and the movies rating, and I was not disappointed.
The movie is about 12 jurors who are arguing the case of a boy for murder. 11 men think he is guilty for one reason or another, but 1 man believes there should be a discussion about the trial and evidence. Right off the bat, the best thing about this whole situation is the framing of his defence. It was never “I do not believe he is guilty”, he always said “I don’t know”. He isn’t smarter than anybody else at the table, and in fact he needs several other people at the table to reach teh final conclusion. His stance was always that this was a persons life on the line, and that they (the jury) should at least do him the courtesy of discussing instead of jumping on the guilty vote, regardless of how bad the case looked for the defendent.
From there we can start to see all the facets of the human soul represented in the group. Everybody seems to be the same on the surface, but in truth they couldn’t be more different. Some of the men are logical, some are emotional, some treat it as an us-vs-them situation. None of the characters, no matter their opinion, is treated as an explicit villain. There are antagonists, and protagonists, but no villains. Theres nuance to the story as it plays out. Juror #3 is the most outspoken about the guilt of the child, but his mannerism shows he has an anger issue, and a need for a strong hand. The way it’s framed in the movie doesn’t demonize him for it, but just shows us. Lets us know who he is as a person. #8, who is the first to support #7 in his not guilty verdict, doesn’t even do it because he believes the defendent is innocent. He only does it because he respects #7 and his decision to stand alone because he believes it is right, and he wants him to have a chance.
My favorite juror by far, however, is #4. One of the main driving forces for the guilty verdict, I can’t help but admire him for his belief. From the very start, while others around him were clouded by anger, personal bias, or indifference, he only cared about the facts of the case and how they pointed at the defendents guilt. He was adamant that this piece of evidence made the defendent guilty, even when it was just him and one other agreeing with him. He is the inverse of #7, in that he was willing to stick to his guns even though he was alone because he believed. The moment the evidence was proven false, he changed his mind.
Watching this movie was a privelege, and validated it’s high score on IMDB. The funniest thing is, it did what many modern movies fail to do with modern film technology through the power of good writing. An hour and 40 minute movie about men in a circle, just talking, was more captivating than many modern movies and shows the power of good writing. I would recommend this movie to anybody and everybody.