Master of Teaching Course, University of Sydney, 1999
Note: The editors at NebulaSearch.com have added a reference link to this page from an encyclopedia article "12 Angry Men". A return link is included at the bottom of this page.
The Courtroom drama genre, specifically the jury room sub-genre, is one of the most fascinating of them all. Like the profession, law, it is a discreet entity, with boundaries, definition and opposition. The courtroom is the boundary. At least half of each film, usually the latter half is shot in the courtroom or the jury room. Other elements usually associated with this type of film include the build up of tension and anticipation, a twist in the fate of the accused, a sub plot involving one or more of the participants, camera shots and shades of darkness and light, legal deceits used to establish points and personal attacks and vituperation.
Some courtroom dramas are typically dark, 'stagy' genres where the lawyers have license to ham it up. They are 'dark' because most of the action occurs in doors. There are very few windows in courts, the exceptions include mostly American south films, for example, To Kill a Mockingbird and A Time to Kill. Twelve Angry men, on the other hand is shot almost exclusively in a jury room. There are windows, but the use of lighting and camera angles, make these almost the opposite to what they really are. We see mostly dark through the windows.
There are two versions of Twelve Angry men. These may best be termed the Henry Fonda and Jack Lemon versions, as where as Sidney Lumet directed the former and should be acknowledged for this, there was no clear cut person directing the latter. There were assistant directors, art directors and a producer, but no director as such.
The plots were identical and both versions stuck authentically to the screenplay. There were only minor variations in the remake, presumably caused by actors fluffing their lines as the significance of the changes were not such to affect the plot or any sub plots there in. Essentially the plot is that a teenage boy from a deprived background is accused of killing his father. Initially all jurors bar one think the boy guilty. However, juror eight, played by Henry Fonda, persuades the others that there is a reasonable doubt.
For the most part, action is contained within the jury room. The viewer does not see the two witnesses called by the prosecution. This is a theme or an attribute or the genre, the construction of the plot or events past through dialogue and reporting. A contrast between the two films is in the amount of movement or action in the jury room. In the original, when Fonda reveals that it was possible to buy the exact same knife as the murder weapon, the other jurors erupt. Though action like this is common in the original, it is less so in the remake. The remake is poor on action as well as mood. In the original dialogue tells the story, action (limited to perambulations and gestures) tell the mood.
Cutting, decisive, dialogue (or repartee) is an obvious yet important element of the courtroom drama. Lumet does a good job with many jobs to do. Twelve principals, most of them stars, receive good character development where many directors would be struggling with a reduced number. Character development is mainly through dialogue. There is no narration, no prior action or flashbacks, no sub titles, explaining the character of the players. The personalities of the jurors are established solely by their own words and those of other jurors reflecting on them.
One against many, the advocate against the odds,is a theme in Witness for the Prosecution, Anatomy of a Murder, And Justice For All, JFK and many courtroom movies. This is alluded to in Twelve Angry Men as well. Jurors three and four restate their case for conviction, four making the telling point about the eye witness across the railway track. Three, much to the chagrin of four, who must surely be compare to the old guy in Separate tables who said:
'The trouble of being on the side of right, is that one has so many dubious allies,' which is a illusion to cold war angst. A pact was made with the devil Stalin to rid the world of a greater evil, Hitler. Both films were made during the cold war when the decision to back Stalin was regretted most. E.G. Marshall begins to regret his alliance with Lee J. Cobb.
Cobb costars with Fonda and is well cast. In the original Fonda is youthful, expansive and demonstrative. In the remake, Lemon is old, hesitant and has been . The remake is not a total bomb, however and comparisons are always odious. In fact, George C. Scott gives a better portrayal than the sometimes inarticulate Lee J. Cobb. The African American is a better actor than Ed Begley, but his presence as a black nation of Islam identity obscures the case at hand. If any one he should know the consequences of racism and while the inversion of the race debate to black against Hispanic is interesting it does not add to the merits of the main plot.
Lee J. Cobb comes into his own when the Fonda camp finally defeats him with his own words. Admitting the woman's testimony may be flawed, Cobb asks:
'what about all the other evidence?!'
'You said we could throw that out.' reminds the old man (juror nine, {played by Joseph Sweeney.})
Cobb is now a victim of his own making. He knows he is in the wrong and for this very reason he refuses to back down. He has not backed down when in the wrong with his son, too. He tears up his sons photo and immediately regrets his actions. He is exonerated in our eyes for this redemptive act.
The closing scene in the jury room is by far the most brilliant. Only Fonda and the weeping Cobb are left and the camera shot moves to behind the clothes horse, where only one jacket hangs, Cobbs. The camera pans from Fonda along the wardrobe to the coat. Fonda is to the left, Cobb right. Fonda sees the coat, gets it and helps Cobb on with it. They are reconciled. Wisdom and bigotry are reconciled .
Contrasting the two films comes down mainly to ability as there was not substantial difference in the story. The reliance on dialogue instead of mood, or feeling in the remake has already been stated . However, they were let down by their director. No wonder he did not want his name shown on the credits. His remake, devoid of lighting and camera techniques, was like someone doing a copy of the last supper without the table.
Jack Lemmon is a poor choice of leads given the character he was meant to portray. Like it or not, such a part is usually played by the young, especially when older people are well and truly represented in both versions. I would have chosen Harrison Ford or Kevin Costner for Fonda's role in the remake
The film highlights the discourse between opposing forces, prosecution and defense, ignorance and open mindedness, good and evil. Good wins out in the end and the evil are given a chance for redemption.
Tony Danza is well cast as Jack Warden (the sports loving juror seven.) The other African American who takes the place of the wooden Klugman is arguably the better actor.
At one stage, an elderly juror identifies with a discredited witness, another old man. He shifts his ground to support Fonda. At this stage, there is still real resistance to Fonda and this is where he pulls his deceit. He calls for a vote and says he will abstain. If the other eleven voted guilty he would not stand in the way of a conviction. The old man votes not guilty so that more discussion takes place.
1. Do you think the elderly juror identified with the discredited witness because he too was old? Discuss.
2. Henry Fonda exempts himself from the second ballot. Would you have taken this risk if you were Fonda? Explain.
Fonda pulls another trick (or deceit) on the jurors when he asks to view the murder weapon again. The remaining jurors are all of the view that the knife was so distinctive that it the chances of another person having one and killing the father are a billion to one. Fonda then reveals the exact same knife he bought in the neighbourhood of the boy. The majority or jurors now realise the formidable opponent they have and regret allowing him latitude. Juror eleven begins to think there is a reasonable doubt.
However it is the thus far silent juror, juror five (played by Jack Klugman in the original) who is the next to change. Coming from a like neighbourhood to the accused he argues that it would be very unlikely for the knife to have been thrust downwards when the boy was apparently expert with knives.
1. What do you think of the doubts provided by jurors eight (Fonda) and five (Klugman) regarding the purchase and the angle of the knife? Are they as convincing as that raised about the eyesight of the old man?
A sub plot, (among other sub plots concerning juror three's son) is the weather. In the original version the opening scene is of the accused facing the jurors in the courtroom. The courtroom fan is shown, so the weather is obviously hot. The boy is not sweating, but he is looking melancholy with his big brown eyes open wide at the jurors. This is his plea, silent, yet speaking volumes. The use of lighting and cinematography in this dark courtroom drama is stunning. The boy does not move, but we are informed of a lengthening in the time frame by the shades becoming increasingly dark across the boys face.
The shot is a precursor for a later scene two thirds of the way through the movie. The vote is in balance and the tension is at its peak. It is then that the set goes almost pitch dark. This is the same shade as used on the boy in the courtroom, except now we know why it was used. The weather breaks and the rains come, the tension as well as the heat is relieved by this force of nature. The jurors must co-operate in closing the windows and it is obvious that the fate of the boy is decided.
1. How has the Sidney Lumet manipulated the mood in the jury room?
2. Compare the use of lighting in the opening scene and the scene where the weather changes from hot to rainy.
Only jurors three and four stand in Fonda's way. Ten is dispatched as a racist and twelve is a vacillator, However, the literal odds are not representative of the actual odds against our hero. Before Fonda lay the brilliance of juror four and the naked aggression of three. Three and four restate their case for conviction, four making the telling point about the eye witness across the railway track. E.G. Marshall regrets his alliance with Lee J. Cobb even more when the latter says you can throw out all the other evidence and just concentrate on the woman's. This is his fatal mistake.
It is at this stage that the cinematography, which has been as important as the screenplay in creating tension and character development, comes into its own. Juror four has all but convinced some jurors back into his camp. The lady saw the kid do it. This is direct irrefutable evidence. Then he, in one of his few movements takes off his glasses and rubs his nose.
No single dialogue sequence in the movie is a long shot, I believe. Close ups and mid shots predominate as camera shots change within discourses. This is the basic difference between the two versions, the original heightens tension and develops the plot via slick editing and direction, the remake relies on dialogue alone. For example, in the original, though old, the juror has almost perfect skin when shown ultra close up. In the remake he is old and wrinkled and there the point is lost.
When the old man reveals that the lady had the same marks on her nose as has the bespectacled E.G.Marshall, the contrast between his clear skin is obvious. The remake does not make this point, therefore relying on dialogue alone. The point is therefore not emphasised as strongly as in the original. Now only juror three remains. Illusions to his antipathy toward youth have been made earlier when he says that kids today have no respect and that he has not seen his son for over a decade. Every juror has a reasonable doubt except him and Fonda demands that he restate his reasons.
1. 'It is the old man (juror nine) who is the real hero of the film, not Henry Fonda (juror eight.)' Write a brief essay of no more than five hundred words on the above statement. You may argue either way. Support your arguments with reference to the dialogue.
Sample Lessons / Teaching Skills / AV Software / IT / Email Us