12 Angry Men Is A Strange Movie

[Mr. Pink]

Like a lot of people, I first saw 12 Angry Men at school. I always thought I'd had the movie pegged - the kid was innocent, and narrowly avoided the chair. But, having re-watched it recently, I'm not too sure about that.

I've never read any in-depth criticisms/analysis about the movie, and maybe I should - but I figured I'd throw it out there for discussion. The question I'm wondering is: what the hell is the movie trying to say?


The set up is pretty brilliant: The audience essentially plays the 13th juror, but you start with the same 'guilty' verdict everyone else has, until the evidence convinces you to change your vote. And, sure, the evidence isn't strong enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. But, by the end of the movie - even with the gaping holes in the evidence used against the kid - I still felt the kid was guilty.

Let me explain.

If you haven't seen it in a while, it starts with a kid from the slums facing the chair for the murder of his father. There are two pieces of eye-witness testimony, and some circumstantial evidence. One by one, each piece of evidence is brought into question, until everyone has switched their vote, essentially letting the kid free.

Again, with the holes in the evidence pointed out, you should change your vote.

The story goes that, on the night of the murder, the dad punched the kid at around 11:40 after a fight, and he went to the movies. Somewhere around 12:20, the dad is stabbed to death with a somewhat unique knife. The kid owned a somewhat unique knife, but somehow managed to let it slip out of his pocket on his way to the movies.

This is why the movie is so strong. With that story, you're pretty sure he most likely did it, until one of the jurors shoots holes in the evidence. But, seriously - he probably fucking did it, and you just set a killer loose.

You can blame not having any alternate theories for who killed the dad on the kid's shoddy defense team, which is also brought into question. But, really - are we supposed to assume that, somehow, on the same night the dad punches the kid, and the kid loses his knife, that someone decided to come and stab the dad to death with a similar knife? I mean, it wasn't a robbery attempt, based on what they say in the movie. And 50 minutes isn't a whole lot of time to do something that would make someone want to kill you.

I'll try to cut this short(er). Yes, you can't say for sure the kid definitely killed his dad, based on the evidence. But is that the point of the movie, or is it about you feeling bad (since you're the invisible 13th juror) you almost sent an innocent kid to the chair? Is it a little bit of both? I still can't tell.

By the end of the movie, you're supposed to feel like the kid was innocent, and got lucky someone cared enough to defend him. But I kept getting the feeling a title card would pop up at the end and say "Ah, ha - you fucking idiot. Of course he murdered his dad. Are you blind?"

In any case, it's a brilliantly constructed movie, and I'm probably over-thinking it, but it still bugged me a little it didn't seem as cut-and-dry as I'd remembered. I get the feeling it was intended to be clear the kid was innocent, but I still think that little bastard killed his dad, even with the questionable evidence.

[Kurosawa Fan]

The knife isn't unique at all. Fonda picks apart that assertion by showing that he bought an identical knife at a nearby five and dime.

Just thought I'd point that out.

EDIT: For the record, I think the film is more about recognizing and working through racial and economic prejudices than it is about the innocence or guilt of the son. That and the ethical responsibility of doing your civic duty.

[Spinal]

In a murder case, you can't just round up to 'he probably did it'. There is a higher burden of proof. That's why it is important that the evidence is considered without prejudice -- so that everyone is treated equally under the law. Does this happen in reality? Of course not. But this is the ideal to which this film aspires.

[Mr. Pink]

The knife isn't unique at all. Fonda picks apart that assertion by showing that he bought an identical knife at a nearby five and dime.

Just thought I'd point that out.

EDIT: For the record, I think the film is more about recognizing and working through racial and economic prejudices than it is about the innocence or guilt of the son. That and the ethical responsibility of doing your civic duty.

It was somewhat unique, though. Fonda buys a similar knife, but it's not identical. They're similar enough to easily confuse the two, though.

In a murder case, you can't just round up to 'he probably did it'. There is a higher burden of proof. That's why it is important that the evidence is considered without prejudice -- so that everyone is treated equally under the law. Does this happen in reality? Of course not. But this is the ideal to which this film aspires.

That's what is so strange about the movie. The testimony is scrutinized, and brought under just enough question to sway people, but there's still no telling if he was guilty or not. It's a great insight to how it must feel being a juror on a case like that.

The thing that bothers me, though, is the high-note the movie ends on, as if it's saying the boy was definitely innocent, and something great had just happened. But, the kid had no real alibi, and a motive. Logically, it doesn't make much sense that someone would just happen to kill his dad using a similar knife to his, on the exact same day he lost his knife, while he coincidentally had stepped out for the night.

The evidence was just bad enough after being scrutinized to warrant a 'not guilty' vote, but it was hard for me to avoid feeling the kid was still guilty. I don't think that was what the movie was aiming for, which is why I think it's a strange movie. Or, at least, it left me with a strange feeling.

Obviously, you wouldn't have much of a choice but to vote 'not guilty,' but I still wouldn't have felt very good about it.

[transmogrifier]

D'Angelo agrees:

http://www.avclub.com/articles/did-1...t-wrong,83245/

[Mr. Pink]

Ha! Great article. He sums up my feelings pretty nicely.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Sure, he's probably guilty. In fact, he's even most likely guilty. The question isn't if he's innocent. The question is if the viewer has a reasonable doubt. I had a reasonable doubt. The film's trying to illustrate something vital about an enlightened justice system. It's not a whodunit. If the kid were clearly innocent by the end, the film would be a no-brainer instead of an exploration of ambiguities. It'd be condescending instead of challenging.

I do agree with D'angelo's comment about #9 doing his own detective work with the knife. That shit shouldn't fly.

[Mr. Pink]

No, I hear you. The tone of it was a little weird, though. Fonda sorta argues as if the kid is innocent, and pieces everything together like he's solved a mystery, when he's really just casting a reasonable doubt. He's basically acting as the kid's defense lawyer, because the kid couldn't afford one of his own.

So, while he may have had good intentions, it's kinda strange that the person who seems to be on a moral high horse may have just caused a murderer to go free.

I didn't remember the movie being so complex, and I think a lot of it was lost on me when I was younger.

[Ezee E]

I hated being on a jury last year. What a horrible experience, and terrifying if I were ever to trust that group of people with my case. Ugh.