Beyond a reasonable doubt

jotix100

Having seen the film before, we decided to take another look recently when it showed up on a cable channel. This Sidney Lumet 1957 film still packs a lot of power, even though times have changed in the way our justice system works. The screen play by Reginald Rose shows his brilliant insight into human beings that are called to sit as jurors in a murder case.

If you haven't seen the film, perhaps you don't want to read any further.

It's 1957 when this case goes to court. We watch the accused man staring toward the panel in whose hands his fate rests. The jury is all male. We get to know that a public defendant was appointed to defend the accused man. We realize he hasn't done a great job, as most of the men in the jury room are convinced this boy is guilty before he has been proved innocent.

We watch as the men are settling into their chairs around the deliberating table, and how a juror is standing by the window looking toward the streets below, lost in thought. It's stifling in the room. Those were the days of not having air conditioned all over, so these men are sweating in the uncomfortable room during one of the worst days of the summer.

As the men proceed to have a preliminary vote, juror number eight casts a 'not guilty' vote that shocks the room. How dare he go against the majority? Who is he to stand in the way of what seems to be an open and shut case? This guy is guilty! Thus begins the deliberations in which all these men bring their own prejudices and biases to determine if the boy will go to the electric chair, which by all appearances, seems to be the case here. It's because of one decent man that doesn't mind facing the rest that we get to know why the accused couldn't have done the murder the authorities say he committed. In the process the jurors will get to understand the meaning of justice.

This drama owes Henry Fonda a debt of gratitude. We can't think of any other actor playing this juror. Mr. Fonda exudes kindness and he is the only person in the room that is not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt the boy has killed his own father. Not only did he make a contribution as an actor, but also helped produced the movie.

Lee J. Cobb, one of the great American actors of the last century, is seen as a juror that sees in the accused young man his own estranged son, who he hasn't seen in a couple of years, having left home because of the conflict with the old man. Mr. Cobb is just the opposite of Mr. Fonda, and he gives an intense performance to show us this man in turmoil. The rest of the cast is wonderful. Each one has his own moment to shine.

There is not a single moment that rings false in the movie. In reading a couple of comments about "12 Angry Men", some people marvel there were no women in the jury, or that the accused man's case hasn't been presented by the defense attorney in a more effective way. We have to remember first of all, the times in which the action takes place, and the fact that being a poor man, the accused man has been given an attorney who was obviously not interested in his defense. The young man being from a minority migrant group didn't elicit sympathy from these jurors, at all, which might have been the prosecution's goal in going along with the selection.

This is a movie that should be seen by anyone serving in a jury in a court of justice. Mr. Lumet and Mr. Rose have created a timeless film that will be the standard in which everything else is judged.

score 10/10

jotix100 8 February 2005

Reprint: https://www.imdb.com/review/rw1016642/

Shane_Canning

you need to get out more