The film twelve angry men is a quaint film which takes us into a jury chamber during the deliberation faze. Juror # 8 (Harry Fonda) is the only juror out of the twelve who believes that the case they are deciding is not open and shut. His argument was that it was not the defendants that had to prove innocence but the prosecution which had to prove guilt which he did not feel was done.
The film sets immediately out to show distinct characters and sets the setting, a small stuffy room in an especially hot day in the summer. First of all this film is very unrealistic and makes it difficult to consider accurate at all. Juror number three, who was the last one to give in, while also being extremely biased and estranged from his own son and Juror number ten who was an extreme racist, referring to negros as them' while referring to everyone else as us', would never have made it past the jury selection phase.
It is not Juror number eights job to act like the mans attorney, even if the one appointed to him didn't go a good job. Reenacting the walk of the old man and going out on his own to do research and buy a replica knife is completely out of line. Race probably plays a part in how hard the lawyer tried to defend the man, the film didn't mention the lawyers ethnicity. By giving everyone in the movie equal speaking time (relatively) it allows us to get a feeling of all of their personalities. Like Jack Klugman who was somewhat shy and frightened while coming from a slum like childhood, or Juror twelve who was easily swayed even though he gives the impression of being a salesmen.
Twelve angry men is a horribly outdated film which fails in this day and age to get the point across. The amount of bias and racism displayed is reasonably out of wack with the world of color cinema. Even if they did end up putting an innocent man to death, that was the logical conclusion to be reached through the evidence that was provided.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document