294: 12 Angry Men

12 Angry Men centres around a jury deciding the verdict of a case, after what initially seems like a simple verdict, one juror throws a spanner in the works and insists the jury take another look at the case.

Legal dramas often centre around the characters of the criminal, the lawyers or the judge, aside from one early glance, 12 Angry Men doesn't feature the accused, the judge or any of the court case. Instead it uses the accounts of the jurors to paint a picture of the case and those involved, introducing the viewers to the case through the discussions the jury have. Though this may sound like a dull concept for a film, it is gripping to say the least as elements of the case are revealed through a trickle of facts in the jury's deliberation allowing the viewer to decide with the jury whether or not the accused is guilty.

The setting of the drama is crucial, on "the hottest day of the summer" in a tiny room with 12 men, each bead of perspiration can be seen as white shirts turn grey and ties get skewed. The pathetic fallacy of the film is simple, the heated discussions occur as the weather gets hotter, a crescendo is reached at the point of a storm and when all is resolved, the weather is still. It is as effective as it is theatrical. The drama barely moves from that room and even during bathroom breaks the tension is kept high as the jurors bicker amongst themselves.


12 Angry Men relies on the group dynamic of the jurors to create tension. The drama comes through these characters rather than events that surround them. Personalities unfold in front of your eyes, political persuasions and temperaments of the jurors are revealed by showing what each juror focussed on in the case and how they relate it to their own situation. At the centre of the drama is Henry Fonda's Juror Number 8, who is initially the only juror with any "reasonable doubt", the concept of which is toyed with throughout the deliberations. Jurors Number 3 and 9 played brilliantly by Joseph Sweeney and Lee J Cobb become the most realistic and believable characters in the entire situation as their characters are given greater back stories and empathy to work with.


Issues of racial politics, urbanisation, the legal system, family disputes and stereotyping come to the fore as each juror gets a chance to speak. Any remark from any character is enough to stir a thought in either a characters or a viewers mind, each word becomes crucial as certain elements of the case and of the group dynamic are explored. Jurors fall in and out favour depending on the viewers own point of view and in this the brilliance of the film is seen. As vote after vote is taken and speech after speech is made watching the film almost makes the viewer a 13th Angry Man feeling involved in the drama.