Ratheesh KrishnaVadhyar (![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} ratheesh) wrote,@ 2008-02-27 20:05:00 |
|
12 Angry Men
12 Angry Men (1957), directed by Sidney Lumet, starts with the scenes from a court. A boy is accused of the murder of his father, and there is clear evidence against him. A jury of 12 members has to decide upon his fate now. And the verdict, whatever it is, has to be unanimously approved by the jury. Rest of the film is mostly set inside a single room, as we see the jurors discussing over the case.
When the discussions start, it appears that there is no need for any debate at all, as the case is crystal clear to the jurors. All say that the accused is guilty. All, except one - One of the Jurors, Davis (Henry Fonda) strongly argues that there is a need for analysis and he says that there is a "reasonable chance" that the boy could be innocent. So, the talks start. Slowly, it becomes clear that the opinions of the jurors are not decided by the proofs and logical arguments alone, but by their various prejudices, personal traits, ego and inhibitions, and even experiences in their own life. Davis places his arguments and challenges each and every evidence against the boy. Slowly, the jurors change their votes one by one - Many of them following the logic in his words and others because of the circumstances in the process of the discussion itself. By the end of the film, the jury unanimously declares that the boy is not guilty.
I think it was a tremendous achievement to make such an absorbing film picturized almost entirely in the confined space of a conference room. The arguments and counter-arguments are interesting, but much more interesting is the character study of the jurors.
12 Angry Men (1957), directed by Sidney Lumet, starts with the scenes from a court. A boy is accused of the murder of his father, and there is clear evidence against him. A jury of 12 members has to decide upon his fate now. And the verdict, whatever it is, has to be unanimously approved by the jury. Rest of the film is mostly set inside a single room, as we see the jurors discussing over the case.
When the discussions start, it appears that there is no need for any debate at all, as the case is crystal clear to the jurors. All say that the accused is guilty. All, except one - One of the Jurors, Davis (Henry Fonda) strongly argues that there is a need for analysis and he says that there is a "reasonable chance" that the boy could be innocent. So, the talks start. Slowly, it becomes clear that the opinions of the jurors are not decided by the proofs and logical arguments alone, but by their various prejudices, personal traits, ego and inhibitions, and even experiences in their own life. Davis places his arguments and challenges each and every evidence against the boy. Slowly, the jurors change their votes one by one - Many of them following the logic in his words and others because of the circumstances in the process of the discussion itself. By the end of the film, the jury unanimously declares that the boy is not guilty.
I think it was a tremendous achievement to make such an absorbing film picturized almost entirely in the confined space of a conference room. The arguments and counter-arguments are interesting, but much more interesting is the character study of the jurors.
