Juror 3 | Kevin Barrett's Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Juror 3’

Guilty Until Reasonable Doubt

Posted in Leadership, Philosophy, Poetry, Quotes, tagged 12 Angry Men (1957) -- movie review, A Few Good Men, Baltimore Orioles, E.G. Marshall, Ed Begley, Edward Binns, Extremely High Movie Recommendation, George Voskovec, Henry Fonda, Inherit The Wind, Jack Klugman, Jack Warden, John Fiedler, Joseph Sweeney, Judgment At Nuremberg, Juror 1, Juror 10, Juror 11, Juror 12, Juror 2, Juror 3, Juror 4, Juror 5, Juror 6, Juror 7, Juror 8, Juror 9, Leadership, Lee J. Cobb, Library of Congress, Martin Balsam, Miracle On 34th Street, Must see movie recommendation, NY Yankees, Robert Webber, The Caine Mutiny, The Trial of Billy Mitchell, U.S. National Film Registry on July 22, 2023| Leave a Comment »

“12 Angry Men” (1957) — movie review
Today’s movie review is for the jury room (courtroom) drama “12 Angry Men“. This is a black and white film, and widely recognized as a “classic” of the film industry. In 2007, the film was selected for the National Film Registry by the Library of Congress for historical preservation. The film is an almost exclusively dialogue driven recreation of a jury deliberation (argument) being held in a jury room in New York City. The film does not use individual names for the cast and instead they are referenced by their juror “number” (1 through 12). Hence the title…

The film stars many actors who either were already famous stars or would come to be (mostly via TV in the 1960’s). They included:
	Martin Balsam as Juror 1 (the jury foreman – and organizer who is a calm and methodical assistant high school football coach in real life);
	John Fiedler as Juror 2 (in real life a bank teller who is a follower, easily flustered, but eventually stands up for himself against bullying by Jurors 3 and 10);
	Lee J. Cobb as Juror 3 (in real life a hot-tempered owner of a courier business; he is the most vocal / obstinate advocate of a “guilty” verdict. It is implied this is an over-reaction to his relationship with his own rebellious / ungrateful young-adult son);
	E. G. Marshall as Juror 4 (with a notable exception mentioned below, in real life an unflappable, fairly indifferent and analytical stockbroker who is concerned only with facts and logic, not opinions, hypotheticals or assumptions);
	Jack Klugman as Juror 5 ( in real life a Baltimore Orioles fan who grew up in a violent slum, and is sensitive to bigotry and discrimination towards “slum kids”; he demonstrates how switchblade knifes are “really” used);
	Edward Binns as Juror 6 ( in real life a rough and tumble working-man painter who objects to others, especially the elderly, being verbally abused by the two bully jurors);
	Jack Warden as Juror 7 ( in real life a wiseguy salesman who is worried about the missing a Yankees baseball game while they are arguing the verdict);
	Henry Fonda as Juror 8 (the “voice of reason”, a justice-seeking – in real life – architect and father of three; he starts out as the only juror to vote “not guilty” and wants the others to, at the very least, discuss the evidence before finding the defendant guilty);
	Joseph Sweeney as Juror 9 (a thoughtful, elderly man who is highly observant of the witnesses’ clothes / behaviors and argues possible motivations for their testimonies);
	Ed Begley as Juror 10 (the second bully on the jury; an aggressive, frequently shouting – in real life – garage owner who is bigoted toward minorities and “those” people);
	George Voskovec as Juror 11 (in real life, a polite European watchmaker and naturalized American citizen who has better knowledge of and respect for “American” democratic values such as due process and the right to a fair trial by jury than many of the “native born” Americans);
	Robert Webber as Juror 12 (in real life, an uninterested marketing executive who plays tic-tac-toe while the others are discussing the case facts).
Note: In this context, “in real life” means outside the jury room yet still in the film role, not outside the film.

The film begins with a very brief scene in the courtroom where we also see the judge and the defendant. Both sides (prosecution and defense) have rested / closed their arguments and the judge is providing instructions to the jury just before they walk to the jury room for their deliberations. The defendant (a young man) is being tried for the murder of his abusive father. What appears to be an obvious verdict becomes a detective story and an example of personal integrity and leadership when a single juror (Number 8) votes “not guilty”. What follows is a string of questions about the clues which create doubt about the guilt of the defendant. The drama examines each of the jurors’ character, prejudices and preconceptions about the trial, the accused, and each other. We are slowly given clues about the social status, education, jobs, and some family backgrounds of the various jurors and we “see” that twelve “white” men will not always see things the same way when it comes to “justice”.

They jury has an initial vote and there is only one (Juror 8) not guilty. He insists that with a man’s life on the line they should take at least a few minutes to review the facts of the case to see if there is “any” reasonable doubt. Over the course of several hours, Juror 8 manages to convince each of the others there is “reasonable doubt” the defendant committed the murder and they ultimately settle on a unanimous “not guilty” verdict.

Is this movie any good? The acting? The drama? Is it worth you time viewing? The short answer to all of the above is Yes!! To shorten the review: “It is MUST* viewing for anybody who wants to consider themself a serious movie fan particularly of courtroom dramas.*“

Okay, back to the longer review…

Any good: the Library of Congress believes it is. It is frequently rated in the top 100 films of all time and in the top 10 for courtroom dramas. “*To Kill A Mockingbird” regularly beats it for top spot. Personally, I would put both up there with “Judgment At Nuremberg“, “Inherit the Wind“, “A Few Good Men“, “The Caine Mutiny“, “Miracle On 34th Street” and “The Trial of Billy Mitchell*“. After that, it’s pretty much flip a coin. I’m sure I’m forgetting a ton of other courtroom based dramas, but this one is special (to me) because it is filmed almost exclusively in only one room (the jury deliberation room), it is a roasting hot day which turns into an absolute downpour (not sure if this was meant to be a metaphor for the build-up and release of tension in the script, but it sure struck me that way) and the roles, casting and acting are superb! And we get a lesson in American civics thrown in, too!

The acting: I don’t know how many different ways to say this film is excellent. Full stop! Cobb, Marshall and Fonda deserve particular kudos as far as I’m concerned, but all twelve actors are perfectly cast in their respective roles.

The drama: Same… I would like to mention one little scene: Everyone but Juror 4 is sweating profusely and Juror 5 asks him if he ever sweats. “4” replies: “Never.” Later, and this is the scene I love, Juror 8 asks if it’s unreasonable the defendant couldn’t remember the name of the movie he saw the previous night, especially given the police were questioning him with his father laying dead on the floor of their apartment. Juror 4 says it is too convenient and he would have remembered. “8” asks “4” a series of questions which leads to “4” stating he was at a movie a couple of nights previous. After a few more questions, “4” fails to remember the name of the second film he saw or any of the names of the actors in the film. As “8” asks “4” again if it’s so unreasonable, we see a single line of sweat run down “4’s” forehead. “4” wipes the sweat stream off and he concedes it’s possible for the defendant to have forgotten the details of the film. …”4″ changes his vote to not guilty.

Just brilliant!!

Is it worth your time: my answer is based on your response to this question – are you a fan of movies and great cinema? LoL

Final recommendation: Extremely high! This IS a MUST see movie.

A last comment: Please remember this is Hollywood. A good deal of what happens in the film (ex: bringing a knife to the jury room) would not / could not happen in a real deliberation – back then or today. It is far more likely one of the jurors would have said something to the bailiff or judge and the trial would have been declared a mistrial. But that wouldn’t have made for a very good movie ending – now would it…?

.
Click here (22 July) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.