12 ANGRY MEN. The Best Courtroom Drama Ever Explained

We do not see the trial itself. We accompany the jury on their way to the deliberation room and start from scratch, reconstructing the facts based on their statements. However, is it even possible to reach an objective verdict when the jury views the case through the lens of their own experiences, character, and flaws? Among the twelve gathered in the closed room of “angry” jurors, only one, number eight, has doubts. Will he be able to convince the others that perhaps their perspective is skewed and that they have not considered all the elements that should be taken into account? 12 Angry Men

The first sentences spoken by the jurors in 12 Angry Men give an initial orientation of what we can expect from them. This is likely what the lawyer focused on during selection. The first relies on his own impressions and emotions, simply “felt” he was dealing with a guilty person. The second, on the contrary, presents himself as a rationalist focused on facts, convinced by the defense’s arguments. The third… attention, the third may have some biases against minorities; does this affect his opinions about the defendant? The fourth seems rather wavering, not having a firm opinion of his own, likely to yield to the majority as the most susceptible to influence. For the fifth, the issue of motive is the most important. The sixth adopts a blasé and dismissive attitude – everything has already been said, it is difficult to get a clearer picture of the case, besides, look at the defendant’s record: what else could be expected from a kid growing up in such circumstances!

The authoritative statement of juror number six is the first moment when voices of opposition arise in the discussion. Suddenly, it turns out that someone had experiences with troubled youth, while another person grew up in the slums and does not feel inferior because of it. This is the first, though still faint, signal that not everything has been sufficiently and thoroughly discussed. This is noticed by the foreman, juror number seven, trying to maintain order, which earns him criticism for “unnecessarily” prolonging the debate in the uncomfortable heat.

Everyone would like to announce the verdict and go home, but juror number eight – the one who is not convinced – stands in their way.

It is not about wholeheartedly believing in the defendant’s innocence. Perhaps he is guilty, but sending an eighteen-year-old to the chair without even discussing the matter? That’s inappropriate, that’s not how it is done. This carefree juggling of another person’s fate. This attitude impresses the oldest member of the jury, juror number nine, who breaks ranks and supports the dissenting vote in a quickly conducted secret ballot, thus establishing the vote count at ten to two. Number nine fully understands how difficult it is to resist the will of the majority. He respects that someone dared to do so uncompromisingly. 12 Angry Men

Meanwhile, doubts multiply. Was the knife used in the crime really that unusual if an identical one can be bought for six dollars in the same neighborhood? Maybe the boy was telling the truth when he said he lost it? And the witnesses, are they reliable? Could one of them have been driven by vanity and a desire for attention after being a nobody all his life? Is threatening someone out loud evidence of any guilt?

Did the boy really go out at the time mentioned by an uncertain witness?

The debate initiated by juror number eight, however, begins to form. Suddenly, the tired and discouraged jurors start to consider, ponder, and question additional elements. In other words, they do what they should have done from the beginning: look critically at the issue of reasonable doubt. They also draw on their own experiences, personal reflections, and observations. The eighteen-year-old defendant ceases to be just a statistic and unexpectedly transforms into a living person, for whose future they are all responsible. Did they too quickly accept certain facts simply on faith? Were they convinced by the prosecution’s arguments because they were unassailable, or because they fell into the trap of preconceived notions? After all, one cannot judge a person for a crime they might have committed because we assume they would be capable of it…

Did they engage in critical thinking? Were they attentive enough? Did they fulfill the duty imposed on them with sufficient dedication? Or perhaps they failed? They were selected randomly, they have nothing to lose or gain. They have a choice whether to succumb to prejudice and wave it off, or to coldly consider how fast an elderly man can move after a stroke and how much a nearsighted person can see without glasses. The choice is theirs, and it is up to them to define what reasonable doubt truly is.

How many details would not have been addressed and thoroughly considered without the diligence of juror number eight? And what if such a person is absent? Do the people entrusted with the incredibly important task fully understand the extent of their responsibility and accept it with all its implications?

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. The same applies to the system responsible for delivering verdicts of guilt and innocence. One juror succumbs to the majority not because they were convinced by the arguments, but because, in light of personal and painful experiences, they need a bit of hope for themselves as well. For another, making it to a game is more important than a fair verdict. 12 Angry Men

Out of the ninety-six minutes of 12 Angry Men, only three take place outside the deliberation room. Conflicts escalate, characters clash, all in an atmosphere of growing claustrophobia that affects the viewer as well. Each juror brings an individual touch, each has their own story and often their own drama, or at least baggage they find hard to shed. And although it all essentially revolves around dialogues conducted by twelve men in a closed room – it is hard to take your eyes off the screen and control your emotions. Watching this play out is not only fascinating but also provokes reflections far beyond this specific case and trial. We ponder not only the essence of justice and the functioning of the judicial system but also the web of interactions that forms among strangers forced to become one entity. As in any closed group, someone will take the role of leader, someone will be a weathervane, someone will oppose, and someone else will silently await the developments.

Thanks to the specific perspective of confinement, we have a unique opportunity to closely and objectively observe the dynamics of group functioning and consider what conclusions to draw from it. Above all, it is truly impressive how, with such minimal means, one of the best psychological dramas in the history of cinema was created. 12 Angry Men.