I just watched "12 Angry Men" on TCM tonight and was moved to write a brief blog on it.  What a great film!!  I've also attached a photo I took on a recent hike near Bryce Canyon Nat'l Park, at a place called Red Canyon where I often hike.  The photo shows the view west from 8,000 ft.  There was still enough snow on the ground to make getting up the switchbacks a little treacherous.  We'll be getting more snow this weekend, so it'll likely be spring before I can return to Red Canyon. 



12 Angry Men

Normally I avoid legal shows. Because I’ve spent my entire professional life in the courtroom, I get extremely aggravated at the inaccurate depiction of trials. Things are done unrealistically because (1) dramatic impact needs to be enhanced, and (2) they have a time limit requiring them to deal with the commercial breaks and the network time slot.

Tonight I watched Sidney Lumet’s 1957 directorial debut: “12 Angry Men.” [SPOILER ALERT] It is the best courtroom drama I’ve ever seen, better even than “To Kill a Mockingbird” which appeared five years later. The film begins as the judge sends the jurors out to begin deliberating a verdict in a murder trial. The entire movie then unfolds in the jury room, in black and white, and is so dramatic, so compelling, that it is absolutely riveting. The acting is superb, headlined by Henry Fonda as the only juror who, on the initial tally, votes for acquittal, and Lee J. Cobb, the last holdout for guilty who ultimately folds.

The script is devoid of legalisms, but they manage to make clear how important the concept of reasonable doubt is, as well as the fact that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. One of the most interesting things in the film to me, though neither the prosecutor nor the defense lawyer is ever seen, is that both were clearly inadequate, and that comes through as the jurors discuss the evidence. A number of important evidentiary issues are brought up in turn by several jurors and, as they are talked out, points that had at first seemed clearly to indicate guilt end up creating a reasonable doubt. One after another, the jurors change their votes. Personal prejudices rear their ugly heads. The defendant’s minority status (Hispanic) clearly pushes a few of the jurors toward guilt, irrespective of the facts. Ultimately, with discussion comes recognition, and with recognition comes a verdict vote that commenced at 11 to 1 for guilt and ends with a unanimous acquittal.

Nothing that I have said here will ruin this film for you if you get a chance to watch it, as I’ve not gone into any of the specific factual issues with which the jurors wrestle. The supporting cast is great, including Martin Balsam, E.G. Marshall, Jack Klugman and Jack Warden.

How often I’ve wished that I could be a fly on the wall in the jury room. How often I’ve seen what I felt were inexplicable verdicts. But in “12 Angry Men,” at the end, it all makes perfect sense.