History Film / TwelveAngryMen

17th Sep '17 10:57:02 AM Rhodes7
Is there an issue? Send a Message


''12 Angry Men'' is a 1954 teleplay by Reginald Rose (and much more famously, a 1957 film directed by Creator/SidneyLumet starring Creator/HenryFonda and a veritable AllStarCast of character actors) that concerns a supposedly straightforward murder trial. An eyewitness, forensic evidence, and the accused himself all seem to clearly point to an adolescent boy having murdered his father. In the deliberation room, most of the jurors push for a quick guilty verdict, but one juror holds out and insists that they examine the evidence thoroughly to make damn sure that the accused deserves his punishment: a mandatory death sentence.

to:

''12 Angry Men'' is a 1954 teleplay by Reginald Rose Creator/ReginaldRose (and much more famously, a 1957 film directed by Creator/SidneyLumet starring Creator/HenryFonda and a veritable AllStarCast of character actors) that concerns a supposedly straightforward murder trial. An eyewitness, forensic evidence, and the accused himself all seem to clearly point to an adolescent boy having murdered his father. In the deliberation room, most of the jurors push for a quick guilty verdict, but one juror holds out and insists that they examine the evidence thoroughly to make damn sure that the accused deserves his punishment: a mandatory death sentence.
7th Sep '17 12:25:21 PM chopshop
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* GettingCrapPastTheRadar: Its never ''explicitly'' said that the defendant is black, but he has a [[AmbiguouslyBrown noticeably darker skin coloration]] than the jurors, is noted to be part of an ethnic minority that commonly lives in the slums of New York, and #10's rant about him is pretty much ''drenched'' in racial and classist language.


Added DiffLines:

* JerkWithAHeartOfGold: Juror #4 initially comes like a bit of an aloof jerk, but by the end he proves to be one of the more reasonable jurors, changing his verdict when given sensible reason to do so and calling out #10 for his bigoted rant.


Added DiffLines:

* PsychologicalProjection: It becomes clear by the end that the ''real'' reason Juror #3 is so insistent on a guilty conviction is because he's projecting his own problems with his son onto the case.
26th Jul '17 5:58:29 AM Synch
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* ArmorPiercingQuestion: Juror #8 catches #10 in a bit of a contradiction early on, which earns him a [[TranquilFury cold, sarcastic reply]].
--> '''Juror #8:''' I'd like to ask you something: you don't believe the boy's story, how come you believe the woman's? She's one of "them", too, isn't she?
--> '''Juror #10:''' You're a pretty smart fellow, aren't you?
21st Jul '17 7:47:58 AM Synch
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* UnwantedAssistance: Near the conclusion, when jurors #3 and #4 are the last ones still arguing for conviction, #4 is clearly annoyed at having his rational arguments undermined by #3's not-so-rational cheering from over his shoulder.
21st Jul '17 7:31:38 AM Synch
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* SilentTreatment: How everyone reacts when Juror #10 flies off the handle about the inferiority of the lower classes. Even the ones who were still in favor of conviction. It shames him enough that he sulks quietly in the corner for the rest of the film.
20th Jul '17 7:57:09 AM Briguy52748
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* CornerOfWoe: Juror 10 retreats to one when, after one of his racist rants goes too far, Juror 4 shuts him up. From that point on, 10 rarely participates in any of the deliberations, only weakly showing an acknowledgement that his vote is "not guilty" when a poll is taken (ironically, after 4 changes his vote upon the woman's testimony about clearly seeing the killing is discredited).
1st Jul '17 5:48:53 PM Gideoncrawle
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* HeelFaceRevolvingDoor: Juror #12 is the only one who ever changes his vote back to guilty. Juror #3 compares him to a tennis ball.
1st Jul '17 5:41:52 PM Gideoncrawle
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* ChromosomeCasting: All of the jurors are male. It's right in the title. Theatrical adaptations, however, sometimes avert this.

to:

* ChromosomeCasting: All of the jurors are male. It's right in the title. Theatrical adaptations, however, [[GenderFlip sometimes avert this.this]].



* NamelessNarrative: No names are used for any of the jurors, and not even for the victim or defendant. The film added an epilogue not in the play that [[SubvertedTrope gives last names for two of them]] (Davis for #8, and [=McCardle=] for #9).

to:

* NamelessNarrative: No names are used for any of the jurors, and not even for the victim or defendant. The film added an epilogue not in the play that [[SubvertedTrope [[NamedByTheAdaptation gives last names for two of them]] (Davis for #8, for]] Juror #8(Davis) and [=McCardle=] for #9).Juror #9 ([=McCardle=]).



* NotablyQuickDeliberation: Narrowly averted: if it wasn't for one guy, they'd have voted for conviction in about five minutes.
23rd Jun '17 3:15:46 PM Luigifan
Is there an issue? Send a Message


This work is best known as the film that [[TropeCodifier popularized]] the RogueJuror trope. Though it was not the first work to use it, it was the first to receive widespread critical acclaim. It's a classic of American cinema and recommended watching--especially because most of the other works on the Rogue Juror page reference it either directly or indirectly.

In 1997, it was adapted yet again, this time as a MadeForTV movie on Creator/{{Showtime}}, starring Creator/JackLemmon and Creator/GeorgeCScott. This adaptation {{race lift}}ed several jurors, [[GenderFlip gender flipped]] the judge, and [[ClusterFBomb added more cussing]]. In 2007 a Russian version titled simply ''[[Film/{{Twelve}} 12]]'' was released.

to:

This work is best known as the film that [[TropeCodifier popularized]] the RogueJuror trope. Though it was not the first work to use it, it was the first to receive widespread critical acclaim. It's a classic of American cinema and recommended watching--especially watching -- especially because most of the other works on the Rogue Juror RogueJuror page reference it either directly or indirectly.

In 1997, it was adapted yet again, this time as a MadeForTV movie on Creator/{{Showtime}}, starring Creator/JackLemmon and Creator/GeorgeCScott. This adaptation {{race lift}}ed several jurors, [[GenderFlip gender flipped]] the judge, and [[ClusterFBomb added more cussing]]. In 2007 2007, a Russian version titled simply ''[[Film/{{Twelve}} 12]]'' was released.



* AssholeVictim: The murder victim was an abusive father.

to:

* AssholeVictim: The murder victim was an [[AbusiveParents abusive father.father]].



** Juror #9 also suggests that this trope could explain why the old man testified that he saw the defendant fleeing the murder scene, when his ability to have done so was in doubt. He was so eager for the chance to be part of a murder investigation and trial that it overrode his good sense.

to:

** Juror #9 also suggests that this trope could explain why the old man testified that he saw the defendant fleeing the murder scene, when his ability to have done so was in doubt. He was [[FifteenMinutesOfFame so eager for the chance to be part of a murder investigation and trial trial]] that it overrode his good sense.



** Juror #3 breaks ''himself'' by going on a similar rant, only to find that the room has gone dead silent over the pitiable wreck he has made of himself.

to:

** Inverted again when Juror #3 breaks ''himself'' by going on a similar rant, only to find that the room has gone dead silent over the pitiable wreck he has made of himself.



* FreudianExcuse: Juror #3 - he spends the movie continuously trying to convict a young man where there is more and more reasonable doubt for his guilt because his relationship with his son appeared to have gone very sour. [[HeelRealization He realizes this at the end, though, and does not continue his stance.]]

to:

* FreudianExcuse: Juror #3 - -- he spends the movie continuously trying to convict a young man where there is more and more reasonable doubt for his guilt because his relationship with his son appeared to have gone very sour.sour. It's a classic case of PsychologicalProjection. [[HeelRealization He realizes this at the end, though, and does not continue his stance.]]



** Vaguely [[ImpliedTrope implied]] for Juror #10. When he rants at length about how "they"(the unspecified ethnic group the defendant belongs to) are by nature nothing but a bunch of liars and killers, the way all eleven of the other jurors respond with open contempt for his views causes him to go practically catatonic. He changes his vote to "not guilty" and then spends the remainder of the deliberation silently [[ThousandYardStare staring at nothing]]. Somewhat ambiguous as it's not clear if this means he was actually rethinking his views, or if he just felt defeated.
* HollywoodLaw: Juror #8 states that he went walking in the defendant's neighborhood, and found a copy of the supposedly unique switchblade knife in a local store. He presents it to the jury to prove his point. In a real jury proceding, the term for this is "juror misconduct." Jurors are not permitted to perform their own investigations, or admit their own evidence (the second knife). If it were to come out that #8 did all this, it's possible (though unlikely, given the double jeopardy prohibition) the verdict could be set aside, and #8 could be charged for his actions. There is at least an acknowledgement that #8 broke the law by buying the knife, but nobody brings up that searching for a knife is misconduct. Of course, none of the the jurors are lawyers, so it's possible that they didn't recognize the acts as such.

to:

** Vaguely [[ImpliedTrope implied]] for Juror #10. When he rants at length about how "they"(the "they" (the unspecified ethnic group the defendant belongs to) are by nature nothing but a bunch of liars and killers, the way all eleven of the other jurors respond with open contempt for his views causes him to go practically catatonic. He changes his vote to "not guilty" and then spends the remainder of the deliberation silently [[ThousandYardStare staring at nothing]]. Somewhat ambiguous as it's not clear if this means he was actually rethinking his views, or if he just felt defeated.
* HollywoodLaw: Juror #8 states that he went walking in the defendant's neighborhood, and found a copy of the supposedly unique switchblade knife in a local store. He presents it to the jury to prove his point. In a real jury proceding, the term for this is "juror misconduct." Jurors are not permitted to perform their own investigations, or admit their own evidence (the second knife). If it were to come out that #8 did all this, it's possible (though unlikely, given the double jeopardy prohibition) the verdict could be set aside, and #8 could be charged for his actions. There is at least an acknowledgement that #8 broke the law by buying the knife, but nobody brings up that searching for a knife is misconduct. Of course, none of the the jurors are lawyers, so it's possible that they didn't recognize the acts as such.



* {{Jerkass}}: Juror #7. He doesn't care what the decision of the jury is. He's only concerned with catching a baseball game. At least the most vicious jurors voted guilty because they believed in it. That said, when called out on this he does say that he doesn't believe the accused is guilty. Fortunately, the game is rained out during the deliberation so he can relax and pay attention for once. He sounds rather more sincere about it in the 1997 version, though.

to:

* {{Jerkass}}: Juror #7. He doesn't care what the decision of the jury is. He's only concerned with catching a baseball game. At least the most vicious jurors voted guilty because they believed in it. That said, when called out on this this, he does say that he doesn't believe the accused is guilty. Fortunately, the game is rained out during the deliberation deliberation, so he can relax and pay attention for once. He sounds rather more sincere about it in the 1997 version, though.



* KarmaHoudini: All the Jurors in the end give the same verdict: "not guilty". If the kid is actually guilty, he gets away with murdering his father. If he is genuinely innocent, the real killer is still at large and unsuspected. Of course, within the realm of the movie the investigation would be considered ongoing, so it's more of a matter of them not covering the part where someone actually gets caught and convicted as guilty, since that's not the focus.

to:

* KarmaHoudini: All the Jurors in the end give the same verdict: "not guilty". If the kid is actually guilty, he gets away with murdering his father. If he is genuinely innocent, the real killer is still at large and unsuspected. Of course, within the realm of the movie movie, the investigation would be considered ongoing, so it's more of a matter of them not covering the part where someone actually gets caught and convicted as guilty, since that's not the focus.



* RaceLift: The original featured 12 white men. The 1997 movie diversified the racial makeup of the jury. [[JustifiedTrope Justified]]: In 1954, an all-white, all-male jury would be the norm, but in 1997 such a jury would be very unusual, given that having all the jurors be of the same race could be uses as grounds for an appeal later.

to:

* RaceLift: The original featured 12 white men. The 1997 movie diversified the racial makeup of the jury. [[JustifiedTrope Justified]]: In 1954, an all-white, all-male jury would be the norm, but in 1997 such a jury would be very unusual, given that having all the jurors be of the same race could be uses used as grounds for an appeal later.



* TheUnreveal: Did the boy really kill his father? If he didn't, who did? Since the play and film only see the case from the jurors' perspective (not the police's), it is never discovered. All that is known is that there is reasonable doubt as to the boy's guilt--which, under the laws of the United States, is enough to keep him from being convicted.

to:

* TheUnreveal: Did the boy really kill his father? If he didn't, who did? Since the play and film only see the case from the jurors' perspective (not the police's), it is never discovered. All that is known is that there is reasonable doubt as to the boy's guilt--which, guilt -- which, under the laws of the United States, is enough to keep him from being convicted.
11th Jun '17 8:25:36 AM Madrugada
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Also, one wonders how he managed to get a switchblade into a courtroom.
This list shows the last 10 events of 232. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Film.TwelveAngryMen