Automoderated users, Autopatrolled users, Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, Confirmed users, Moderators, Rollbackers, Administrators
213,740
edits
12 Angry Men: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
m (Mass update links) |
No edit summary |
||
| (15 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{work}}
{{Multiple Works Need Separate Pages}}
[[File:12_angry_men_1301.jpg|thumb|400px|If the boy only knew what headaches he was about to cause...]]
'''''12 Angry Men''''' is a 1954 teleplay by Reginald Rose (and perhaps more famously, a 1957 film directed by [[Sidney Lumet]] and starring Henry Fonda and a veritable [[All-Star Cast]] 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 murdering his father. While most of the jurors want to pack it in and call it a day, one stands up and refuses to admit to the boy's guilt -- at least until they take a fine toothed comb through every shred of the evidence and make darn sure that they've got the right guy.
This work is best known as the film that [[Trope Codifier|popularized]] the [[Rogue Juror]] 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 - if only because most of the other works on the Rogue Juror page reference it either directly or indirectly.
According to the American Film Institute, it's the second best courtroom drama movie in history, after ''[[To Kill a Mockingbird]]''{{'}}s film adaptation. In 1997 it was adapted yet again, this time as a [[Made for TV]] movie on [[Showtime]] starring Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott (the main difference in this version being the [[Cluster F-Bomb|level of cussing]]). There is also a 2007 Russian Adaptation by [[Nikita Mikhalkov]] called simply ''12''.
''12 Angry Men'' (the 1957 version) was added to the [[National Film Registry]] in 2007.
----▼
▲----
{{tropelist}}
* [[Artistic License: Law]]: Being convicted of first-degree murder does ''not'' result in an automatic death sentence. (This isn't [[Society Marches On]], though the length and likely outcome of the appeals process ''after'' a death sentence might indeed be very different today). Also, see [[Hollywood Law]] below. The entire case, in real life, would have ended in a mistrial the moment it came to light that #8 had bought the exact same type of knife as used in the murder.
* [[Asshole Victim]]: The murder victim was an abusive father.
* [[Berserk Button]]: Minor example with #6, who twice threatens violence (once explicitly, once by implication) over people showing disrespect to others.
* [[Character Filibuster]]: Juror #10 has a particularly nasty, racism-filled rant against "the likes of him [the accused]" [[Crowning Moment of Awesome|that causes the other jurors to turn away from him one by one, until #4 shuts him up]]:
{{quote|
'''Juror #4:''' I have. Now sit down and don't open your mouth again. }}
** The real kicker of the line is that #10 does exactly that - he doesn't say a word for the rest of the movie. When #8 asks him if he still thinks the boy is guilty, he simply shakes his head quietly.
Line 36 ⟶ 37:
* [[Hollywood Law]]: While the Jurors do make the correct decision on reasonable doubt, the way they reach that position (by #8 wandering around the defendant's neighborhood conducting his own investigation) is major juror misconduct.
* [[Hypocritical Humor]]:
{{quote|
'''Juror #11:''' ''Doesn't'' even speak good English. }}
** To make it even funnier, Juror #11 is an immigrant to America from Europe.
Line 62 ⟶ 63:
* [[Realistic Diction Is Unrealistic]]: While there are plenty of impassioned speeches, the trope is less severe than most examples since the characters often stutter or pause at key points.
* [[Real Time]]: Fully in the play; broken briefly at the beginning and end of the film.
* [[Retroactive Recognition]]: Juror #5 will be instantly familiar to anyone who's seen an episode of ''[[Quincy, M.E.]]''. Jack Klugman even gets to do a Quincy-style deduction years before the series was conceived, by pointing out the inconsistent nature of the knife wound.
* [[Reverse Grip]]: An important plot point is how unlikely it is for any experienced knife fighter to use a switchblade this way.
* [[Rogue Juror]]: If not the [[Trope Maker]], definitely the [[Trope Codifier]].
** Unlike many examples, however, the [[Rogue Juror]] in this case isn't convinced of the defendant's guilt or innocence, at least initially; he simply wants the other jurors to take things seriously and not simply vote guilty -- thus sending a potentially innocent kid to the death chamber -- without making every effort to make sure he ''is'' guilty first.
* [[Second Hand Storytelling]]
* [[The Spock]]: Juror #4 (the stockbroker with wire rim glasses).
* [[Title by Number]]
* [[Values Dissonance]]: At the time this was written in the '50s, women weren't allowed on juries in some parts of the country. These days, the script is often produced as ''Twelve Angry Jurors'' with a more diverse cast.
* [[Verbal Tic]]: Juror #10 seems to have one of these, you know what I mean? *sniff*
* [[Video Credits]]: Necessary, since none of the characters are named.
* [[Villainous Breakdown]]: When Juror #10 delivers his famous rant. "Listen... listen to me...."
** And Juror #3 shortly afterward. Made somewhat more poignant by the reactions of the other jurors; where they reacted to #10's breakdown with silent anger, they watch #3's meltdown with something closer to pity, as most of them
* [[Wham! Line]]: #8 has a wham ''action'' when he pulls out a switchblade identical to the murder weapon, but the best has to go to #9 when he points out the female witness had glasses marks on her nose, which renders her testimony useless (meaning she wasn't wearing her glasses at the time she saw the stabbing, meaning she wouldn't have been able to see the murderer correctly).
* [[What Happened to the Mouse?]]: It's never clear if the kid really did it, but that isn't the point. And many modern lawyers say that the jury made the correct decision as far as reasonable doubt goes.
Line 80 ⟶ 81:
{{reflist}}
{{AFI's 100 Years 100 Heroes and Villains}}
{{Best in Film: The Greatest Movies of Our Time}}
[[Category:Theatrical Productions]]
[[Category:Films of the 1950s]]
▲[[Category:Twelve Angry Men]]
[[Category:Film]]
[[Category:
[[Category:The Criterion Collection (LaserDisc)]]
[[Category:National Film Registry]]
[[Category:Trial film]]
| |||