Peer to Peer Magazine

12 NGRYMEN 12A bantering as they take their seats about the weather and the boy’s “obvious” guilt. The foreman calls for a ballot and 11 vote “guilty.” But there’s a lone dissenter –– Juror #8 –– who pleads for some time to talk about the case. This earns him moans from the others and special derision from Juror #7, a smart-aleck salesman with two tickets to that night’s baseball game: Juror #7: Well, what’s there to talk about? Eleven men in here think he’s guilty. No one had to think about it twice except you. Juror #8: I just want to talk. Juror #10: I want to ask you something: do you believe his story? Juror #8: I don’t know whether I believe it or not . . . maybe I don’t. Juror #7: So how come you vote not guilty? Juror#8: Well, there were eleven votes for guilty. It’s not easy to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first. Juror #7: Well now, who says it’s easy? Juror #8: No one. Juror #7: What, just because I voted fast? I honestly think the guy’s guilty. Couldn’t change my mind if you talked for a hundred years. Juror #8: I’m not trying to change your mind. It’s just that . . . we’re talking about somebody’s life here. We can’t decide it in five minutes. Supposing we’re wrong? Juror #7: Supposing we’re wrong! Supposing this whole building should fall down on my head. You can suppose anything! Juror #8: That’s right. The action now shifts into the struggle between personal prejudices and high emotions, and the insistence of one man to give the defendant a fair chance. It’s not that Juror #8 is convinced the boy is innocent –– only that there is reasonable doubt. The evidence is circumstantial, he insists, and therefore needs to be dissected and discussed. After arguing this, he calls for a second ballot, a secret one, making this proposal: He will abstain from voting, and if all the other jurors still vote guilty, he will concede. But if at least one votes “not guilty,” Joel (Andy) Spiegel is a creative director for a business software company based in Austin, Texas, and a freelance writer. An ardent movie watcher, he maintains a blog called “My Private Screening Room,” which spotlights movie reviews of films from the ‘30s to today. But for the “p” in his surname, he might have been the late Joel Siegel, reviewing movies professionally rather than as a hobby. He can be reached at andy_spiegel@att.net. Peer to Peer the quarterly magazine of ILTA 75 deliberation must continue. Impressed with #8’s pursuit of fairness and justice, Juror #9 switches his vote. Heated deliberation follows, and one by one, nine previously immovable jurors are moved to re-vote “not guilty,” the more educated of them by logic; the others for less admirable reasons. The tables have now completely turned and there is again only one dissenter –– the explosively angry Juror #3, who refuses to change his vote to “not guilty.” But after a long, emotional confrontation with #8, he makes the vote unanimous for acquittal, realizing (if reluctantly) that it’s his own estranged son he’s so angry with –– not the accused. One by one, the jurors quietly, almost solemnly leave the room, and the boy is pronounced not-guilty off-screen. As with any movie, “FILMed iN BLACK-ANd-WhiTE , FLOP When it FIRst OP ‘12 ANGRY Men’ LO hE A T MIIME OF COLOR UORFuL W esdEsCR ENEEN FE FILm oF eRINgs . . . gs . . .” “FILMEd IN BLACK-ANd-WhITE, En’ WAs A FINANCIAL T OPENEd dURING Iid suspension of belief is sometimes required. For example, in the ‘50s, it was rare to have an all- male, all-white jury, yet no angry women are included on this one. The introduction of information about the defendant’s past juvenile crimes would have been disallowed. Jurors #3 and #10 are so blatantly prejudiced that their attitudes would have quickly excluded them during voir dire. And convincing as Juror #8’s arguments are, it was improper for him to take on the role of defense attorney. In addition, the emotional outbursts between some of the jurors seem excessively personal and exaggerated. But these lapses are forgivable because we understand the jury and trial are largely symbolic and metaphoric, with the jurors representing a cross- section of American attitudes toward race, justice and ideology. Filmed in black-and-white, “12 Angry Men” was a financial flop when it first opened during a time of colorful widescreen film offerings, but it did garner Academy Award nominations for Best Picture, Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay. Henry Fonda did not receive a Best Actor nomination, but his performance as a juror who prevents a legal lynching is considered one of his best, and “12 Angry Men” is a timelessly compelling story about justice … and leadership. ILTA

• Cover