12 Angry Men-Directed by Sidney Lumet

A wonderful theatrical production in Delhi, and memories of Basu Chatterjee’s fabulous adaptation, ‘Ek Ruka Hua Faisla’  – prompted me to trawl the web for the original, based on the stellar Reginald Rose screenplay. Directed by Sidney Lumet, the 1957 classic, 12 Angry Men is, I think is a film everyone should watch at least once, and perhaps revisit – not only for the intriguing plot or Henry Fonda’s portrayal of the  dissenting ‘Juror No.8’ – but also because the film is a treasure trove of wisdom and life lessons.

A gripping courtroom drama, the film takes place within a small New York City jury room, where 12 jurors debate the fate of an 18-year-old boy charged with murdering his father. The foreman reminds them that the law requires the verdict to be unanimous,  “12-0 either way”.  The jury is a diverse team; coming from vastly different backgrounds, they bring to the table different perspectives, knowledge, experience, and also prejudices and biases. And then follows a lesson in how the seemingly impossible becomes possible, when just one person with integrity and courage of conviction, decides to take a stand. And how he manages to effectively steer the debate through bias, prejudice, flippancy – and keep it on course on the principle of ‘reasonable doubt’ – the belief that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Even when faced with criticism – sometimes irrational, his behaviour throughout the discussion remains calm, his arguments based on empathy, facts and logic.

Here are some of my favourite takeaways from the movie:

Doing the right thing is better than taking the easy way out : Juror No. 8 took a stand and stood his ground, even though he was the ONLY dissenting vote. “There were eleven votes for  ‘guilty’, ” It’s not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.”  He also proves that anyone can be a leader. He did not have more authority than his peers, nor was he the foreman – and yet, he managed to persuade the other jurors to reconsider their votes. In the face of stiff opposition and verbal attacks, his intellectual humility, and calm counterpoints helped him keep the debate on track.

Anything is possible : “It’s possible isn’t it?” says Juror No. 8 at the beginning of the debate – and through the plot, he upheld the principle of ‘reasonable doubt’. He came prepared – with a copy of the murder weapon, staged re-enactments of the murder following  the records – to create doubt in the juror’s minds. Throughout the discussions, he kept countering the sometimes prejudiced, sometimes flippant arguments with calm conviction. One against eleven presented almost impossible odds, especially as some jurors seemed to think the debate a waste of time – even when a man’s life hung in balance. But Juror No. 8 managed to steer the debate on track, and ultimately won over all the jurors.

Humility is the key : Juror No. 8 never tried to impose his views on his peers at any point. He was never aggressive, but humble and respectful of the views of his fellow jurors – even acknowledging the sports enthusiast’s need to get back “in time for the ballgame,” – winning himself an hour’s time for the debate. He made efforts to understand his peers, and used his emotional insight for getting them to investigate the possibilities for themselves. This approach helped him win over the jury one by one until he managed to isolate the most prejudiced and toxic juror. Even when faced with openly racist views, and bias, he chose to understand them, and use reason and logic.

If you haven’t yet watched this classic, please put it on your watchlist – and if you have, do watch it once more!