Sidney Lumet’s 1957 12 Angry Men criticizes the fairness of the American justice system. The film is about a panel of twelve jurors that must give a verdict in a case involving an 18-year-old youth accused of stabbing his father to death. The youth is to be sentenced to death through electrocution if found guilty. At first, all the jurors except Juror Eight vote for a “guilty” verdict. Juror Eight questions the credibility of the evidence provided against the defendant. The discussion about the evidence’s credibility advances into hot arguments as the film proceeds. After a careful analysis championed by Juror Eight, the jurors find the defendant not guilty in the end. It is worth noting that this film is set in one location, the courtroom; thus, it is difficult for viewers to follow its progress and themes. Moreover, the movie was produced in the 1950s when film technology had not advanced; hence, its black and white color style can be boring to viewrs. The random and heated conversation among the jurors makes also makes it difficult to discern what the movie is about. Luckily, the director addresses this issue by incorporating mise-en-scene elements of camera movement, costumes, and props to enhance the film’s meaning.
Significantly, the film is characterized by high emotions, with each juror striving to defend his argument about the credibility of the evidence presented against the defendant. The filmmakers understood that viewers would have a challenging time following the jurors’ emotions because they are many, and they react differently at a given time. Therefore, they employed camera movement as a mise-en-scene element to ensure the viewers can see how each juror reacts as the session heats up. The camera moves a lot to ensure that it captures each juror’s reaction. The scene that best shows this aspect is when the judge announces a “not guilty” vote after the secret ballot exercise. The “not guilty” vote angers Juror 3, who immediately attacks Juror 5, accusing him of voting “not guilty” because he shares the same poor background as the defendant. Here, the camera moves quickly from behind Juror 1 to where the two (Jurors 3 and 5) are bickering (Rodriguez 19:57- 20:14). The camera then moves slowly to capture Juror 3’s terrified reaction (Rodriguez 20:15-20:16). Notably, this camera movement shows the viewers the intensity of people’s emotions. Each of the jurors is troubled by something different. For instance, the camera movement in this example indicates that Juror 3 is angered by the “not guilty because of his estranged relationship with his son while Juror 5 is hurt by Juror 3’s harsh sentiments about his humble background.
Costumes play a critical role in supporting the film’s intention of criticizing the justice system. The men are dressed well even though the film’s title refers to them as “angry” men. They are neatly dressed in suits, bow-ties, ties, and official suspenders. Their hair is well neat. Their dressing and appearance tell the audience that they are professionals who are serious about what they do. However, this is not the case because they handle the case emotionally instead of rationally. For instance, Juror 3 is passionate about the “guilty” because of his strained relationship with his son. He allows the negative feelings about his son to determine the defendant’s guilt, lowering his professional standards. Their professionalism is questioned when they vote “guilty” without analyzing the evidence’s credibility. Notably, the filmmaker uses costume to enhance the irony depicted in the movie. He seems to be warning viewers not to trust the jurors’ professional look until they evaluate the matter deeply.
Lastly, props have replaced the role different settings would play. They give the viewers extra information they require to understand the film’s ideologies. An excellent example of a prop that tells what the film entails is the knives. While other jurors claim that the defendant is guilty because he was found with the murder weapon, Juror 8 provides an identical knife similar to the murder weapon (Rodriguez 15:30-16:30). By pulling out a knife identical to the murder weapon, Juror 8 supports his argument that the presented evidence is invalid. Here, the knives have been used to insist how the jurors were almost sentencing a young to death without proper case analysis. Another interesting prop is the window in scenes 08:54-9:00. In this part, the jurors reluctantly agree to discuss the case after Juror 8 disputes the evidence. Juror 2 stands to open the window claiming, “we may need some air.” True to his, words the opened window becomes useful as the discussion becomes heated throughout the film. The window helps the viewers foretell that emotions will run high among the jurors before making a viable conclusion.
Arguably, the filmmaker relies on mise-en-scene elements to enhance the film’s story that has been diminished by the poor lighting and colors and one location. The camera movement enables the viewers to interact with each juror even as they differ about the case. Costumes magnify the film’s irony of people who know what they should do are ignorant to let an innocent man pay for a mistake he did not commit. Finally, props support the film’s meaning by providing the viewers with viable snippets of information they can use to understand what the film is about.
Work Cited
Rodriguez, Willard. “Studio One – Twelve Angry Men – Robert Cummings – Franchot Tone, Edward Arnold.” YouTube. 26 March 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Fv1sS30y1o
