Black, White, and Every Shade of Doubt: 12 Angry Men (1957)

It was not easy, not at all easy for a 21-year-old to watch a grayscale screen for 2 hours straight in this Flamboyant RGB era. Subconsciously, we all have reduced our attention span to flashy reel minutes (thank me, I wrote minutes and not 15 secs).

However, if on some random day you feel like taking your attention back, opt for this movie '12 Angry Men', for a dopamine reset. I did, and let me tell you more reasons why you should too.

What Kind of Movie Is This?

The plot starts in a courtroom, where the judge asks 12 jurors to decide the fate of an 18-year-old boy accused of his intoxicated-abusive father's murder. A unanimous jury verdict is mandatory for the case to proceed.

You may flag it boring, if I say the movie is mainly locked in a room where the jury argues, and argues, and argues till the end. After Bigg Boss, nothing absorbed me in altercations as much as this movie did. However, the main differentiator is the logic behind arguments between the former and latter.

Society Walked Into That Room

In my opinion, all 12 jurors had 12 distinct personalities, and since we can each be classified into one of them, the film effectively depicts a cross-section of our society.

The main squabbles are between juror 8 (Compassionate skeptic) vs. juror 3 (Sadist), the former being the only one initially to put himself in the accused's shoes and voting 'Non-Guilty' contrary to the latter, who was pugnacious & impervious to any logical argument against guilt of the accused.

Other notable juror personalities were — 4 (Coldly Rational), 9 (Wise Old Man), 7 (Careless), 10 (Prejudiced/Biased), 6 (Good Guy), etc.

Nothing Is Concrete, Everything Is Possible

Limited spoiler, I swear.

Coming back to Juror 8's perspective, he was the only one initially to question the concrete nature of the evidence and testimonies as possibly wrong. He reiterated that there is room for 'possibility' over 'certainty.'

For that, he thoughtfully made many logical recreations of testimonies that slowly implanted the chance that the accused is 'Non-Guilty' among other jurors.

He revived the old witness's testimony of rushing to the front door and witnessing the boy, to deprive the credibility of the statement. Being an architect, he calculated the exact time taken by the old man to reach the door from his room, and it did not match the testimony.

Furthermore, the second witness made a testimony that she saw the boy in action from a window while lying on her bed. Juror 9's (old but) sharp observation deconstructed this testimony too. He noticed the spectacle marks on the lady, and thus, it concludes her testimony was baseless.

Believe me, how this movie turned out to be highly logical & persuasive was astonishing to me. With every jury voting, you will see the jurors' perspectives fluctuating.

Black to White

As vibrance increases, the depth in the storyline vanishes, which often happens in modern high-budget cinema. B&W is not a weakness but the greatest strength of this 1957 classic, because it serves as a metaphor for the verdict journey (Guilty or Not Guilty). The vintage sound effects during tensed close up shots added verisimilitude to it.

In the movie, the high emphasis on heat in the room was highlighted often, both the temperature and the temperament of the jury. One can literally see sweat patches slowly side-by-side with the movie.

Which reminds me of the scene when Juror 4, who claimed to never perspire, gets dripping sweat from his forehead when cornered by Juror 8's memory test.

My Verdict

Let me be Juror 13.

After considering all the evidence, I stand with the movie, and it should not be Guilty for its age :)

I do wonder why the hot temperature of the day was not used for any logical deduction; it only added dramatic effect! Just start it and feel the heat too.