DAY 2: 12 ANGRY MEN

[Lynn Vincentnathan]

Been a long time since I’ve seen this movie, but it’s a great.

What makes this scene great from a writing perspective?

Even though it’s in a limited setting, each juror is different with different agenda, goals, backstories, personalities, and issues. Most are eager to get out of there, esp one who has tickets for a ballgame that evening. And one juror votes “not guilty,” gumming up the 11 who voted “guilty,” but he does so out of a sense of justice and fairness in making a life or death decision, not because he truly believes the defendant is not guilty – he says he doesn’t know, but wants to talk about it first.

So there is conflict, setup/payoffs, invitation to the journey and it is a challenging situation, intriguing dialogue, revealing something inside Fonda that makes him need to go on this journey, even though 11 are opposed to him.

[Colleen Patrick]

Basic scene components:

Scene arc: starting at a consensus of guilty by 11 of the 12, the entitled feeling of “done deal,” by the 11 white men. Which moves to anger when they are checked by one member who questions their decision. It’s clear the attitude of that majority is colored by what we now call racism, and it’s brought to their attention – but dismissed by jurors who consider “them” (Hispanics) essentially born liars and criminals. The majority seems to be angry – the holdout doesn’t, he just wants more information, especially since the stakes are so high – the teenager’s life. The arc continues to move as more jurors believe that at least talking about the evidence wouldn’t hurt and don’t expect to change their vote. But the needle has moved to at least some opening minds – though slightly. The degree of importance for the jurors is shown by talking about the ball game, a meaningless drawing, side discussions and general indifference. But this group is still reluctantly (for the most part) moving toward doing the work they need to as American citizens serving on a jury.

Situation: mired in ignorance, personal opinions, quick decisions based on bias (racism), 12 white men are expected to conclude a fair verdict for an individual charged with a crime.

Conflict: someone wants to get to a ball (assumed baseball) game that starts in an hour, bigoted opinions, someone wants to discuss the evidence to see if the defendant is actually factually guilty rather than just vote based on assumptions and personal opinion. Can 12 angry white men come to a fair and just conclusion?

Moving the story forward: thanks to the men not wanting to be considered unfair or biased without even reviewing the evidence, they want to do the job they were sworn to do – albeit reluctantly for several. In other words, these men want to be trusted to make the right decision, even if it means challenging their biases.

Entertainment value: Henry Fonda bickering with several very well-known actors in an engaging, confined setting, discussing truly important matters involving personal and “American” values is appealing to most audiences – or was at that time.

Set-ups/payoffs: The Rational (Every)Man pitches challenges to men who can’t help but try to hit the ball where they want it to go, not always successfully. They don’t seem to settle for observing, they believe they are entitled to have their opinion be heard and honored, each for his own reason.

Invitation for the journey: we want them to solve the mystery, we want to know if he’s really guilty. Or innocent. And whether these guys are capable of arriving at the truth.

Second viewing:

Challenging situation: It’s legal, it’s personal, it’s political, it’s emotional, the stakes are high (a man’s life is in their hands) – can they make a fair decision?

Interesting action: Lots of emoting for the actors, each of whom comes with a strong point of view; all of whom have diverse backgrounds; upper body movement as they sit at the desk, papers and writing implements for business. All to draw us into the scene not to push anything in our face.

Intriguing dialogue: Intelligent and ignorant points of view are offered, engaging thoughts and debate. We agree with several, pro and con, so we’re actually the 13^th juror, deliberating along with those 12 men.

Something inside this character needs to go on the journey: Looking inside our own lives and decisions, who are we? Are we the fair, reasonable, informed, smart, responsible person who can make a wise decision when it comes to giving a fair verdict? Especially if a person’s life is involved? If we come up short, who do we want to be? I think our (Every)man wants to be all those things, but especially *right.* Too many consider their opinion to be “right,” when it is based on faulty information, few facts and biases. In the end, do they also want to be right, when it comes to saving a man’s life or condemning him to death?