Twelve Angry Men

Twelve Angry Men

Introduction

This was television-trained director Sidney Lumet's first feature film - a low-budget ($350,000) film shot in only 17 days from a screenplay by Reginald Rose, who based his script on his own teleplay of the same name. After the initial airing of the TV play in early 1954 on Studio One CBS-TV, co-producer/star Henry Fonda asked Rose in 1956 if the teleplay could be expanded to feature-film length (similar to what occurred to Paddy Chayefsky's TV play Marty (1955)), and they became co-producers for the project (Fonda's sole instance of film production). The jury of twelve 'angry men,' entrusted with the power to send an uneducated, teenaged Puerto Rican, tenement-dwelling boy to the electric chair for killing his father with a switchblade knife, are literally locked into a small, claustrophobic rectangular jury room on a stifling hot summer day until they come up with a unanimous decision - either guilty or not guilty. The compelling, provocative film examines the twelve men's deep-seated personal prejudices, perceptual biases and weaknesses, indifference, anger, personalities, unreliable judgments, cultural differences, ignorance and fears, that threaten to taint their decision-making abilities, cause them to ignore the real issues in the case, and potentially lead them to a miscarriage of justice. (Phoebe C. Ellsworth, 2003)

Fortunately, one brave dissenting juror votes 'not guilty' at the start of the deliberations because of his reasonable doubt. Persistently and persuasively, he forces the other men to slowly reconsider and review the shaky case (and eyewitness testimony) against the endangered defendant. He also chastises the system for giving the unfortunate defendant an inept 'court-appointed' public defense lawyer who "resented being appointed" - a case with "no money, no glory, not even much chance of winning" - and who inadequately cross-examined the witnesses. Heated discussions, the formation of alliances, the frequent re-evaluation and changing of opinions, votes and certainties, and the revelation of personal experiences, insults and outbursts fill the jury room. (Phoebe C. Ellsworth, 2003)

Explanation

Leadership

In the beginning of this film Davis did not believe the boy was innocent but he wanted to view the facts carefully before he sent a boy to die. He brought to the table the testimonies and evidence and viewed them all carefully, viewing the little details as well as the big ones. Instead of just believing everything the witnesses had said at the stand he reacted in the moment. He acted as the old man the night of the murder pretending he was in the apartment that night and walked across the jury room proving that what the witness had said was inaccurate. It took the man more than twenty seconds to walk to the staircase proving that the man had not seen the boy run away from the murder seen. Looking at small and large details carefully, looking at evidence and background information, being precise about information and witnesses' appearances, listening to different point of views, and being accurate helped free this boy, through The Rational Model of Leadership and ...