All Good Things… The Value Of A Life. · 1:06am Jun 18th, 2020
#Blog #Bloggerstribe #AllGoodThings…
17th June 2020
Hello, Chaps and Chapettes,
Have you ever seen Twelve Angry Men? If you haven’t, I cannot recommend it enough. It is a story that has regenerated several times, from a television show written by Reginald Rose to the stage, and twice as a movie (a 1957 film starring Henry Fonda and a remake in 1997). This story is as poignant today as it was sixty-plus years ago, not just for the black lives matter movement but for many impacts on justice happening today and how we respond to them.
(Photo: https://sillyfunda.wordpress.com/2014/04/13/review-synopsis-12-angry-men-1957/)
The story revolves around twelve jurors who have just witnessed a court case about a 19-year-old who has been accused of the murder of his father. They must all unanimously decide whether he was guilty or innocent of the crime and if convicted they will be sending him to the chair. It’s taking place during the hottest day on record and most of the men want to get the case over with so that they can go enjoy the rest of their evenings. Yet, during the first vote, only one man holds his hand up to say that he believes they don’t have enough evidence to say the boy is guilty. Thus, they all have to stay and talk until they can all agree on the verdict.
Rather than talk to you about why I think it’s a great film to rewatch or play to perform today, I’ll share with you twelve lines that I believe can offer a different outlook on your world. This isn’t an essay or a lesson, just an idea of how you might see a point of view or understand the way another person might think or feel.
“If there is a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused . . . then you must declare him not guilty.” Said by the Judge in the opening line.
‘Reasonable doubt’ becomes the theme and reason why the story exists. If the twelve jurors had gone into the room and not one had a doubt, then the story would have ended an hour and twenty sooner than it does. It is due to Juror 8, who first votes not guilty against the rest of his peers, that the debate continues and the group are forced to discuss the reasons the accused is or isn’t guilty. It’s like the quote from the first Harry Potter book; “it takes a great deal of courage to stand up to your peers, and a great deal more to stand up to your friends.”
Additionally, it is important to add that while none of the characters are named, all have their own personalities. There’s an older man with the experience of his years, a younger man who grew up in a similar neighborhood to the accused, an immigrant from another country, and a man who is estranged from his son. All of these characters show how different people view the guilt of someone they had never met.
“It's not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.” Juror 8 after the first vote. Juror 8 never suggests the boy is not guilty. He admits he was not a witness to the murder, so he could not give a definite answer. What he does advise is that he took all of the evidence and statements were given and that gave him cause to doubt the boy’s guilt. We never know if we are seeing the full story. The social media, politicians, even the news can still be biased, no matter what channel or reporter is delivering it. They may claim not to be, yet there will often be a nudge one way or the other. You have to check your own instincts and question them to make sure you are still on the right page.
(Photo: https://www.cohenfitch.com/areas-of-practice/wrongful-conviction/)
“You know why slum kids get that way? Because we knock 'em on the head once a day, every
day. I think maybe we owe him a few words. That's all.” Juror 8 again. How many times have you heard somebody say they knew what race or age or gender a criminal would be when they hear about a crime? We always suppose that we already know everything about the villains in our lives based on where they came from and who raised them. It’s not to say they are not guilty of the crime but few people outside of courts ask what drove that person to commit such an act on a fellow human being. Would things change if we gave people a greater amount of our time?
“Too many questions were left unasked.” Juror 8, regarding the accused’s court-appointed defense council. Similar to the above quote, so many slams down fists on the tables and yell guilty the moment they read a headline. I know I’ve done it myself too. We take the first thing we hear and react to it. We don’t question because we trust that what we are being told are the truth and the full story. Is it?
“This gentleman chose to stand alone against us. That's his right. It takes a great deal of courage to stand alone even if you believe in something very strongly. He left the verdict up to us. He gambled for support, and I gave it to him. I want to hear more.” Juror 9, the older gentleman who admits voting not guilty in a second secret ballot vote. Most believe Juror 5, the youngest Juror, is the one who changed his mind in the second vote, and nobody expects it to be the older Juror. Yet, when they find out, they angrily challenge why. His answer shows what most feel but few, such as Juror 5, are too nervous to attempt. The pack mentality is a thing and when we see a group going one way, it is easy and safe to follow the pack. We are less accountable when we are more than one person, it is built into our instincts. This is why, every now and again, we should check whether our instincts are correct.
“Nobody knows him after seventy-five years. That's a very sad thing. A man like this needs to be recognized. To be questioned, and listened to, and quoted just once. This is very important.” Juror 9 again, after discussing why an elder witness may have given false testimony. The oldest jury member notices something in the oldest witness that the younger members do not because he shares age and experience with them. The ninth Juror tells his peers that he does not expect the oldest witness thought he was lying in court, but relished the attention they so rarely got and thus forgot or imagined some of the facts in order to remain relevant to the case. How often is experience valued? How often do we dismiss someone because they said something too slowly, or quietly, or without confidence?
(Photo: https://thecinephiliacs.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/12-angry-men-1997-review-remake/)
“Let me go. I'll kill him. I’ll kill him!” Juror 3, after being called a sadist for wanting the guilty verdict by Juror 8. Before this, Juror 3 and those still upholding the guilty verdict point out that the boy was heard by the older witness telling his father that he’d kill him. Juror 8 seemed to deliberately rile Juror 3 up, since he asks after this if Juror 3 really would try to kill him, causing him to give a blustering admission that he did not mean it. How many times do we say the cruelest things, not thinking what it might mean to somebody else? Equally, how often do we hear things and assume it is meant as gospel truth?
“Maybe it wouldn't hurt us to take a few tips from people who come running here! Maybe they learned something we don't know. We're not so perfect!” Juror 5, said to Juror 7 who called Juror 11 out on not being from the same country as the rest of the Jurors. Juror 11 is the immigrant, seemingly from a country they had to escape from due to war. Juror 5’s point, as the viewpoint of a younger generation still willing to listen and learn, is that it is easy to believe you know everything when you’ve lived in one place for long enough. When you’ve been the same skin color, the same gender, or in the same mentality your whole life, you cannot easily see it from the viewpoint of others. It’s not their fault but they must try to understand from the shoes of somebody else. If they do not try, then they can equally be to blame for the failure of society around them.
“Switch knives came with the neighborhood where I lived. Funny I didn't think of it before. I guess you try to forget those things.” Juror 5, when challenging how the knife could have been used. The knife could be seen as a McGuffin in the story as it is first shown how there could easily be a similar knife acquired by Juror 8, despite the prosecution claiming there could only have been one knife of the kind used in the murder. The second part is this, where it is pointed out that the way the deceased was stabbed from above the rib cage did not match how a switchblade would be used, in an underarm attack instead. Yet this line also shows the terrible things that can become so common an occurrence for many that it can be passed off as a formality. Should such things really be considered normal?
“What kind of a man are you? You have sat here and voted guilty with everyone else because there are some theater tickets burning a hole in your pocket. Now you have changed your vote for the same reason. I do not think you have the right to play like this with a man's life.” Juror 11, to Juror 7 after he changes his vote just to speed things along. Going back to the pack mentality, many can change their minds to suit their survival. When Juror 7 sees a way to resolve the situation faster, they change their vote to suit themselves, not the cause. Juror 11 explains that while Juror 7 might be doing the right thing, they’re doing it for the wrong reason. Another quote, from Alexander Hamilton, also heard in the fim Sucker Punch and cartoon Rugrats of all places, is “if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.”
(Photo: https://www.romper.com/p/13-reasons-rugrats-was-the-most-feminist-socially-conscious-cartoon-ever-1665)
Nearly there… “I've known a few who were pretty decent, but that's the exception. Most of them; it's like they have no feelings. They can do anything. What's going on here?” Juror 10, suggesting that race made the boy do what he is accused of. The story makes no point of telling us who the boy accused is, other than that they are 19 years old and that the victim was their father. However, Juror 10's comments suggest that the boy is not of the same race as the Jurors. Steadily through the story, Juror 10 makes many comments about the boy, referring to ‘their kind’ rather than the race, yet the reaction of the other Jurors when he finally does have a long rant about the boy’s origins is to shun Juror 10. Finally, they call him down and sit him in a corner away from them. This act alone shows that discrimination, even when not delivered face to face, is still as problematic. Reinforcing a dislike for color, creed, or religion of a person even when they’re not in the same room is still breeding antagonism and bad feelings that are carried into the times they are in the room with you. Is it really okay to say something bad about someone, just because they’re not there?
And, lastly, “It takes a great deal of courage to stand alone.” Juror 9 to Juror 3. It comes full circle. Where Juror 8 was the only one at the start to stand by not guilty, Juror 3 now tries to stand by a guilty vote alone. Yet, it is realized that Juror 3’s motives are based on the comparisons he makes to his relationship with his estranged son. When he is gently told that the accused is not the same boy as his son, he is the last Juror to accept a vote for not guilty.
In conclusion, I love this film. It may have overtaken Hitch, 21 Again, and Star Trek - Into Darkness as my top favorite films of all time. It has so many levels and interesting twists and points to make yet does so without making the audience feel silly or bamboozled. If you have the time, I fully recommend watching it. I know I will definitely be watching it again.
Stay safe, stay happy.
All good things,
Love, Scaramouche.
X
It is, in my opinion, one of the best films ever made. It shows so much about the way perspective, prejudice, ego and humanity shape not only our decisions but our way of thinking and looking at each other and ourselves.
Nicely done, Scara. I hope your thoughts here give those reading them pause and make them think.
5287397
Thanks, Olden, I absolutely love the film and I don't think it will be the last time I come back to the film for inspiration or encouragement. It's got such strong messages that are not in the least bit biased. I believe it deserves more acknowledgment than it gets.
Glad you enjoy it too. All good things,
Love, Scara x