First,watch the film 12 Angry Men. The film is freely available online For this discussion you have a choice: 1) Please discuss the theme of good versus evil in Nathaniel Hawthorne's story "Young Good

This week, we will move from the real Witch Trials of 1692 to a fictional trial from 1957: the classic film 12 Angry Men. The script was written by Reginald Rose, who based the drama on his own experience as a juror. The play originally aired on television in 1954, but the script was met with such acclaim that it was later made into a major motion picture, directed by Sydney Lumet, which is the version you will be watching. Even though it received good reviews when it debuted, the film was a flop. (In 1957, while most movies were in color, 12 Angry Men was filmed in black and white, and on the surface, it doesn’t have too much action; all of the events take place in real time in a small jury deliberation room.) But 12 Angry Men is one of those films whose reputation grew and grew over the years, so that today it is appropriately regarded as an American classic, and is consistently placed on most “greatest films of all time” lists.

It is, indeed, a wonderfully acted, thought-provoking film that is still relevant even though it was made over 60 years ago. It forcefully raises the subjects of immigration, prejudice, racism, civic responsibility, and the American legal system in general, in particular the concept of “reasonable doubt.” It is only about an hour and a half in length, and even though the entire film is just dialogue, it moves very quickly.

The plot of 12 Angry Men details the conversation and arguments of a jury who are deciding a verdict in a capital murder case. The final decision the jury makes is not a trivial one, for if found guilty, the accused will go to the electric chair. As the specifics of the case are revealed at the beginning of the film, it seems to be an open-and-shut case; the evidence is overwhelming; the accused is clearly guilty. But one juror (played by Henry Fonda) has his doubts, and the bulk of the film details his attempts, using logic and compassion, to try and sway the opinions of the other jurors to a not-guilty verdict.

On the discussion board I am going to ask you a number of questions which, as usual, will be concerned with how the issues raised in the 1957 film relate to real legal/social issues of 2016. However, I am also going to ask you what you thought of the film as a work of art, and what you thought of the film as a realistic depiction of what a jury experience would really be like.

Re-watching this film for this class was an interesting experience for me. I had seen it years ago back when I was a teenager I think. I don’t remember much about that first viewing except that I enjoyed the movie. This time, however, while I still enjoyed 12 Angry Men, I found myself also troubled by it. It’s hard to put into words, but I feel as if the film takes advantage of the viewer. Henry Fonda, the best-looking juror who wears a symbolically white suit, is immediately sympathetic. The jurors who want to convict are portrayed as selfish, racist, overbearing bullies. Maybe it’s because the movie is “old fashioned,” but I think I would find the movie a little more powerful if the characterizations of the jurors had a bit more balance and depth. (Don’t get me wrong, however, I still think it’s a great movie.)

By the way, when you watch the 12 Angry Men, you may wonder why there are no women on the jury. Well, there are a couple of reasons for this. First, in the 1950’s, jury service was not yet mandatory for women. That is, a woman could decline jury service for any reason whatsoever. And, shockingly, as late as 1957 there were still some states that forbade women to serve on juries. Mississippi was the last holdout, and finally allowed women to serve on juries in 1968.