Okay, we promise this is the last of our reviews of movies that are part of our firm’s upcoming law film festival, “Let’s Film All the Lawyers,” which starts tomorrow and runs through Friday, September 20, 2013, at the Honolulu Museum of Arts’ Doris Duke Theatre.
And as for what 12 Angry Men has to do with this blog? Not a whole lot, since the Men are deliberating a murder case, not how much compensation a property owner may be entitled to. While we’re not sure we’d want or get twelve angry men adjudging us (many juries these days are less-than-twelve, we’d prefer them to be dispassionate not angry, and a jury comprised entirely of men will get you a reversal for gender discrimination), as Ken Kupchak‘s review of this classic legal film discusses, the jury remains an integral part of the justice system.
Update: here’s Professor Gideon Kanner’s thoughts on the film and the jury’s role in takings cases.
Read Ken’s review, and then we’ll get back to our regular programming.
——————————–
“12 Angry Men” – 1957 And Still Going Strong
by KennethR. Kupchak
“The Trial of all Crimes . . . shall be byjury . . .”
Article III,sec.2, Constitution of the United States of America
Perhaps,from the time that I saw 12 Angry Menon its first run in 1957, I was destined to become a lawyer. For the 53 yearsthat I have been qualified to serve on a jury, I have cherished everyopportunity to try and be a juror. Alas, although I havefaithfully shown up when called, and answered every question without everseeking to be excused, no lawyer has seen fit to empanel me. But if you haveever had the privileged of serving on a jury, just maybe this classic film willbring back memories of this important service to our way of life.
Who would make a movie about adozen angry (and sweaty), impatient men doing their civic duty judging ateenager accused or murder? The action all takes place in the jury room. It’s alaw movie without a lawyer. The murder has already occurred. Despite what mightbe seen as limitations, the film shines. It ranks #2 on the American BarAssociation’s list of lawyers’ favorite legal movie (bested only by To Kill a Mockingbird). And it hasappeal beyond our borders: In 2011, 12Angry Men was the second most-screened movie in U.K. secondary schools.
Juries are rooted in our“common” culture. At the time of the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, jurieswere composed solely of white men, men of property. While our common lawculture and practice have evolved so as to permit men without property and ofcolor and, eventually, women to serve, certain aspects of the jury systemremain constant. Chief among these is that each juror beings to thedeliberations the cultural bias imprinted upon each of us as we grow towardadulthood and only grudgingly thereafter change. Twelve men, good and true, itseems, if this movie is any example, each view the world through their owncultural spectacles. Many tinted viewing glasses are on display in SidneyLumet’s direction and Reginald Rose’s spare and nuanced script. 12 Angry Men captures the particularcultural language, spoken and unspoken, of each juror, which may color whethera life may be forfeit.
As each juror’s vote isrequired to convict or acquit, each of the twelve holds a life in his hands.Thus 12 Angry Men’s casting wascritical. For those of us who have seen this film again and again over theyears, it brings together one of the most marvelous ensembles ever to grace thescreen. These twelve wonderful character actors populated our cinema universefor a half of a century. Henry Fonda, who co-produced the movie, may have beenthe only one of them capable of carrying a movie, but Lee J. Cobb, E. G.Marshall, Martin Balsam, Jack Warden, John Fielder, Jack Klugman, Edward Binns,Joseph Sweeney, Ed Begley (the Senior), George Voskovec and Robert Webber eachwere or became familiar faces to generations of moviegoers.Their interactiondemonstrates why some have proclaimed that 12Angry Men is “undoubtedly the movies’ most fervent defense of the jurysystem, and it is by far the best account of jury deliberations.” Reel Justice,Bergman & Asimow, 2006.
Rose’s script is filled withshort dramatic quotes which capture succinctly each cultural or logical pointkey to the movie’s development. A few times, a single word accomplishes thedramatic point. For instance, watch for a grammatical correction or a simple “Ihave!” Or “Exactly!” as the whole meaning of the point in question is turnedback on itself. Seldom more than one sentence is necessary, after ever-so-artfullogic build up. There is not a stray or excess word or movement in the movie.Every scene deftly guides the film toward its dramatic climax.
Dramatic?No question. But are there instances where Lumet’s exercise of literary licenseover steps the bounds of reality? While a number this movie’s details may bedebated by legal scholars for generations to come, try not to let such debatesrob you of 12 Angry Men’s uniqueinsight into this bedrock of our common law based culture and legal system. Ifyou are tempted to examine the trees, step back and observe whether thismovie’s forest also significantly captures a part of our America in the 1950s.I believe that it does, in and outside of the legal system. And did this ‘50sbaseline and movies like it enhance our ability to better understand just howAmerica has evolved and continues to do so?
Introduced by Kenneth R. Kupchak, partner at Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert, Thursday, Sept 19, at 7:30 PM
Introduced by Bethany C.K. Ace, lawyer at Damon Key, and Professor Justin Levinson (U.H. Law School), Tuesday, Sept 17, 1:00 PM
Showtimes:
Sunday Sep 15 04:00 PM
Tuesday Sep 17 01:00 PM
Thursday Sep 19 07:30 PM
Purchase tickets for all shows here.