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 Kenneth R. Kupchak
“The Trial of all Crimes . . . shall be by jury . . .”
Article III, sec.2, Constitution of the United States of America
Perhaps, from the time that I saw 12 Angry Men on its first run in 1957, I was destined to become a lawyer. For the 53 years that I have been qualified to serve on a jury, I have cherished every opportunity to try and be a juror. Alas, although I have faithfully shown up when called, and answered every question without ever seeking to be excused, no lawyer has seen fit to empanel me. But if you have ever had the privileged of serving on a jury, just maybe this classic film will bring back memories of this important service to our way of life.
Who would make a movie about a dozen angry (and sweaty), impatient men doing their civic duty judging a teenager accused or murder? The action all takes place in the jury room. It’s a law movie without a lawyer. The murder has already occurred. Despite what might be seen as limitations, the film shines. It ranks #2 on the American Bar Association’s list of lawyers’ favorite legal movie (bested only by To Kill a Mockingbird). And it has appeal beyond our borders: In 2011, 12 Angry 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, juries were composed solely of white men, men of property. While our common law culture and practice have evolved so as to permit men without property and of color and, eventually, women to serve, certain aspects of the jury system remain constant. Chief among these is that each juror beings to the deliberations the cultural bias imprinted upon each of us as we grow toward adulthood and only grudgingly thereafter change. Twelve men, good and true, it seems, if this movie is any example, each view the world through their own cultural spectacles. Many tinted viewing glasses are on display in Sidney Lumet’s direction and Reginald Rose’s spare and nuanced script. 12 Angry Men captures the particular cultural language, spoken and unspoken, of each juror, which may color whether a life may be forfeit.
As each juror’s vote is required to convict or acquit, each of the twelve holds a life in his hands. Thus 12 Angry Men’s casting was critical. For those of us who have seen this film again and again over the years, it brings together one of the most marvelous ensembles ever to grace the screen. These twelve wonderful character actors populated our cinema universe for a half of a century. Henry Fonda, who co-produced the movie, may have been the 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 each were or became familiar faces to generations of moviegoers.Their interaction demonstrates why some have proclaimed that 12 Angry Men is “undoubtedly the movies’ most fervent defense of the jury system, and it is by far the best account of jury deliberations.” Reel Justice, Bergman & Asimow, 2006.
Rose’s script is filled with short dramatic quotes which capture succinctly each cultural or logical point key to the movie’s development. A few times, a single word accomplishes the dramatic point. For instance, watch for a grammatical correction or a simple “I have!” Or “Exactly!” as the whole meaning of the point in question is turned back on itself. Seldom more than one sentence is necessary, after ever-so-artful logic 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 license over steps the bounds of reality? While a number this movie’s details may be debated by legal scholars for generations to come, try not to let such debates rob you of 12 Angry Men’s unique insight into this bedrock of our common law based culture and legal system. If you are tempted to examine the trees, step back and observe whether this movie’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 ‘50s baseline and movies like it enhance our ability to better understand just how America 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 PMIntroduced by Bethany C.K. Ace, lawyer at Damon Key, and Professor Justin Levinson (U.H. Law School), Tuesday, Sept 17, 1:00 PMShowtimes:
Sunday Sep 15 04:00 PM
Tuesday Sep 17 01:00 PM
Thursday Sep 19 07:30 PM
