Follow TV Tropes

Following

History Film / TwelveAngryMen

Go To

OR

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Sentence fragment.


** It should be noted that even though acquittal was the right decision.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** It should be noted that even though acquittal was the right decision, the way they got to it was partly wrong; for a juror to conduct his own investigations the way #8 did should have resulted in an immediate mistrial. However, since the knife was only one aspect of the reasonable doubt, and the other points were arrived at properly, the verdict was still correct.

to:

** It should be noted that even though acquittal was the right decision, the way they got to it was partly wrong; for a juror to conduct his own investigations the way #8 did should have resulted in an immediate mistrial. However, since the knife was only one aspect of the reasonable doubt, and the other points were arrived at properly, the verdict was still correct.decision.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* RetroactiveRecognition: Juror #5 will be instantly familiar to anyone who's seen an episode of {{Quincy}}. Jack Klugman even gets to do a Quincy-style deduction years before the series was conceived, by pointing out the inconsistent nature of the knife wound.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* GretzkyHasTheBall: "This kid is 5 for 0."
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* {{Minimalism}}: Apart from a very short prologue and epilogue, the entire play/film takes place in the jury room.

to:

* {{Minimalism}}: Apart from a very short prologue and epilogue, the entire play/film takes place in the jury room.room (and an adjacent bathroom).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** It should be noted that even though acquittal was the right decision, the way they got to it was partly wrong; for a juror to conduct his own investigations the way #8 did should have resulted in an immediate mistrial. However, since the knife was only one aspect of the reasonable doubt, and the other points were arrived at properly, the verdict was still correct.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


[[caption-width-right:350:If the boy only knew what he was about to unleash...]]

to:

[[caption-width-right:350:If the boy only knew what headaches he was about to unleash...cause...]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** And the guard.

to:

** And the guard.guard, briefly.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** And the guard.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


[[caption-width-right:350:...nine...ten...eleven... Yep, they're all there.]]

to:

[[caption-width-right:350:...nine...ten...eleven... Yep, they're all there.[[caption-width-right:350:If the boy only knew what he was about to unleash...]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* ArtisticLicenseLaw: Being convicted of first-degree murder does ''not'' result in an automatic death sentence. (This isn't SocietyMarchesOn, though the length and likely outcome of the appeals process ''after'' a death sentence might indeed be very different today). Also, see HollywoodLaw below. The entire case, in real life, would have ended in a mistrial the moment it came to light that #8 had bought the exact same type of knife as used int he murder.

to:

* ArtisticLicenseLaw: Being convicted of first-degree murder does ''not'' result in an automatic death sentence. (This isn't SocietyMarchesOn, though the length and likely outcome of the appeals process ''after'' a death sentence might indeed be very different today). Also, see HollywoodLaw below. The entire case, in real life, would have ended in a mistrial the moment it came to light that #8 had bought the exact same type of knife as used int he in the murder.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** And if the kid is innocent, the real killer is still at large and unsuspected.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* BerserkButton: Minor example with #6, who twice threatens violence (once explicitly, once by implication) over people showing disrespect to others.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* ArtisticLicenseLaw: Being convicted of first-degree murder does ''not'' result in an automatic death sentence. (This isn't SocietyMarchesOn, though the length and likely outcome of the appeals process ''after'' a death sentence might indeed be very different today)

to:

* ArtisticLicenseLaw: Being convicted of first-degree murder does ''not'' result in an automatic death sentence. (This isn't SocietyMarchesOn, though the length and likely outcome of the appeals process ''after'' a death sentence might indeed be very different today)today). Also, see HollywoodLaw below. The entire case, in real life, would have ended in a mistrial the moment it came to light that #8 had bought the exact same type of knife as used int he murder.

Added: 166

Removed: 161

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:


* MinimalistCast: At the beginning, other people (such as the defendant and the judge) are briefly shown, but for the rest of the film, we only see the twelve jurors.



* OmegaCast: At the beginning, other people (such as the defendant and the judge) are briefly shown, but for the rest of the film, we only see the twelve jurors.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* EmpathicEnvironment: The thunderstorm.

to:

* EmpathicEnvironment: The thunderstorm.rainstorm.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* OmegaCast: At the beginning, other people (such as the defendant and the judge) are briefly shown, but for the rest of the film, we only see the twelve jurors.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* TheJudge: Shown issuing instructions to the jury in the opening scene. Many stage productions (and the 1997 TV version) cast a woman in the role as a way of bringing at least some token gender diversity to the play without contradicting [[ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin the limitations imposed by its title]].

to:

* TheJudge: Shown issuing instructions to the jury in the opening scene. Many stage productions (and the 1997 TV version) cast a woman in the role as a way of bringing at least some token gender diversity to the play without contradicting [[ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin the limitations imposed by literal meaning of its title]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* [[LockedInARoom Locked In A (Jury) Room]]

to:

* [[LockedInARoom Locked In A in a (Jury) Room]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* AssholeVictim: The murder victim was an abusive father

to:

* AssholeVictim: The murder victim was an abusive fatherfather.



** To a lesser extent, the fan. It finally starts up when the votes start to swing in favor of Acquittal.

to:

** To a lesser extent, the fan. It finally starts up when the votes start to swing in favor of Acquittal.acquittal.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


''Twelve Angry Men'' is a 1954 teleplay by Reginald Rose (and perhaps more famously, a 1957 film directed by SidneyLumet and starring HenryFonda and a veritable AllStarCast of character actors) that concerns a supposedly straightforward murder trial. An eyewitness, forensic evidence, and the accused himself all seem to clearly point to an adolescent boy murdering his father. While most of the jurors want to pack it in and call it a day, one stands up and refuses to admit to the boy's guilt- at least until they take a fine toothed comb through every shred of the evidence and make darn sure that they've got the right guy.

to:

''Twelve Angry Men'' is a 1954 teleplay by Reginald Rose (and perhaps more famously, a 1957 film directed by SidneyLumet and starring HenryFonda Henry Fonda and a veritable AllStarCast of character actors) that concerns a supposedly straightforward murder trial. An eyewitness, forensic evidence, and the accused himself all seem to clearly point to an adolescent boy murdering his father. While most of the jurors want to pack it in and call it a day, one stands up and refuses to admit to the boy's guilt- at least until they take a fine toothed comb through every shred of the evidence and make darn sure that they've got the right guy.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


*** Juror #3 has a smaller one, but in his case he [[HeelRealization breaks down all by himself]] afterwards

to:

*** Juror #3 has a smaller one, but in his case he [[HeelRealization breaks down all by himself]] afterwardsafterwards.



** To a lesser extent, the fan. It starts up finally when the votes start to swing in favor of Acquittal.
* EvenEvilHasStandards: Juror #3 may be vicious and want to see the defendant hang, but even he is unwilling to listen to #10's bigoted tirades

to:

** To a lesser extent, the fan. It finally starts up finally when the votes start to swing in favor of Acquittal.
* EvenEvilHasStandards: Juror #3 may be vicious and want to see the defendant hang, but even he is unwilling to listen to #10's bigoted tiradestirades.

Changed: 8

Removed: 10

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* VerbalTic: Juror #10 seems to have one of these, you know what I mean?
** *sniff*

to:

* VerbalTic: Juror #10 seems to have one of these, you know what I mean?
**
mean? *sniff*
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* ImplacableMan: Juror #4 is a purely intellectual version, a highly intelligent man who looks at the case with pure logic to defend his guilty vote rather than the more passionate and personal views of the others. He's also the only one who doesn't take his jacket off or loosen his tie in the hot room, claiming to never sweat. Subverted when he starts sweating when questioned about a movie he saw a week earlier.

to:

* ImplacableMan: Juror #4 is a purely intellectual version, a highly intelligent man who looks at the case with pure logic to defend his guilty vote rather than the more passionate and personal views of the others. He's also the only one who doesn't take his jacket off or loosen his tie in the hot room, claiming to never sweat. Subverted when he starts sweating when questioned about a movie he saw a week four days earlier.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** To a lesser extent, the fan. It starts up finally when the votes start to swing in favor of Acquittal.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* ArtisticLicenseLaw: Being convicted of first-degree murder does ''not'' result in an automatic death sentence.

to:

* ArtisticLicenseLaw: Being convicted of first-degree murder does ''not'' result in an automatic death sentence. (This isn't SocietyMarchesOn, though the length and likely outcome of the appeals process ''after'' a death sentence might indeed be very different today)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


''Twelve Angry Men'' is a 1954 teleplay by Reginald Rose (and perhaps more famously, a 1957 film directed by Sidney Lumet and starring HenryFonda and a veritable AllStarCast of character actors) that concerns a supposedly straightforward murder trial. An eyewitness, forensic evidence, and the accused himself all seem to clearly point to an adolescent boy murdering his father. While most of the jurors want to pack it in and call it a day, one stands up and refuses to admit to the boy's guilt- at least until they take a fine toothed comb through every shred of the evidence and make darn sure that they've got the right guy.

to:

''Twelve Angry Men'' is a 1954 teleplay by Reginald Rose (and perhaps more famously, a 1957 film directed by Sidney Lumet SidneyLumet and starring HenryFonda and a veritable AllStarCast of character actors) that concerns a supposedly straightforward murder trial. An eyewitness, forensic evidence, and the accused himself all seem to clearly point to an adolescent boy murdering his father. While most of the jurors want to pack it in and call it a day, one stands up and refuses to admit to the boy's guilt- at least until they take a fine toothed comb through every shred of the evidence and make darn sure that they've got the right guy.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* ArtisticLicenseLaw: Being convicted of first-degree murder does ''not'' result in an automatic death sentence.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


''Twelve Angry Men'' is a 1954 teleplay by Reginald Rose (and perhaps more famously, a 1957 film directed by Sidney Lumet and starring Henry Fonda and a veritable AllStarCast of character actors) that concerns a supposedly straightforward murder trial. An eyewitness, forensic evidence, and the accused himself all seem to clearly point to an adolescent boy murdering his father. While most of the jurors want to pack it in and call it a day, one stands up and refuses to admit to the boy's guilt- at least until they take a fine toothed comb through every shred of the evidence and make darn sure that they've got the right guy.

to:

''Twelve Angry Men'' is a 1954 teleplay by Reginald Rose (and perhaps more famously, a 1957 film directed by Sidney Lumet and starring Henry Fonda HenryFonda and a veritable AllStarCast of character actors) that concerns a supposedly straightforward murder trial. An eyewitness, forensic evidence, and the accused himself all seem to clearly point to an adolescent boy murdering his father. While most of the jurors want to pack it in and call it a day, one stands up and refuses to admit to the boy's guilt- at least until they take a fine toothed comb through every shred of the evidence and make darn sure that they've got the right guy.

Added: 9280

Changed: 80

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


[[redirect:TwelveAngryMen]]

to:

[[redirect:TwelveAngryMen]][[quoteright:350:http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/12_angry_men_1301.jpg]]
[[caption-width-right:350:...nine...ten...eleven... Yep, they're all there.]]

''Twelve Angry Men'' is a 1954 teleplay by Reginald Rose (and perhaps more famously, a 1957 film directed by Sidney Lumet and starring Henry Fonda and a veritable AllStarCast of character actors) that concerns a supposedly straightforward murder trial. An eyewitness, forensic evidence, and the accused himself all seem to clearly point to an adolescent boy murdering his father. While most of the jurors want to pack it in and call it a day, one stands up and refuses to admit to the boy's guilt- at least until they take a fine toothed comb through every shred of the evidence and make darn sure that they've got the right guy.

This work is best known as the film that [[TropeCodifier popularized]] the RogueJuror trope. Though it was not the first work to use it, it was the first to receive widespread critical acclaim. It's a classic of American cinema and recommended watching- if only because most of the other works on the Rogue Juror page reference it either directly or indirectly.

According to the American Film Institute, it's the second best courtroom drama movie in history, after ''ToKillAMockingbird'''s film adaptation. In 1997 it was adapted yet again, this time as a MadeForTV movie on {{Showtime}} starring Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott (the main difference in this version being the [[ClusterFBomb level of cussing]]). There is also a 2007 Russian Adaptation by NikitaMikhalkov called simply ''12''.

----
!Tropes used include:

* ActorAllusion: Juror #3 mocks #12 by calling him "the boy in the gray flannel suit". Lee J. Cobb, the actor playing #3, was in the 1956 film version of ''The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit'', as was Joseph Sweeney, the actor playing Juror #9.
* AssholeVictim: The murder victim was an abusive father
* CharacterFilibuster: Juror #10 has a particularly nasty, racism-filled rant against "the likes of him [the accused]" [[CrowningMomentOfAwesome that causes the other jurors to turn away from him one by one, until #4 shuts him up]]:
-->'''Juror #10:''' Listen to me!
-->'''Juror #4:''' I have. Now sit down and don't open your mouth again.
** The real kicker of the line is that #10 does exactly that - he doesn't say a word for the rest of the movie. When #8 asks him if he still thinks the boy is guilty, he simply shakes his head quietly.
*** Juror #3 has a smaller one, but in his case he [[HeelRealization breaks down all by himself]] afterwards
* CoolOldGuy: Juror #9, the first to support #8.
* DeadpanSnarker: Juror #4.
* EmpathicEnvironment: The thunderstorm.
* EvenEvilHasStandards: Juror #3 may be vicious and want to see the defendant hang, but even he is unwilling to listen to #10's bigoted tirades
* ExtremelyShortTimespan
* FreudianExcuse: Inverted for Juror #3 - he spends the movie continuously trying to convict a young man where there is more and more reasonable doubt for his guilt...because his relationship with his son appeared to have went very sour. [[HeelRealization He realizes this at the end, though, and does not continue his stance.]]
* FultonStreetFolly: The film is set in a New York City courtroom, and the opening and closing scenes were shot on location at the New York State Supreme Court Building in Lower Manhattan.
* GreyAndGrayMorality. Though the pro-acquittal side is painted ALighterShadeOfGrey.
* GuileHero: Juror #8.
* HeatWave
* HeelFaceRevolvingDoor: Sort of; Juror #12 is the only one who ever changes his vote back to guilty. Juror #7 compares him to a tennis ball.
* HeelRealization: When, in the middle of his furious insistence that the defendant is guilty, [[spoiler:Juror #3 sees the picture of his estranged son and rips it to pieces]], you can see in his face that he has just figured out what he was really doing.
* HollywoodLaw: While the Jurors do make the correct decision on reasonable doubt, the way they reach that position (by #8 wandering around the defendant's neighborhood conducting his own investigation) is major juror misconduct.
* HypocriticalHumor:
-->'''Juror #10:''' He's a common, ignorant slob. He don't even speak good English.
-->'''Juror #11:''' ''Doesn't'' even speak good English.
** To make it even funnier, Juror #11 is an immigrant to America from Europe.
* [[{{ILLKILLYOU}} I'LL KILL YOU!]]
** [[CrowningMomentOfAwesome "You don't really mean you'll kill me, do you?"]]
* ImplacableMan: Juror #4 is a purely intellectual version, a highly intelligent man who looks at the case with pure logic to defend his guilty vote rather than the more passionate and personal views of the others. He's also the only one who doesn't take his jacket off or loosen his tie in the hot room, claiming to never sweat. Subverted when he starts sweating when questioned about a movie he saw a week earlier.
* IneffectualDeathThreats
* {{Jerkass}}: Juror #7. He didn't care what the decision of the jury was, he only wanted to end early so he could go watch a game. At least the most vicious jurors voted guilty because they believed so.
* TheJudge: Shown issuing instructions to the jury in the opening scene. Many stage productions (and the 1997 TV version) cast a woman in the role as a way of bringing at least some token gender diversity to the play without contradicting [[ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin the limitations imposed by its title]].
* KarmaHoudini: If the kid is guilty, then he gets away with killing his father.
* TheLancer: Juror #9 acts as this, to some extent, to Juror #8.
* LampshadeHanging: "You know, it's interesting he'd find a knife exactly like the one the boy bought!"
* [[LockedInARoom Locked In A (Jury) Room]]
* ManInWhite: Juror #8
* {{Minimalism}}: Apart from a very short prologue and epilogue, the entire play/film takes place in the jury room.
* MonochromeCasting: Perhaps unsurprisingly for a film made in TheFifties, the jury is all-white (although one is an immigrant with a noticeable accent).
** The 1997 update features one Latino juror and three African-Americans. In a twist, one of the latter is a MalcolmXerox version of the bigoted Juror #10.
* NiceHat: Juror #7 dons a straw fedora throughout the film.
* NoNameGiven[=/=]TheTropeWithoutATitle[=/=]YouAreNumberSix[=/=]EveryoneCallsHimBarkeep: The jurors are known only by their numbers. The epilogue (in the film only, not in the play) [[SubvertedTrope gives last names for two of them]] (Davis for #8, and [=McCardle=] for #9).
* OhCrap: Juror #3's face when he realizes that he's just contradicted his own argument subtly, but wonderfully, evokes this sentiment.
* PerfectHealth: Averted with Juror #10, who has a cold and keeps coughing and sneezing throughout.
* RealisticDictionIsUnrealistic: While there are plenty of impassioned speeches, the trope is less severe than most examples since the characters often stutter or pause at key points.
* RealTime: Fully in the play; broken briefly at the beginning and end of the film.
* ReverseGrip: An important plot point is how unlikely it is for any experienced knife fighter to use a switchblade this way.
* RogueJuror: If not the TropeMaker, definitely the TropeCodifier.
** Unlike many examples, however, the RogueJuror in this case isn't convinced of the defendant's guilt or innocence, at least initially; he simply wants the other jurors to take things seriously and not simply vote guilty -- thus sending a potentially innocent kid to the death chamber -- without making every effort to make sure he ''is'' guilty first.
* SecondhandStorytelling
* TheSpock: Juror #4 (the stockbroker with wire rim glasses).
* TitleByNumber
* ValuesDissonance: At the time this was written in the '50s, women weren't allowed on juries in some parts of the country. These days, the script is often produced as ''Twelve Angry Jurors'' with a more diverse cast. [[invoked]]
* VerbalTic: Juror #10 seems to have one of these, you know what I mean?
** *sniff*
* VideoCredits: Necessary, since none of the characters are named.
* VillainousBreakdown: When Juror #10 delivers his famous rant. "Listen... listen to me...."
** And Juror #3 shortly afterward. Made somewhat more poignant by the reactions of the other jurors; where they reacted to #10's breakdown with silent anger, they watch #3's meltdown with something closer to pity, as most of them realise why he is really pushing for a guilty verdict even as he denies the true reason, not just to the other jurors but to himself.
* WhamLine: #8 has a wham ''action'' when he pulls out a switchblade identical to the murder weapon, but the best has to go to #9 when he points out the female witness had glasses marks on her nose, which renders her testimony useless (meaning she wasn't wearing her glasses at the time she saw the stabbing, meaning she wouldn't have been able to see the murderer correctly).
* WhatHappenedToTheMouse: It's never clear if the kid really did it, but that isn't the point. And many modern lawyers say that the jury made the correct decision as far as reasonable doubt goes.
* YouWouldntShootMe: Juror #3 is asked to reenact the stabbing process on Juror #8. Given the tension between the two men, and #3's almost maniacal bloodthirstiness, there's a definite tension as to how "real" #3 will make the reenactment. [[LampshadeHanging Lampshaded]] by the alarmed reactions of most of the other ten jurors as he draws back the knife.
----

Top