History Film / TwelveAngryMen

[[quoteright:350:https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/12_angry_men_1301.jpg]]
[[caption-width-right:350: The defendant's fate rests in their hands.]]

* ChromosomeCasting: All of the jurors are male. It's right in the title. However, theatrical adaptations [[GenderFlip sometimes avert this]].

* AggressiveCategorism: Juror #10 is one of the last holdouts for a guilty verdict. As time goes on it becomes clearer and clearer that he doesn't care about the evidence; the kid is guilty because "there's not a one of them that's any good" (referring to the ethnic background defendant).
* AmbiguouslyBrown: The defendant seems to have a slightly darker skin color than the rest of the cast, and is referred to as being part of an unnamed ethnicity that lives in a New York slum. The actor, John Savoca, is of southern Italian descent (his surname is a toponym that ties his family origin to [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savoca Savoca]], Sicily).

* FreudianExcuse: 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 gone very sour. It's a classic case of PsychologicalProjection. [[HeelRealization He realizes this at the end, though, and does not continue his stance.]]

In 1997, it was [[Film/TwelveAngryMen1997 adapted yet again]], this time as a MadeForTV movie on Creator/{{Showtime}}, starring Creator/JackLemmon as Juror #8 and Creator/GeorgeCScott as the main antagonist, Juror #3. This adaptation {{race lift}}ed several jurors, {{gender flip}}ped the judge, and [[ClusterFBomb added more cussing]]. In 2007, a Russian version titled simply ''Film/{{Twelve}}'' was released.

* AggressiveCategorism: Juror #10 is one of the last holdouts for a guilty verdict. As time goes on it becomes clearer and clearer that he doesn't care about the evidence; the kid is guilty because "there's not a one of them that's any good" (referring to the Latino defendant).

* TheOner: Two—one towards the beginning, in which each of the jurors establishes himself as the camera pans around the room and focuses briefly on several different conversations; and one when Juror #8 goes to wash his hands and other characters duck into the bathroom to chat with him.

** Juror #8 states that he went walking in the defendant's neighborhood, and found a copy of the supposedly unique switchblade knife in a local store. He presents it to the jury to prove his point. In a real jury proceding, the term for this is "juror misconduct." Jurors are not permitted to perform their own investigations, or admit their own evidence (the second knife), and they're ''really'' not supposed to consider evidence not presented in court. If it were to come out that #8 did all this, it's possible (though unlikely, given the double jeopardy prohibition) the verdict could be set aside, and #8 could be charged for his actions. There is at least an acknowledgement that #8 broke the law by buying the knife, but nobody brings up that searching for a knife is misconduct. Of course, none of the jurors are lawyers, so it's possible that they didn't recognize the acts as such.

* ReverseGrip: Used as a point of contention between the jury. Allegedly the accused stabbed downwards into the victim using the reverse grip. However, Juror #5, who is from the slums, points out that nobody who has experience in knife fights would ever use that grip with a switchblade, as it would be suicide to pause for a second to change to it in a fight.

* SilenceYouFool: In 1957 film, Juror #3 impolitely orders Juror #2 to be quiet, when he interrupts him:

In 1997, it was [[Film/TwelveAngryMen1997 adapted yet again]], this time as a MadeForTV movie on Creator/{{Showtime}}, starring Creator/JackLemmon as Juror #8 and Creator/GeorgeCScott as the main antagonist, Juror #3. This adaptation {{race lift}}ed several jurors, {{gender flip}}ped the judge, and [[ClusterFBomb added more cussing]]. In 2007, a Russian version titled simply ''[[Film/{{Twelve}} 12]]'' was released.

In 1997, it was [[Film/TwelveAngryMen1997 adapted yet again]], this time as a MadeForTV movie on Creator/{{Showtime}}, starring Creator/JackLemmon as Juror #8 and Creator/GeorgeCScott as the main antagonist, Juror #3. This adaptation {{race lift}}ed several jurors, [[GenderFlip gender flipped]] the judge, and [[ClusterFBomb added more cussing]]. In 2007, a Russian version titled simply ''[[Film/{{Twelve}} 12]]'' was released.

** #7 is a less subtle version, whose hostile wisecracks contribute little to the proceedings except an added sense of tension in the room.

** Vaguely [[ImpliedTrope implied]] for Juror #10. When he rants at length about how "they" (the unspecified ethnic group the defendant belongs to) are by nature nothing but a bunch of hotheaded liars and killers, the way all eleven of the other jurors respond with silent open contempt for his views, followed by #4's [[ShutUpHannibal command to sit down and not say another word]] causes him to go practically catatonic. He spends the remainder of the deliberation silently [[ThousandYardStare staring at nothing]], and after #4 changes his vote to not guilty, #10 soon follows. It is left ambiguous, if this means he was actually rethinking his views, or if he just felt defeated. The original telepay and the Showtime version aren't as ambiguous; when the final vote is taken, #10 flat out says he believes the defendant is guilty, he's just voting "not guilty" cause he's done butting heads with the others.

** In addition to considering evidence not introduced in court, the jurors outright disregard many of the witness testimonies that ''were'' introduced in court, for reasons that the prosecutor and defense attorney never actually brought up as possible issues (like the fact that one of the witnesses may or may not have been nearsighted). In RealLife, only a judge has the final say on whether or not statements in court can be considered credible, and jurors aren't supposed to disregard witness testimonies unless a judge ''instructs'' them to disregard them. [[TruthInTelevision That said, this doesn't always stop it from happening since once someone has witnessed something it can't just be erased from their mind. This is why both prosecution and defense have to be careful not to cause situation or statements that could influence the minds of the jury to give their side a disadvantage]].

* IneffectualDeathThreats: {{Invoked}}. Juror #3 fixates on the evidence that a neighbor heard the defendant yell "I'll kill you!" during a fight, and when its pointed out that people say that sort of thing all the time and don't mean it, Juror #3 says, "Oh no... if you say that, you mean it." Juror #8 baits him with insults until Juror #3 attacks him and must be held back by the others.

-->'''Juror #8''': You don't ''really'' mean, you'll '''kill''' me, do you?

'''Juror #10:''' Sure they lock the door. What'd you think?\\

* NotablyQuickDeliberation: If not for Juror #8, the jurors would have declared the kid guilty in about five minutes, tops.

* RhetoricalRequestBlunder: A plot point: The defendant was overheard yelling "I'll Kill You!!" to the victim, who later ended up stabbed to death. Rogue Juror #8 points out that this doesn't necessarily prove the defendant was the murderer, as anyone might say something like that in a fit of anger. To prove the point, Juror 3 later becomes so angry at 8 that ''he'' yells "I'll kill you!", to which 8 retorts, "You don’t really mean you’ll kill me, do you?"

* SlidingScaleOfGenderInequality: The only characters are the members of an all-male jury. Some modern versions try to correct this by making the judge a woman. Others simply opt to retitle the play "Twelve Angry Jurors" just so that some of the jury can be women.

* ThunderEqualsDownpour: One clap of thunder, cue rainstorm.

* UnwantedAssistance: Near the conclusion, when jurors #3 and #4 are the last ones still arguing for conviction, #4 is clearly annoyed at having his rational arguments undermined by #3's not-so-rational cheering from over his shoulder.

** Juror #3 is asked to re-enact 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 re-enactment. [[LampshadeHanging Lampshaded]] by the alarmed reactions of most of the other ten jurors as he draws back the knife.

* ChromosomeCasting: All of the jurors are male. It's right in the title. Theatrical adaptations, however, [[GenderFlip sometimes avert this]].

* StoicSpectacles: Juror #4 is a "rational stockbroker, unflappable, self-assured, and analytical" and the only juror who wears glasses.

* PaperDestructionOfAnger: Juror #3 rips up a photo of the defendant during his breakdown and then he finally votes not guilty. He was voting "guilty" simply because of the bad relationship he has with his estranged son, not because of the facts.

* BlindWithoutThem: One of the witnesses is thought to be this. This is what puts her testimony into question.

* [[invoked]] DudeNotFunny: The other jurors' reaction to #3 pretending to raise the knife to stab #8, considering the tensions between them.

* IllKillYou: Said by the defendant and later Juror #3, which gets thrown back in his face because he'd earlier claimed that people don't say something like that unless they mean it.

* IneffectualDeathThreats: One point of discussion is whether the defendant was serious when he allegedly shouted "IllKillYou" prior to the murder. Juror #3 insists that anyone who says that in anger means it, but Juror #8 later throws this back at him after provoking him into doing the same.

* ManInWhite: Juror #8 traditionally wears a white coat or shirt. He's the first one to believe the boy could be innocent.

* TheOner: The film is full of them, especially the scene where the jurors get settled in the room, the bathroom scene, and Juror #10's rant scene.

* 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. In this case, however, the rogue juror isn't actually convinced of the defendant's innocence at first. He just wants to forestall an overly hasty deliberation.

* SecondhandStorytelling: We never see the murder, the investigation, or even the trial -- all we learn about them is what comes up during the deliberation by the jurors.

* SinisterSwitchblade: [[AmbiguousSituation Someone]] used a switchblade to kill the boy's father.

** Inverted when Juror #10 goes on a bigoted diatribe, is ignored by everyone, and spends the rest of the film in defeated silence.

* JerkWithAHeartOfGold: Juror #4 initially comes like a bit of an aloof jerk, but by the end he proves to be one of the more reasonable jurors, changing his verdict when given sensible reason to do so and calling out #10 for his bigoted rant.

* SilentTreatment: How everyone reacts when Juror #10 flies off the handle about the inferiority of the lower classes. Even the ones who were still in favor of conviction. It shames him enough that he sulks quietly in the corner for the rest of the film.

* PaperDestrusctionOfAnger: Juror #3 rips up a photo of the defendant during his breakdown and then he finally votes not guilty. He was voting "guilty" simply because of the bad relationship he has with his estranged son, not because of the facts.

* AbusiveParents: It’s revealed that the murder victim was an abusive dad.

** Vaguely [[ImpliedTrope implied]] for Juror #10. When he rants at length about how "they" (the unspecified ethnic group the defendant belongs to) are by nature nothing but a bunch of hotheaded liars and killers, the way all eleven of the other jurors respond with silent open contempt for his views, followed by #4's [[ShutUpHannibal command to sit down and not say another word]] causes him to go practically catatonic. He spends the remainder of the deliberation silently [[ThousandYardStare staring at nothing]], and after #4 changes his vote to not guilty, #10 soon follows. It is left ambiguous, if this means he was actually rethinking his views, or if he just felt defeated.
*** The Showtime version isn't as ambiguous; when the final vote is taken, #10 flat out says he believes the defendant is guilty, he's just voting "not guilty" cause he's done butting heads with the others.

* NiceHat: Juror #7 dons a straw fedora throughout the film. Some of the other jurors wear hats as well, but they remove them at the start of the story.

--> '''Juror #8:''' I'd like to ask you something: you don't believe the boy's story, how come you believe the woman's? She's one of "them", too, isn't she?
--> '''Juror #10:''' You're a pretty smart fellow, aren't you?

--> '''Juror #3:''' I’ll kill you! I’ll kill you!!
--> '''Juror #8:''' You don’t really mean you’ll kill me, do you?

-->'''Juror #10:''' Listen to me!
-->'''Juror #4:''' I have. Now sit down and don't open your mouth again.

-->'''Juror #10:''' He's a common, ignorant slob. He don't even speak good English.
-->'''Juror #11:''' He ''doesn't'' even speak good English.

-->'''Juror #5:''' I never knew they locked the door.
-->'''Juror #10:''' Sure they lock the door. What'd you think?
-->'''Juror #5:''' I don't know. It just never occurred to me.

-->'''Juror #11:''' What kind of a man are you? You have sat here and voted guilty with everyone else, because there are some baseball tickets burning a hole in your pocket? And now you've changed your vote because you say you're sick of all the talking here?
-->'''Juror #7:''' Now listen, buddy!
-->'''Juror #11:''' Who tells you that you have the right to play like this with a man's life? Don't you care?
-->'''Juror #7:''' Now, wait a minute! You can't talk like that to me!
-->'''Juror #11:''' I ''can'' talk like that to you! If you want to vote not guilty, then do it because you are convinced the man is not guilty, not because you've had enough. And if you think he ''is'' guilty, then vote that way. Or don't you have the guts to do what you think is right?

* ShutUpHannibal: Juror #10 digs his own grave when he starts shooting his mouth off about how inferior the lower classes are. By the time he's finished, when everyone has clearly stopped listening, this trope--delivered by #4--is all it takes to shut him up for the rest of the movie.
-->'''Juror #10:''' Listen to me! Listen!
-->'''Juror #4:''' I have. Now sit down and don't open your mouth again.

-->'''Juror #3:''' Okay, let-let's get to the point. What about the switch knife, they found in the old man's chest?
-->'''Juror #2:''' Uh, wai-wait a minute, there's some people who haven't talked yet. Shouldn't we go in order?
-->'''Juror #3:''' They'll get their chance to talk--BE quiet a second, will ya?
-->'''Juror #2:''' (sags his head a bit)

%%* FourTemperamentEnsemble:
%% Um, no: the whole point of that trope is that there’s FOUR

* {{Jerkass}}: Juror #7. He doesn't care what the decision of the jury is. He's only concerned with catching a baseball game. At least the most vicious jurors voted guilty because they believed in it. That said, when called out on this, he does say that he doesn't believe the accused is guilty. Fortunately, the game is rained out during the deliberation, so he can relax and pay attention for once.

* NiceHat: Juror #7 dons a straw fedora throughout the film.

* MonochromeCasting: Perhaps unsurprisingly for a film made in TheFifties, the jury is all-white (although one is an immigrant with a noticeable accent). Later productions often avert it.

* AmbigousSituation: The killing itself. The audience is never shown if the defendant did murder the victim or if he's innocent. But that's the entire point of the movie, which leads to the Aesop below.

** In addition to considering evidence not introduced in court, the jurors outright disregard many of the witness testimonies that ''were'' introduced in court, for reasons that the prosecutor and defense attorney never actually brought up as possible issues (like the fact that one of the witnesses may or may not have been nearsighted). In RealLife, only a judge has the final say on whether or not statements in court can be considered credible, and jurors aren't supposed to disregard witness testimonies unless a judge ''instructs'' them to disregard them.

* BerserkButton:
** #6 twice threatens violence (once explicitly, once by implication) over people showing disrespect to others.
** And of course Juror #3, after being called a sadist by Juror #8.

* MonochromeCasting: Perhaps unsurprisingly for a film made in TheFifties, the jury is all-white (although one is an immigrant with a noticeable accent).

''12 Angry Men'' is a 1957 film directed by Creator/SidneyLumet, starring Creator/HenryFonda and a veritable AllStarCast of character actors, based on a 1954 teleplay by Creator/ReginaldRose. It concerns a supposedly straightforward murder trial. An eyewitness, forensic evidence, and the accused himself all seem to clearly point to an adolescent boy having murdered his father. In the deliberation room, most of the jurors push for a quick guilty verdict, but a single juror, known only as Juror #8, holds out and insists that they examine the evidence thoroughly to make damn sure that the accused deserves his punishment: a mandatory death sentence.

''12 Angry Men'' is a 1957 film directed by Creator/SidneyLumet starring Creator/HenryFonda and a veritable AllStarCast of character actors, based on a 1954 teleplay by Creator/ReginaldRose. It concerns a supposedly straightforward murder trial. An eyewitness, forensic evidence, and the accused himself all seem to clearly point to an adolescent boy having murdered his father. In the deliberation room, most of the jurors push for a quick guilty verdict, but a single juror, known only as Juror #8, holds out and insists that they examine the evidence thoroughly to make damn sure that the accused deserves his punishment: a mandatory death sentence.