12 Angry Men: A Portrait of the 1950s

The nostalgic reminiscences of the 1950’s often conjure up thoughts of happier, simpler times not unlike those of the long running successful television series Happy Days.  However, the reality of the decade was far from simple and happy.  Although it was a decade filled with a consumer culture reeling in its successes following a long depression and a world war win, the 1950’s were also filled with anxiety and domestic unrest.  Fear of a nuclear holocaust was part of everyday life during the early days of the nuclear age that included air raid drills and bomb shelters, along with the rise of the communist Soviet Union as a world superpower.  Alarm about communism within the United States and a fear of a violent overthrow of our government was viewed as a constant threat to American democracy.  International and governmental concerns were only a part of the everyday worries with which Americans dealt; racial issues haunted Americans as well with the rise of the Civil Rights Movement. 

The arts, including those in the entertainment industry, can give us a better understanding of some of these issues and how they affected the everyday life of Americans.  For example, the movie, 12 Angry Men released in 1957 portrays a courtroom drama in which twelve jurors are to decide the guilt or innocence of a man on trial for the murder of his father.  These twelve men, during their deliberations, expose their own prejudices and character flaws while debating the fate of the accused.   Because this movie was released in the decade when the Civil Rights Movement was born, it becomes all the more important in portraying racial prejudices in white America.  This movie was also released after the pandemonium of McCarthyism had reached its height and shows that the true threat to America’s democracy is its very own citizens.  Therefore, this film is also a warning to American citizens not to evade their responsibilities or it may threaten the very foundation of our democracy.  For these reasons, this film can be viewed as a reflection of the time in which it was made and was probably meant to be just that.

Although primarily created as entertainment for the purpose of making money, movies can be a vehicle for the creators to effectively portray their views of the society’s wrongs and how these issues are dealt with in the contemporary everyday life of their time.  Playwright Reginald Rose was very aware of the themes he included in his teleplays, which also carried through into his screenplay for 12 Angry Men, including “community and social responsibility, justice and the pressure of the times upon the people who live them.”[1]  These themes become obvious in this drama as each of the jurors discusses his views of the case, showing the difficult “process of judging people and issues”[2] without prejudice and the responsibilities that go along with that process.  Rose was very effective in portraying the importance of each man’s “attributes, failings, passions, and prejudices”[3] intertwined with the “awesome truth that they hold a boy’s life in their hands.”[4]  The realization of this responsibility becomes more evident when the jurors are quick to condemn the boy, each for his own separate reasons, until Juror Number Eight, played brilliantly by Henry Fonda, wants a moment to discuss the evidence before deciding the boy’s fate.   Although Juror Eight is not convinced of the boy’s innocence, he is not quite convinced of the boy’s guilt, thus reasonable doubt.   He obviously struggles with the responsibility of this boy’s fate when Juror Eight explains “It’s not easy to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.”  This is the beginning of the discussions, arguments, and presentations of the evidence in the jury room which brings out each man’s character within the film.

It is interesting to note that 12 Angry Men was a “thoroughly absorbing”[5] television play broadcast in 1954 before it was made into a movie which premiered in 1957, because Rose was able to effectively mirror the current events of the day into his writings.  The fact that the accused is a boy of a minority race is of the utmost importance when examining the issues portrayed in this particular movie.  The teleplay, broadcast just three years earlier, has a defendant from the slums, however, “there is nothing to suggest that he is not white.”[6]  Prejudices existed; however, the racial divisions became more evident later in the 1950’s as the Civil Rights Movement came to the forefront.  The 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas found the “separate but equal” doctrine to be unconstitutional.[7]  Although a few states did reluctantly comply with the new laws, the Deep South was adamant about reestablishing legalized segregation.[8]  This defiance ultimately brought violence and federal government intervention to the cause of civil rights for African Americans.  In addition, Rosa Parks’ refusal to give up her seat to a white man the following year began a year-long bus boycott in Birmingham, Alabama which brought national attention to the lack of rights afforded African Americans, especially in the Deep South.  Although national attention had been given to the cause of African American civil rights, Latino Americans were also fighting for their own equal rights.  Latinos had been considered second class citizens as well, especially in areas of the Southwest, and were denied access to white areas.[9]  Because the film adaption of 12 Angry Men came after these events, Rose cleverly incorporated racial prejudice into the film, although it had been absent from his teleplay, by having the defendant of Hispanic descent. 

Racial prejudice becomes evident during deliberations when Ed Begley’s Juror Number Ten insists on the boy’s guilt because he was a Hispanic boy from the slums.  Juror Ten cannot see past the boy’s race or his background.   He makes his case to the rest of the jury by stating, “You know he’s guilty.  None of them people are any good” and continuing “You know how these people lie.  It’s born in them.” thereby placing all Hispanics into one lower class group of people who cannot be trusted.  It is not hard to fathom Juror Ten’s hatred towards the accused based solely on race and Begley plays the character with a resounding and believable zeal.

Furthermore, Juror Four, played by E.G. Marshall, shows prejudice to the inhabitants of the slums and automatically assumes that the accused is guilty.  He states, “The children who come out of slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society” when discussing the background of the boy.  Although Juror Four makes his statement in a more acceptable way when compared to the prejudices of Juror Ten, the message is still clear in that “irrational prejudice is incompatible with justice.”[10]

In addition, Lee J. Cobb’s Juror Number Three makes up his mind based on his bad experiences with his own son and sympathizes with the crime victim, the boy’s father.  Although his prejudice is not based on the boy’s race or his slum background, he can still not view the case with an open mind.  He sees this as his opportunity to “punish all youth for the pain and worry caused him by his own son.”  Juror Three explains his history with his own son by relaying that after his son walked away from a fight when he was nine, Juror Three insisted his son be “a man.”  His son eventually stood up to his own father, hit his father in the jaw, and ended their relationship.  Juror Three, therefore, feels the entire younger generation is guilty and needs to be punished for their contempt and disrespect.  Juror Three is guilty of stereotyping a group of people and assuming they are all the same rather than looking at each individual, which is another type of prejudice evident in the film.

            Prejudice is undoubtedly not the only theme of 12 Angry Men which was relevant in the 1950’s.  The threat to our democracy was a constant fear in the minds of Americans in the conformist decade of the Cold War.  This film shows that shirking civic responsibility can also create a risk to the true democratic ideals on which the United States was based.   During the 1950’s it was communism that was seen as the biggest danger to our democracy.   Communism was considered demonic and a “real threat to American security”[11] during the Cold War years.   Although many Communist Party members had abandoned the Party by the 1950’s, they were still seen as security threat due to their past associations and Senator Joe McCarthy claimed to know a number of Communists who had infiltrated the United States government.  Even though the threat was quite exaggerated by this junior Senator from Wisconsin who preyed on that fear to further his own career, Americans were quite concerned about the security of their democratic government.   Because there was such alarm regarding the state of our democracy, Rose was able to use this theme within 12 Angry Men to show that communism was not the threat of which American citizens should be concerned, but the real threat to democracy is the people themselves and their lack of civic and social responsibility.

This film becomes a public service announcement of sorts in reminding the public that our democratic system renders someone innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and the civic responsibilities of American citizens should be taken seriously as a right and an honor of being a member of that democratic society.  The most obvious of the men who feels that jury duty is an inconvenience is Jack Warden’s Juror Number Seven, who is in a hurry to convict the boy so that he can make it to the New York Yankees baseball game that evening.  This becomes even more evident as Juror Seven changes his mind midway through the film just to break the stalemate in a tied six versus six vote for conviction.  He states, “I don’t know about the rest of them but I’m getting a little tired of this yakety yakking back and forth.   It’s getting us nowhere.  So I guess I’ll have to break it up.  I change my vote to not guilty.”  Furthermore, he will not explain his reasons for the change of heart when confronted except for a simple, “I don’t think he’s guilty.” Juror Eleven points out the obvious lack of civic responsibility instilled in Juror Seven when he states, “You have sat here and voted guilty with the rest of them because you have some baseball tickets burning a hole in your pocket.  And now you change your mind because you are sick of the talking?” This demonstrates that the outcome is not of much importance to Juror Seven as long it does not interfere with his personal plans.  Rose, therefore, illustrates that, if all citizens felt this way, it is certain that our democracy would not work effectively and justice would not be carried out fairly.

During that same conversation between Juror Eleven and Juror Seven, Juror Eleven, an obvious immigrant by listening to his dialect, reminds us that “everyone must play his part”[12] to ensure the system works.  When Juror Seven breaks the tie by changing his vote, Juror Eleven reminds Juror Seven, “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.  If you think he is guilty then vote that way.  But don’t you have the guts to do what you think is right?”  Juror Eleven demonstrates the huge responsibility these jurors have in deciding the fate of the accused.  Furthermore, by stating, “We have a responsibility.  This is a remarkable thing about democracy.  We have nothing to gain or lose by our verdict.  This is one of the reasons why we are strong,” Juror Eleven recaps what it is to be a democracy.  In short, it is crucial that everyone have their say and that everyone work together for the common good.[13]  Furthermore, personal feelings should not be allowed to cloud the judgment of each juror, whether it is by prejudice or dissatisfaction.  Juror Eleven, played by George Voskovec, makes it quite clear that every citizen should be honored to help democracy at work and that evading that responsibility is harmful to the system. 

A true reflection of this time in American history must include the controversies that abounded regarding racial divisions and prejudices, as well as fears over the threats, whether real or imagined, to our democracy.  The film 12 Angry Men is a great example of 1950’s art that reflects the time in which it was made.  The film’s themes cover these issues including racial prejudice and civic responsibility.  However, as a truly timeless piece of art, 12 Angry Men can also be a pertinent example of those issues well beyond the time period when the film was made.  The Happy Days series to which we alluded earlier also used the premise of 12 Angry Men in an episode and this show appeared on television twenty years after 12 Angry Men premiered.  In the episode entitled, “Fonzie for the Defense” which premiered on May 30, 1978,[14]  both Fonzie and Mr. Cunningham are called for jury duty and appear on the same case:  a black motorcyclist is charged with burglary of a woman’s purse.  In true 12 Angry Men fashion, Mr. Cunningham sees jury duty as an inconvenience and is more worried about the status of his hardware store than the guilt or innocence of the accused.  Fonzie, on the other hand, is honored to perform his civic duty and takes the case very seriously.  Because he is not immediately convinced of the accused’s guilt, Fonzie is even labeled a “Communist.” However, he eventually enlightens the remainder of the jury of a piece of contradictory evidence which proves the accused is innocent.  This episode echoes the premise of 12 Angry Men, and was televised in the late 1970’s.  In the following decades, other television shows have also copied the basis of 12 Angry Men.  Doogie Howser, M.D. presented an episode entitled, “Eleven Angry People… and Vinnie” on March 17, 1993 where “Vinnie serves on a jury and angers the other jurors by casting the only dissenting vote.”[15]  Even more recently, an episode of Monk entitled, “Mr. Monk Gets Jury Duty” aired on March 17, 2006[16] has Monk serve on a jury in a minor robbery trial.  Although the main storyline involves a federal prisoner’s escape plot, the minor robbery trial follows the premise of 12 Angry Men in that Monk is the sole juror convinced of the defendant’s innocence.  He continues to reexamine the evidence and sways the other jurors to reconsider.  One by one, the jurors are convinced and find the defendant “not guilty,” again paralleling the story in 12 Angry Men.

Because the themes in 12 Angry Men still ring true today, and because the themes were presented so well in the film, this movie can be considered a timeless piece of art in addition to a great piece of entertainment.  Considered one of the best films of all time, 12 Angry Men had a lot to say.  Although the film was made fifty years ago when equal rights for all races and genders was a fairly new idea, audiences today can appreciate the characters within that jury room.  Prejudices still exist in everyday life even today.  How many average white Americans would cringe with fear if a Black or Hispanic teenager approached them in a dark parking lot?  In addition, civic responsibility is still considered a chore.  How many of those called try to be excused from jury duty?  It is unfortunate that we have not learned any of the lessons that Reginald Rose tried to teach us in his extraordinary film for we would be a stronger, more united nation had we listened.

---

[1] J. Crosby, “Six Rose Plays Prove TV is Exerting Literary Influence,” The Modesto Bee.  1956, April 27. 11.
[2] “Twelve Angry Men,” Press Telegram, Long Beach CA. 1957 May 28. A10.
[3] A.H. Weiler, “12 Angry Men,” 1957 April 15. IN The New York Times Guide to the Best 1000 Movies Ever Made, Ed. J.M. Vincent Canby and P.M. Nichols. (New York: Random House, 1999).  910-911.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Crosby, 11.
[6] Answers.com.  Twelve Angry Men (Themes), Accessed 2009 March 2009.
[7] J.W. Davidson, W.E. Gienapp, C.L. Heyrman, M. Lytle, and M. B. Stoff,  Nation of Nations (New York:  McCraw Hill).
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Answers.com
[11] E. Schrecker, The Age of McCarthyism. (New York:  Bedford, 2001).
[12] Answers.com
[13] Ibid.
[14] T. Fuller. “Happy Days Online (1997-2008),” SitcomsOnline.com.  Accessed 2009 March 10.
[15] “Eleven Angry People…and Vinnie (1993)” Doogie Howser, M.D., IMDb.com  Accessed 2009 March 10.
[16] “The Show Episode Guide:  Mr. Monk Gets Jury Duty” NBC Universal, Inc. USANetwork.com Accessed 2009 March 10.