On a hot summer day in theNew York County Courthouse, the trial has just concluded of an 18-year-old boy, characterized as a "slum kid", who is accused of killing his abusive father. The judgeinstructs the jury that if there isreasonable doubt, they must return a verdict of "not guilty." If found guilty, the defendant will receive a mandatory death sentence via theelectric chair. The verdict must be unanimous.
At first, the case seems clear. A neighbor who lives opposite testifies to having seen the defendant stab his father, as she lay in bed looking out of her window and through the windows of a passingelevated train into the apartment where the killing took place. A disabled neighbor living below testifies that he heard the defendant threaten to kill his father, then heard the body hitting the floor. He says that on going to his door and opening it, he saw the defendant running down the stairs. The defendant had recently purchased, but claimed that he had lost, aswitchblade of the same type that was found at the murder scene, wiped of fingerprints.
In a preliminary vote, all jurors vote "guilty" except Juror 8, who believes there is reasonable doubt and wants discussion before any verdict. When his first few arguments—including proving that the knife, believed to be unique, is in fact not—fail to convince the other jurors, he suggests a secret ballot. This reveals one other "not guilty" vote; Juror 9 reveals that he, too, now agrees there should be more discussion.
Juror 8 argues that the noise of the passing train would have obscured everything the second witness claimed to have overheard. Several jurors question whether the death threat, even if it was overheard, was simply a figure of speech. Two jurors change their votes. After looking at a diagram of the second witness's apartment and conducting an experiment, the jurors determine that it is impossible for the disabled witness to have made it to the door in the time he stated. Juror 3, infuriated, lunges at Juror 8 and threatens to kill him; all go silent as they realize his words cannot reasonably be taken literally. Two more change their votes; the jury is now evenly split.
The father's stab wound was angled downwards. Juror 5, who has had personal experience with switchblades, points out that such blades are designed to be thrust upwardly, and that a downward thrust from a shorter, experienced assailant is inconceivable, as it would have required the blade to have been repositioned in the killer's hand. After another vote, the jurors are split 9:3. Juror 10 delivers a prejudiced rant against people from slum backgrounds, resulting in most of the other jurors distancing themselves from him.
Juror 4 declares that the evidence from the woman who saw the killing from her bed is solid, convincing one juror to revert to guilty. After watching Juror 4 remove his glasses and rub the impressions they made on his nose, Juror 9 realizes that the witness was constantly rubbing similar marks on her own nose, showing that she was a regular glasses-wearer despite not wearing them in court. Juror 8 remarks that the witness's evidence must be questionable, as she said she was in bed trying to sleep at the time, when she would not have been wearing her glasses, nor would she have had time to put them on. All apart from Juror 3 change their votes.
After failing to convince the others, Juror 3 finally realizes that his strained relationship with his son is the reason for his certainty. He rips up a photograph of himself and his son in a fit of rage, breaks down in tears, and changes his vote. The jurors leave the jury room, now unanimous that the defendant should be acquitted. Juror 8 helps Juror 3 with his jacket. As they leave the courthouse, Jurors 8 and 9, jointly the strongest for acquittal, briefly exchange names before parting ways.
A humane, justice-seeking architect and father of three; initially, the only one to question the evidence and vote "not guilty". The closing scene reveals his surname is 'Davis'.
A thoughtful and intelligent elderly man who is highly observant of the witnesses' behaviors and their possible motivations. The closing scene reveals his surname is 'McCardle'.
An indecisive and easily distracted advertising executive.
Other, uncredited actors in the film includeRudy Bond as the judge, Tom Gorman as the court stenographer, James Kelly as the bailiff,Billy Nelson as the clerk, and John Savoca as the defendant.[14]
Professor of Law Emeritus atUCLA School of Law Michael Asimow referred to the film as a "tribute to a common man holding out againstlynch mob mentality".[15] Gavin Smith ofFilm Comment called the film "a definitive rebuttal to the lynch mob hysteria of theMcCarthy era".[16]
Business academic Phil Rosenzweig called the jury in12 Angry Men being made up entirely of white men "especially important", writing: "Many of the twelve would have looked around the room, and, seeing other white men, assumed that they had much in common and should be able to reach a verdict without difficulty. As they deliberate, however, fault lines begin to appear—by age, by education, by national origin, by socioeconomic level, by values, and by temperament."[17]
Reginald Rose'sscreenplay for12 Angry Men, titledTwelve Angry Men, was initially produced for television and was inspired by a jury summons.[18] Although it is unclear what trial he was summoned to,[a] according to Rose, in early 1954, he served as a juror on a manslaughter case in theNew York Court of General Sessions. Though he and the other eleven jurors initially attended begrudgingly, Rose was deeply affected by the impassioned and deliberate atmosphere of the trial and the finality of his and the jury's verdict. Rose began writingTwelve Angry Men upon realizing that very few people knew what occurred during jury deliberations and that they could serve as an exciting setting for a drama.[20][21] While writing the screenplay, Rose cut planned passages of dialogue to account for a fifty-minute time slot on television, leading to the characters to be less nuanced.[22] A live production of "Twelve Angry Men", directed byFranklin Schaffner and starringRobert Cummings as Juror 8 andFranchot Tone as Juror 3, was broadcast on theCBS programWestinghouse Studio One in September 20, 1954 to positive reviews.[23][24] It received four nominations for the7th Primetime Emmy Awards, winning three on March 7, 1955: "Best Actor in a Single Performance", "Best Direction", and "Best Written Dramatic Material".[25][26]
In February 1955, actorHenry Fonda formed Orion Productions under a three-year deal with distributorUnited Artists.[27] He reportedly first sawWestinghouse Studio One's "Twelve Angry Men" as akinescope in a Hollywood projection room following its success in the 7th Primetime Emmy Awards. He was impressed with the story and wanted to star as Juror 8.[28][18][29] In mid-1956, Fonda partnered with Rose to produce a film adaptation of12 Angry Men.[30][29] As part of the partnership, Rose formed Nova Productions and combined it with Fonda's Orion Productions to form Orion-Nova Productions,[31][32] and production of the film was budgeted at $340,000.[33] To develop the screenplay and characters, Rose restored material he had cut for the broadcast and added dialogue that revealed character's backgrounds and motivations.[34][18]
Fonda and Rose recruitedSidney Lumet to direct12 Angry Men, his film directorial debut. Lumet had previously directed numerous episodes, including adaptations of Rose's plays, for TV series such asDanger andYou Are There.[35] Fonda said he hired Lumet because of his proficient directing skills and because he was "wonderful with actors".[33] Lumet recruitedBoris Kaufman as the cinematographer. Kaufman had recently won anAcademy Award for Best Cinematography forOn the Waterfront (1954),[36][37] and Lumet believed Kaufman's "realist style" suited the film.[38]
The film was shot in New York and completed after a short but rigorous rehearsal schedule, in less than three weeks, on a budget of $337,000 (equivalent to $3,773,000 in 2024). Rose and Fonda took salary deferrals.[3]Faith Hubley, later to be known for her Oscar-winning animated efforts with spouseJohn, was script supervisor for this film.[39][40]
At the beginning of the film, the cameras are positioned above eye level and mounted withwide-angle lenses, to give the appearance of greater depth between subjects, but as the film progresses thefocal length of the lenses is gradually increased. By the end of the film, nearly everyone is shown in closeup, usingtelephoto lenses from a lower angle, which decreases or "shortens"depth of field. Lumet stated that his intention in using these techniques with cinematographerBoris Kaufman was to create a nearly palpableclaustrophobia.[41]
The film was a box office disappointment in the US[42][43] but did better internationally.[3] The advent of color and widescreen productions may have contributed to its disappointing box office performance.[42] It was not until its first airing on television that the film finally found its audience.[44]
On its first release,12 Angry Men received critical acclaim.
A. H. Weiler ofThe New York Times wrote, "It makes for taut, absorbing, and compelling drama that reaches far beyond the close confines of its jury room setting." His observation of the twelve men was that "their dramas are powerful and provocative enough to keep a viewer spellbound."[45]Variety called it an "absorbing drama" with acting that was "perhaps the best seen recently in any single film",[46] adding: "Perhaps the motivations of each juror are introduced too quickly and are repeated too often [...] However, the film leaves a tremendous impact."[47] Philip K. Scheuer of theLos Angeles Times declared it a "tour de force in movie making",[48]The Monthly Film Bulletin deemed it "a compelling and outstandingly well-handled drama",[49] andJohn McCarten ofThe New Yorker called it "a fairly substantial addition to the celluloid landscape".[50]
In 2012, Mike D'Angelo ofThe A.V. Club questioned the verdict of the jury in the film, writing: "What ensures The Kid's guilt for practical purposes, [...] is the sheer improbability thatall the evidence is erroneous. You'd have to be the jurisprudential inverse of a national lottery winner to face so many apparently damning coincidences and misidentifications. Or you'd have to be framed [...] But there's no reason offered in12 Angry Men for why, say, the police would be planting switchblades."[51]
The film was selected as the second-best courtroom drama ever by the American Film Institute during their AFI's 10 Top 10 list, just afterTo Kill a Mockingbird,[13] and is the highest rated courtroom drama onRotten Tomatoes' 300 Best Movies of All Time.[57]
Speaking at a screening of the film during the 2010Fordham University School of Law Film Festival,Supreme Court JusticeSonia Sotomayor stated that seeing12 Angry Men while she was in college influenced her decision to pursue a career in law. She was particularly inspired by immigrant Juror 11's monologue on his reverence for the American justice system. She also told the audience of law students that, as a lower-court judge, she would sometimes instruct juries to not follow the film's example, because most of the jurors' conclusions are based on speculation, not fact.[68] Sotomayor noted that events such as Juror 8 entering a similar knife into the proceeding; performing outside research into the case matter in the first place; and ultimately the jury as a whole making broad, wide-ranging assumptions far beyond the scope of reasonable doubt (such as the inferences regarding the woman wearing glasses) would not be allowed in a real-life jury situation, and in fact would have yielded amistrial[69] (assuming that applicable law permitted the content of jury deliberations to be revealed).
In 2007, legal scholar Michael Asimow argued that the jury in12 Angry Men reached an incorrect verdict, writing that the amount ofcircumstantial evidence against the defendant should have been enough to convict him, even if the testimony of the two eyewitnesses was disregarded.[15]
In the same year, drawing on empirical research, legal scholarValerie Hans noted that while12 Angry Men's depiction of a lone dissenter converting the majority is rare in reality, the film accurately portrays how quality deliberation, diverse perspectives, and the unanimity requirement can enable thoughtful dissenters to meaningfully influence jury outcomes, particularly when arguing for acquittal.[70]
There have been a number of adaptations of12 Angry Men owing to its popularity and legacy.
A 1963 German TV production,Die zwölf Geschworenen, was directed by Günter Gräwert, and a 1973 Spanish production, Doce hombres sin piedad, was made for TV 22 years before Spain allowed jury trials, while a 1991 homage byKōki Mitani,Juninin no Yasashii Nihonjin ("12 gentle Japanese"), posits a Japan with a jury system and features a group of Japanese people grappling with their responsibility in the face of Japanese cultural norms.
A 1970 episode ofThe Odd Couple television series (also co-starring Jack Klugman) entitled "The Jury Story" is reminiscent of12 Angry Men, as it tells in a flashback the circumstances behind the meeting of roommates Oscar Madison and Felix Unger. Klugman (Madison) plays a juror on a panel during a supposedly open-and-shut case. Co-starTony Randall (Unger) portrays the lone holdout who votes not guilty, eventually convincing the other eleven jurors.
A 1978 episode ofHappy Days entitled "Fonzie for the Defense" contains a situation similar to12 Angry Men whenHoward Cunningham andFonzie find themselves the only members of the jury who are not ready to convict the defendant just because he rides a motorcycle.
A 1986 episode ofMurder, She Wrote entitled "Trial by Error" pays tribute to12 Angry Men. The major twists are originally 10 jurors vote for "not guilty" due to self defense,Jessica votes "unsure" and another juror votes "guilty". Jessica and other jurors recall the evidence, as more and more jurors switch from "not guilty due to self defense" and come to a realization as to what actually occurred the night of the murder.
Season 1, episode 17a of the Nickelodeon cartoonHey Arnold! (1996) is a parody of12 Angry Men. In the episode, titled "False Alarm", Eugene is suspected and accused of pulling the fire alarm, and a student jury is assembled to vote on the verdict, but Arnold is the only one who believes Eugene is innocent. He has to convince the rest of his classmates that Eugene is not guilty of the crime. In this adaptation, it is proven that Eugene was not the criminal but Curly a member of the student "jury" is the actual perpetrator due to the latter's reaction to the former's use of the Winkyland pencil (chewing on the eraser and intense sharpening).
In 1997, a television remake of the filmunder the same title was directed byWilliam Friedkin and produced byMetro-Goldwyn-Mayer. In the newer version, the judge is a woman, four of the jurors are black, and the ninth juror is not the only senior citizen, but the overall plot remains intact. Modernizations include not smoking in the jury room, changes in references to pop culture and sports figures and income, references to execution by lethal injection as opposed to the electric chair, more race-related dialogue, and casual profanity.
The detective drama television showVeronica Mars, which like the film includes the theme of class issues, featured a 2005 episode, "One Angry Veronica", in which the title character is selected for jury duty. The episode flips the film's format and depicts one holdout convincing the jury to convict the privileged defendants of assault against a less well-off victim, despite their lawyers initially convincing 11 jury members of a not guilty verdict.
In a 2022 episode ofThe Equalizer called "Vox Populi," Aunt Vi is the only juror who doesn't automatically assume that the black male defendant is obviously guilty of the rape and murder of a white woman. As McCall works the case outside of the courtroom, Vi challenges the evidence and assumptions of the prosecution's narrative with the other jurors.
Russian directorNikita Mikhalkov also made a 2007Academy Award-nominated adaptation,12, featuring a Chechen teen on trial in Moscow.
A 2015 Chinese adaptation,12 Citizens, follows the plot of the original 1957 American film, while including characters reflecting contemporary Beijing society, including a cab driver, guard, businessman, policeman, a retiree persecuted in a 1950s political movement, and others.[72]
Juror 8 is a 2019 South Korean adaptation, directed by Hong Seung-wan.
The film has also been subject to parody. In 2015, theComedy Central TV seriesInside Amy Schumer aired a half-hour parody of the film titled "12 Angry Men Inside Amy Schumer".[73][74]
The American adult animated sitcomKrapopolis also parodied the film in the fifth episode of its first season, titled "12 Angry Goat Herders". In it, Tyrannis invents the court system after Shlub is accused of eating the goats of the goat farmers. Tyrannis represented Shlub while the goat farmers were represented by Brenda the Sphinx.[74]
The American thriller drama seriesYellowjackets (TV series) paid tribute to the film in the fourth episode of its third season, titled12 Angry Girls and 1 Drunk Travis. In the episode, aKangaroo court is established in the attempt to convict the team’s coach of attempted murder, on the basis of reasonable doubt.
^According to scholar Phil Rosenzweig, although the prosecution of William Viragh was the most likely trial Rose served on according to his account, a handwritten list of jurors that served on that trial does not include Rose.[19]
^"中村錦之助を長門裕之が逆転 史上最年少で主演賞に" [Hiroyuki Nagato beats Kinnosuke Nakamura, he is the youngest person in history to win the Best Leading Actor Award].Cinema Hochi (in Japanese). Archived fromthe original on February 19, 2012. RetrievedSeptember 16, 2021.
Ellsworth, Phoebe C. (2003). "One Inspiring Jury[Review of 'Twelve Angry Men']".Michigan Law Review.101 (6):1387–1407.doi:10.2307/3595316.JSTOR3595316. In depth analysis compared with research on actual jury behaviour.
.jpg)
