The movie seems more concerned with the men’s outlooks on the boy than whether or not he is actually guilty. The revelations are not that the boy is found innocent but rather that the evidence against the boy that each man has exploited for their convenience is found to be deeply flawed. Each man is left questioning their willingness to send this boy to his death. In this way, the movie questions a society that has let this boy down.

With an oversaturation of streaming content, it’s difficult to discern what’s worth viewing. But the best of art can point us to divinely inspired truths, helping us to understand our calling as Created Beings a little more clearly.
Today, let’s examine Sidney Lumet’s 1957 classic, 12 Angry Men, a film that not only bears rich artistic value but can also bear a weight on our spiritual lives.
What is 12 Angry Men about?
If you’ve never seen 12 Angry Men (currently available on Amazon Prime), or if it’s been so long that you can’t remember the details, the setup is simple enough.
After listening to the trial of a young ethnic boy charged with the murder of his father, twelve jury members convene on the hottest day of the year to agree upon their verdict. If the boy is innocent, he’ll walk; if he’s found guilty of premeditated murder, then the jury members will be sending him to his death in the electric chair.
At the outset, all but one jury member (played by the starry-eyed Henry Fonda) believes the boy to be guilty. Juror 8, Fonda’s character, suspects a rigged trial and implores his fellow arbiters to reexamine the evidence.
Bit by bit, the jury members question the facts, the justice system, and, ultimately, their own presuppositions. Heated temperaments combine with sweltering temperatures as the jury room inches to the brink of anarchy.
We’re still the jury
Lumet’s film will turn sixty-seven years old in April. This is astounding when considering the parallels between the movie’s context and our context today.
These men embody the same attitudes we may find ourselves guilty of possessing.

Juror 10 stereotypes those who share the defendant’s ethnicity (which is unspecified), which leaves him hardened to the facts that suggest the boy’s innocence.
Juror 7 flippantly moves through his life, aiming for the path of least resistance. As a result, the movie implies that he has a feeble sense of morality. He only wants to give a verdict that will get him to his baseball game the quickest.
Juror 3 shows bitterness toward his estranged son, which keeps him from seeing the trial without bias.

Read More
Related Posts: