Take a photo of a barcode or cover
labinsky 's review for:
Twelve Angry Men
by Reginald Rose
challenging
reflective
tense
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
absolutely stellar script, but what makes it 5 stars for me is the little changes to the dialogue in the film, the acting, the way it’s shot—but the script alone is still genius.
as an aside, and after sitting with the plain text, not watching it play out before me, i disagree with the analysis of this script that it displays a fundamental optimism in the us justice system. i also loathed david mamet’s introduction which is entirely unsurprising given his whole liberal-turned-conservative edgelord grift already peeking through in his introduction.
maybe rose would disagree with this assessment, maybe i’m projecting, but there isn’t optimism here. instead, there’s a refusal to simply give in to a system which has failed again and again the 16-year old-boy on the stand throughout his short and painful life.and there is also a heavy acknowledgment of the fact that whether he is guilty or not, the not guilty verdict at the end does nothing but deliver him back into a society which will continue to beat him down.
in a few years he very well could be back in court, before a jury without its own henry fonda, which sends him to prison or to death without more than 10 minutes’ deliberation. he may have his own son and the cycle may continue. the root causes of this pain cannot be addressed by a verdict, and the anger of these 12 jurors is but one of many symptoms of the ills of our society which are not remedied by the justice system as it existed in 1954 or 1957 or today. new york state no longer has the death penalty, but beyond this much of the justice system remains the same.
to watch this film or read this script and not feel even some twinge of sympathy for the abolitionist impulse is to fail to engage with the difficult and fundamental questions it begs.
as an aside, and after sitting with the plain text, not watching it play out before me, i disagree with the analysis of this script that it displays a fundamental optimism in the us justice system. i also loathed david mamet’s introduction which is entirely unsurprising given his whole liberal-turned-conservative edgelord grift already peeking through in his introduction.
maybe rose would disagree with this assessment, maybe i’m projecting, but there isn’t optimism here. instead, there’s a refusal to simply give in to a system which has failed again and again the 16-year old-boy on the stand throughout his short and painful life.
in a few years he very well could be back in court, before a jury without its own henry fonda, which sends him to prison or to death without more than 10 minutes’ deliberation. he may have his own son and the cycle may continue.
to watch this film or read this script and not feel even some twinge of sympathy for the abolitionist impulse is to fail to engage with the difficult and fundamental questions it begs.