Like many other Tamil "proud" citizen, I had always admired yesteryear's tamil Director Sridhar's all time great movie - NENJIL ORU AALAYAM - A film which was shot in a hospital from beginning to end. Definitely - with the standards of direction and screen plays of those days, still many of the Tamil people are not out of the shock "how one can make such a film" ?!!!
This film "12 Angry men" is even more shocking - for it is shot in just one room where 12 men gathers up for an important discussion which is so interesting and absorbing; This movie too is quite old and is in B & W.
The first scene sets the tone of the film where the Learned Judge directs the 12 members of Jury - picked up from general public - to decide upon the verdict of a convict who was charged with committing a murder - killing his own father. The catch or rather plot of the film is that the 12 should unanimously reach at the decision AND even one member not forming a part of the final decision will make the decision invalid.
Since the jury members are picked up from the society, seeing them not very seasoned in decision making - particularly of this kind - is quite understandable. But, I felt it was quite artificial to see many of them totally dis-interested in the assignment and for a sprinkle of comedy perhaps - one of the member is so particular to join his girl friend for dinner !!
As it turns out, the members decide to call for the vote to decide that the convict has indeed committed the murder, just one of the gentle man refuses on the decision and sets the ball rolling for an interesting discussion. Gradually one by one gets converted to his decision - few out of their sense of reasoning while most out of sheer desperation and lack of patience and the story ends with a nice manner where two of the jury members shake hands outside the building - wishing each other "So long" and walking away in opposite directions.
A neat and gripping story.....and the dialogues were so powerful. I heard that this film is shown in few leadership programs to showcase as a case study on human personality styles and decision making patterns. I enjoyed the film thoroughly from the first frame till the end....and was absorbing the subtle aspects of the film like a blotting paper but half way thru' I started wondering if the story line could have been bit different if I had directed the film....!! As it turned out to be an experience of watching a good movie...with a BUT feeling.....
Lemme summarize the points for my BUT feeling...
(1) The plot of "unanimous" decision by itself gives us the clue about the final decision of the jury - which is the only logical thing to happen in the world when just one disagrees with the majority of the jury in the first part of the film. The thrills of possible twists and turns were completely lost the way the people started changing their minds one by one....!! In a way this is a "populist" way of screen play.
If I were to write the story line, I would have ensured that by the middle of the film, every body getting converted in their decision with the first man (who advocates "not guilty") and then with some new clue / evidence, they all unanimously decide at the end of the film in the diagrammatically opposite decision ("guilty"). The scope of the film offers so much juice you know....!!
(2) The film seemingly mocks up at disinterested people who were willing to pronounce some one as guilty without really applying their minds to the facts of the case....!! ON the contrary, the first gentleman who sets the ball for a discussion by telling "I am not at all telling that he is not guilty at all....But why don't we discuss about it ?" is the one who is adamant about his stance. He had really no reason to be so confident that the young boy is not guilty at all.... but had the entire screen play to support him win the case without any proof finally to support him in his claim. In this way the film is lopsided in its logic..
(3) Well, the film in a way portrays the power of DEMOCRACY. The moral seemingly is that " In ideal circumstances of perfect democracy where people have their free will, decisions will be rational and humane".....!!
The film fails on its mission by not really providing a simulated environment for the justice to prevail. This is not a case of the ideal power of democracy where even one adamant person is able to change the course of the decision making of all others - which is against the tenets of democracy...!! The 11 others gave up out of sheer exhaustion and pointlessness and not because they were convinced about the convict being non guilty....!!
(4) The discussion starts in a healthy style when the jury demands to see the knife which was used and also asks for the blue print of the house sketch where the murder was committed. I dont understand why they did not take the liberty to cross examine few of the witnesses (particularly the girl with spectacles) who could have given them some clue about the genuine-ness of their original pronouncement. I have a fairly strong feeling that the Jury were bit impartial about deciding upon the case - for every one had their own reason (at least many of them) to get out of the room which was getting humid and suffocating....!!
(5) Well, there is a famous dictum about justice "100s of the victims can be left out; but one innocent should not be punished"....which is the backbone for the story line to remain the way it is. My whole point is on the definition of "innocence". There was no attempt to review the facts of the case - particularly in the latter half - to satisfy that the accused was innocent. If justice has to really prevail, it should also take enough efforts to prove the guilt of a convict. This is particularly important when twelve common men have gathered to decide the fate of an individual of the society that they belong to !!
(6) Last but not the least, I like the adjective "angry" in the title. Perhaps I do not remember the first man who raises an objection to the decision of the eleven others - getting angry in the entire movie. On the other hand, every one gets angry at some point of time - few for genuine reason while many for their sentimental factors....AND this film is all about different type of human beings in the society with all their short comings and breaking points.
May be, if the same twelve men - if they did not get angry - rather, if the situation is built under an effective leader (did you observe the administrative excellence of the so called leader of the group...I thoroughly enjoyed the comedy in his leadership style....It was hilarious !!!) who was able to steer the whole discussion, perhaps their decision could have been more meaningful...!! Perhaps their decision could have been more rational and not out of sheer helplessness and pointlessness of their discussion.....!! Perhaps, the film could have been more sensible and not remain as just entertaining as it was....!!
Any way, in spite of my points above, still I liked the film. In a way it helped me to discover myself and identify the screen play writer within me....!!
Krishnaarpanam as always...
Suren
