I saw the color remake of 1997, but compared with the black-and-white film of 1957, it is no different except for the image quality and the changes in actors. The story tells the story of an 18-year-old boy accused of murdering his father. Twelve juries from different social classes argued in a dimly heated room less than 20 square meters. As long as the jury finds "reasonable suspicion" in the current evidence of the murder of the boy's father, and all members reach a consensus. The juvenile would not face the death penalty immediately.
The narration of the story is very simple. At the beginning of the story, through the dialogue and behavior of twelve people, you can know their identities. But he didn't mention his name. Maybe it was just a fate for jury, so you don't need to know it deliberately? There is no need to know it deliberately. Although the director did not tell the audience all the names, it did not hinder the audience's impression of these twelve individuals. Not hard to remember. Each character is vividly seen. There are advertising salesmen, there are stock economists, there are architects, there are workers from slums, there are watch dealers and so on. Occupations are different, so they act to give full play to their professional characteristics.
The story goes from 11:1 that the juvenile is considered guilty, to 10:2, and then to 9:3. As the plot progresses, the first skeptic—the architect—makes reasonable speculations about the evidence. The process includes quarrels, physical conflicts, racial discrimination, and rash convictions of low-class people. Everyone went from believing in the guilt of juveniles to reasonable doubts. The final big reversal was 11:1, but it was eleven people who believed that the juvenile was innocent. Only an arrogant, rude father resisted. In a roaring way, he found the teenager guilty. The evidence is clear that all children from the slums from this class who were beaten by their fathers and whose mothers died young are like this. It used to be so, and it will be so in the future. Until the architect said: "He is not your son, he is someone else". Make him like a deflated balloon. The stock economist also added "let that kid survive". The audience was silent. Until, he said to the organizer, "I think that kid is innocent." At the end of the story, everyone entered the elevator with serious thoughts. The old gentleman and the architect exchanged names. At this moment, they are a well-known and complete character.
Some of the psychology of the process may be known to people from all walks of life. Some people did not clearly say why they thought they were not guilty, but one or two might be known from his expression. Maybe it was something he had experienced, or something that happened around him. Let them have a sense of commonality and the same psychology as a teenager. We don't know these. This is a film that has nothing to do with the truth, but so close to reality. Twelve people, they are in charge of the life and death of a young man, and they may easily decide the survival of a poor young man without even knowing it. In the end, I decided to let that child live, not only for the child himself, but also for myself and to compensate for my heart. Those who do evil have their own results, but they are not determined by them. In the process of watching the movie, what is produced is more understanding. Understand everyone's different situations and different living environments, maybe we can understand them a little bit better. Don't save others by oneself, it is also the greatest kindness of being born.
View more about 12 Angry Men reviews
