The Life and Death of Individuals and the Rise and Fall of Groups: 12 Angry Men vs. Conspiracy

Sherman 2022-04-20 09:01:07

I once wrote a film review about Conspiracy (2001), when I saw this film, I felt that in such a monotonous scene setting, just the wonderful dialogue and the performances of the actors could attract me to watch it from the beginning with relish. The tail is really unique. However, after watching 12 Angry Men, I found out that there was already such a work nearly half a century ago. And more than that. Thinking back to Conspiracy now, many shadows of the 12 Angry Men can be seen inside. The main scenes of both films are set in the conference room, and the issues discussed are life and death, and there is even a scene in the bathroom. Of course, these two films, separated by nearly half a century, also have many differences.

Also a relatively closed scene, 12 Angry Men's seems more monotonous. Conspiracy is set in a Jewish mansion occupied by the Germans. While most of the film's activities take place in the conference room, there are some exterior shots in the courtyard, as well as shots in auxiliary spaces such as the foyer, bathroom, dining room, and so on. And 12 Angry Men, except for the courtroom at the beginning and a few short shots in the bathroom in the middle, it can be said that almost all activities are limited to the small conference room for the jury to discuss. In such a monotonous scene, the setting and shaping of the characters are even more important. Compared with the elites of the Third Reich who participated in the meeting in Conspiracy, the characters of 12 Angry Men are also simpler. As its title, it is 12 people and 12 jurors. 12 Angry Men, however, delivered a much better story than Conspiracy in terms of characters and setting.

Compared to Conspiracy's grand proposition about genocide, 12 Angry Men's theme is only about one person's life and death: what kind of attitude should you have when your decisions affect someone's life? The architect, played by Henry Fonda, stands by his "innocence" judgment at 11:1. And this judgment is not because he is convinced that the boy is indeed "innocent", but because he cannot be sure that the boy is indeed "guilty". And he believes that in the case of "reasonable doubt" (Reasonable doubt), what jurors should do is to discuss the doubts of the case, rather than make an intuitive judgment based on full confidence in the testimony in court. His rational analysis led the other jurors, and in the debate between the pros and cons, the doubtful points in the case were presented one by one. Every piece of evidence that was previously considered inconclusive has been challenged or even overturned. And in this process, all kinds of human weaknesses are also exposed, jurors, victims, suspects, witnesses, lawyers... A suspicious murder case, a gray description of American society is in 12 The wonderful dialogues and physical performances of individuals are vividly presented to the audience.

It can be said that these two films are a persuasive process. The difference is that persuasion in Conspiracy is a process of suppressing opposition by force. Even though the elites of the Third Reich who attended the meeting still had doubts about the genocide of the Jews, they finally unanimously adopted a long-established result with the coercion and inducement of their superiors. On the other hand, 12 Angry Men, on the basis of equality, persuaded 11 colleagues who believed the suspect was "guilty" with his intelligence and enthusiasm. Although it cannot be said that it has the arrogance of "even though millions of people will go there", it is enough to be admired. It may be because of this difference that the dramatic conflict in 12 Angry Men is more intense and engaging. However, on the other hand, the choice of the themes of these two films also reflects the changes in people's attention and understanding of morality and rights over the past half century. 12 Angry Men is concerned with moral issues related to the individual, while Conspiracy is concerned with the impact of politically related rights on a race.

View more about 12 Angry Men reviews

Extended Reading
  • Adam 2022-03-26 09:01:01

    Although blatant, but also embarrassing

  • Nigel 2021-10-20 18:59:02

    "We will come here, not to fight. We shoulder heavy responsibilities. I have always felt that this is the advantage of a democratic society. We received a letter and were told to come here to decide whether a person who has never lived with us is guilty or not. No matter what kind of judgment we make, we won't get the benefits, and we won't lose. That's why our country can be so strong. "Brilliant! The script, the director, and the actors are all excellent ★★★★★

12 Angry Men quotes

  • Juror #3: [when Juror #11 questions whether the boy would return home to retrieve the knife] Look, you voted guilty. What side are ya on?

    Juror #11: I don't believe I have to be loyal to one side or the other. I'm simply asking questions.

  • Juror #8: I just want to talk.

    Juror #7: Well, what's there to talk about? Eleven men in here think he's guilty. No one had to think about it twice except you.

    Juror #10: I want to to ask you something: do you believe his story?

    Juror #8: I don't know whether I believe it or not - maybe I don't.

    Juror #7: So how come you vote not guilty?

    Juror #8: Well, there were eleven votes for guilty. It's not easy to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.

    Juror #7: Well now, who says it's easy?

    Juror #8: No one.

    Juror #7: What, just because I voted fast? I honestly think the guy's guilty. Couldn't change my mind if you talked for a hundred years.

    Juror #8: I'm not trying to change your mind. It's just that... we're talking about somebody's life here. We can't decide it in five minutes. Supposing we're wrong?

    Juror #7: Supposing we're wrong! Supposing this whole building should fall down on my head. You can suppose anything!

    Juror #8: That's right.