Polemics & ExchangesnThe Subtleties of Propaganda or Twelve Angry Men Revisitednby David H. HirschnThe purpose of Reginald Rose’s finenscript for the 1957 movie TwelvenAngry Men seems to have been tonmake the case for humane treatmentnof the accused. A first viewing tends tonleave the viewer with the feeling thatnjustice has been done and that the jurynsystem has worked, proving the wisdomnof our founding fathers in creating sonperfect an instrument of justice. Fornthose who have not had an opportunitynto view the film recently, let me, as anreminder, quote a summary of the filmnthat appears in the 1975 edition ofnTV Movies: “Brilliant courtroom film;nFonda does his best to convince elevennother jurors that their hasty convictionnof boy on trial should be reconsidered.”nOne correction should be made. Everythingnthat happens in front of thenviewer takes place in a jury room followingnthe trial, and not in the courtroom.nWith his usual soft-spoken reasonableness,nHenry Fonda emerges as ansympathetic hero in the American grain.nHe takes an unpopular position (onenagainst eleven) and finally triumphsnthrough a combination of determination,nunswerving allegiance to principle,nrational examination of evidence,nand persuasiveness. Rose’s orchestrationnof character is brilliant, and hisnability to capture the group dynamicsnof the situation is uncanny. Fonda, relentlessnbut never brash, is seeminglyndriven by an abstract sense of the sanctitynof justice and the jury system. EdnBegley is a hard-nosed proletariannbigot. Lee J. Cobb is a frustrated proletariannwith a personal problem, namelyna rebellious ne’er-do-well son. E. G.nProfessor Hirsch is chairman of thenDepartment of English, Brown University,nProvidence, Rhode Island.nMarshall is a man who seems to benFonda’s equal in education and reasonableness,na professional of some sort,nor perhaps an executive. These threenare the toughest holdouts for a guiltynverdict, the persons who must be convincednbeyond any reasonable doubt.nThere is also an old man who is thenfirst to give Fonda moral support. Thenother seven jurors enter into the dynamicsnof the situation at times, butnprimarily they are there to be swayednone way or another and their chiefnfunction is to exert peer group pressurenon each other simply by weight of numbers.nIt is, however, the interchangesnbetween Fonda and the old man, on thenone hand, and the other three I havenmentioned, on the other, that are mostnimportant. The identities of the jurorsnare kept quite secret. We know neithernthe names nor the occupations of thenweightiest characters. An advertisingnaccount executive is identified and ridiculednfor his superficiality and indecisiveness;na house painter is also identified,nwho threatens the volatile Lee J.nCobb physically, and keeps him fromnsilencing the old man.nAbout Fonda, the central character,nwe learn very little. One wonders whatnkind of man could have performed thenvery considerable heroics engaged innby Fonda. These heroics are both mentalnand physical, and to understandntheir magnitude one must know a littlenmore about the action. On a swelteringnsummer day, twelve male jurors arenlocked into a stuffy room. On the firstnvote eleven of the jurors find the defendantnguilty. Everybody is anxious tonget the verdict over with and leave.nOnly Fonda has not been convinced. Innfact, it is not clear that he is not convinced,nbut he takes the position that andecision involving a man’s life shouldnnot be taken in haste, and thereforennnpleads for deliberation and discussion.nAgainst eleven men who are convincednand who want to get the thing overnwith, Fonda stands alone on the basisnof a principle and the glimmering possibilitynof a vague doubt. After somenpreliminary arguing and sparring thenjurors agree to a closed vote with thenfollowing condition: if the vote remainsneleven to one, Fonda will give in, but ifnhe has persuaded one other juror tonvote against convicting, then the discussionnwill continue. The old man decidesnto go along with Fonda, not becausenhe has changed his mind aboutnthe defendant’s guilt, but because henhas seen the wisdom of the argumentnthat it is unseemly to reach a decisionnthat involves a man’s life too hastily.nAgainst the tirades and threats of Cobbnand Begley, against the cold logic ofnMarshall, and against both the silent”nand vocal resentment of the others,nFonda stands his ground.nWhen challenged he begins to sownseeds of dissension among those whonwere unanimous before. He starts withnthe supposition that the defense attorneynwas incompetent. Why he shouldnmake such an assumption is not clear.nThis supposition is challenged, ofncourse. But once the possibility is introducednit becomes an actuality. Whennthe question is asked, later in the coursenof the discussion, “Why didn’t the defensenlawyer point out such and such.?”nthe answer is that he was incompetent,nand the supposition has become a fact.nFrom the time that he introducesnthe seed of doubt, Fonda spends thenrest of the film doing the defense attorney’snwork of destroying the prosecution’sncase, which has been built onnthree pieces of evidence: the murdernweapon, which is a switchblade at firstnthought to be unusual but later provednto be commonplace by Fonda who hasngone out and bought one just like itniS9nChronicles of Culturen