Movie Scene Analysis of 12

Movie Scene Analysis of 12 Angry Men

Acting involves a number of different aspects, most importantly the script, but also certain nonverbal aspects, which make it the art form that it is. How an actor speaks the lines, how they stand, the expression on their face, and more, are factors that are all part of the means of transmitting ideas and emotions to the audience. While live theater allows for the actors to create new performances almost daily, films are an art form that capture the vision of the director and records it for all eternity. Because of this, the film can be tailored to express and communicate to the audience exactly what the director wishes to be portrayed. Scenes can be filmed again and again, edited to perfection, and actors can be directed to give certain performances until everything is perfect. This exactness also allows for the performances of the actors to be replete with nonverbal means of communication that can convey the director's vision. One film in which both verbal and nonverbal communication is important is the classic film entitled 12 Angry Men, in which a number of men on a jury, while deliberating a murder case, reveal as much about themselves as they do about the facts of the case. "12 Angry Men (1957)"

Communication between individuals is often thought of as something that is transmitted through speech, but nonverbal communication is also used as a means of transmitting ideas. Nonverbal communication can be defined as the many actions and expressions the human body gives off while interacting with others. ("Nonverbal Communication") This is especially important when discussing literature as all the communication, both verbal and nonverbal, is directed and controlled by the writer and therefore, can be specifically tailored to express the ideas that the writer is attempting to communicate. In literature, nonverbal communication can "result in a decidedly physical and psychological realism which in turn distinguishes individuals among themselves…and wittingly or unwittingly, identifies a personal environment and a culture." (Payatos, 2002, p. 181)

12 Angry Men is a dramatic representation of a jury deliberating the fate of a young man accused of murdering his father. It is also the tale of one lone juror who faces off against the others when he believes the defendant is innocent while all the other jurors believe him to be guilty. This lone juror, the architect, also known as Juror #8, proceeded to argue with the others, slowly changing their minds, until they finally decided that the defendant was indeed not guilty. However, during this time much was revealed about the jurors, including their ignorance and prejudice, their ability to make logical conclusions, as well as their courage, fear, hatred, and loves. And as much of this information is communicated to the audience through nonverbal means as through the actual words written in the script.

Prejudice is a non-tangible emotion that can color a person's attitude toward many things, not the least of which can be their judgment. As the accused murderer was a Hispanic youth, and the film was made in the 1950's, prejudice played a role in the deliberations of the jury. One of the jurors, simply known as juror #10 and played by the renowned actor Ed Begley, slowly revealed his racial prejudice during the deliberations, until it finally exploded in a racially charged tirade. This particular scene followed another somewhat explosive scene in which the lone Hispanic juror, who spoke with broken English in order to display his immigrant status, demonstrated his seriousness toward the principles embodied within the Constitution of the United States when chiding another juror for not taking the deliberations seriously. At this point in the film, Henry Fonda, the lone juror who demanded that the others at least discuss the case, called for another vote. This was one of many votes the jury took during the film (the first of which had a single not guilty vote made by Henry Fonda) with more and more jurors changing their vote from guilty to not guilty as time went by. As the vote proceeded, there came to be nine votes for not guilty and only three votes for guilty; the not guilty votes increasing from six in the last vote. It was at this time that the juror played by Ed Begley exploded in anger at the other jurors.

Physical appearance is an important non-verbal communication device as each of the various jurors appear and are dressed as a means of divulging information about that particular character. For instance, juror #8, played by Henry Fonda, was an immaculately groomed character who was neatly dressed with a pressed shirt and straight tie. He was also the juror who displays careful consideration of the facts and a desire to set things in order. On the other hand was Ed Begley's character, a slovenly groomed juror who was dressed in a rumpled shirt and loosened tie, and spoke without thinking. He was presented as a man who was small minded and ignorant of social graces, a man who allowed prejudice to cloud his reasoning.

In terms of Kinesics, or the "actions and positions of the body, head, and limbs," (Harrigan, 2005, p. 137) Juror #10 began his racially charged tirade by slamming his hand on the table, in an effort to express his frustration. But this act revealed his violent nature, he was a man who was controlled by his emotions and not his reason or intellect; a perfect breeding ground for prejudice. He also continually used his hands as a means of stressing his points, but like his rant as well as his glare, his hands flew violently in a spastic frenzy, once again demonstrating his lack of emotional control. And as he frantically searched for anyone in the room who would make eye contact with him in a show of solidarity, he received nothing in return. It was at this point that Juror #10 pulled a handkerchief from his pocket and wiped his face as if he was subconsciously wiping the filth that was spewing from his mouth. He then continued his rant, pointing his finger at those who were beginning to demonstrate their contempt for his racist behavior as though he were chiding children. But the other jurors refused to make eye contact with him, and even took it a step further. As his racial diatribe continued, the other jurors, unable to take any more, actively demonstrated their contempt for him and his statements by standing, one by one, and walking away from the table. And in a final act of shunning, the jurors actually turned their backs on the racist juror and his discriminatory speech.

As his fellow jurors began to stand and turn their backs on him, Juror #10's speech patterns began to change. At first he was loud and boisterous in his claims of how "those people" behave, and how life doesn't mean as much to "those people," but as juror after juror walked away from him, his speech patterns began to change. At first he began to stutter in his speech and lower his volume and tone, demonstrating the first chink in his armor, but then his anger at the others for refusing to listen to him exploded once again and he increased his volume and expanded his racist tone even further. But this only fueled the other jurors' contempt and their exodus from the conversation. It was then that juror #10 lowered his volume, his stuttering became more pronounced, he spoke meekly, the angry flailing of his arms subsided, and he began to repeatedly fondle his handkerchief displaying a complete collapse of confidence.

There is also another nonverbal means of communication which was presented by the way the director shot the scene. It began with the first outburst by Ed Begley's character in which the camera was narrowly focused on him. But as his racist outburst continued, the camera shot widened to include more and more of the other jurors. And as the scene widened, it displayed the other disgusted jurors standing up, walking away from the table, and turning their backs on the racist. Juror #10 began as the center of the scene, the focus of the audiences attention, but as his racist speech continued, he became smaller and smaller within the scene, until he appeared to be standing alone in a room full of people. As the scene marked it widest shot, Juror #10 slowly skulked away to sit in a corner, but it was then that the scene began to zoom in again, but this time it was on Henry Fonda who began to quietly and rationally speak about how prejudice can cloud one's judgment.