Embedded Files
Every time, I hear about a new legal drama, I get sentimental for the old fashioned movie "12 Angry Men". All the new legal shows seem to be about arrogant lawyers loudly delivering emotional arguments on American moral values and lawyers having sex with each other.
What happened to the good old-fashioned law trial? Like Perry Mason. I loved Perry Mason! Even though it may have been lightweight on law and only spent half the time in the courtroom, it was all fact based. There was never any legal emotional outburst. Neither Mason nor his arch rival Berger ever raised their voices except for a mandatory objection. No one ever preached any moral issue except maybe "killing is bad". Finally no one on Perry Mason's staff had ever thought about sex. The facts of the case were presented and they spoke for themselves. Sure, there was always the unpredictable missing piece of evidence that drew a last minute courtroom confession, but there were never any car chases, moral indignation, or pillow talk.
The classic film "To Kill a Mockingbird" also gave me a similar feel. Only a small part of the film takes place in a courtroom, but the main character Atticus Finch played by Gregory Peck has the same faith in facts and truth as Perry Mason. The film is set in a more corrupt world than Perry Mason's, still Atticus Finch has an unwavering belief that the truth would prevail.
In "Anatomy of a Murder", the director Otto Preminger cast Jimmy Stewart as a virtuous lawyer like Atticus Finch. His character is a small town lawyer who only deals in the truth but is almost too naïve to figure out the truth. Unfortunately, the film doesn't work as well as "To Kill a Mockingbird" since Jimmy Stewart's character and the narrative are not very fleshed out. Like for most of his films, Preminger is more concerned with breaching motion picture taboos than with story telling.
A twisted kind of virtue is displayed in Billy Wilder's "Witness for the Prosecution" (1957). The movie, which is based on the classic Agatha Christie mystery, is set in old England where lords are running the country and it is their job to take care of the little people. Charles Laughton plays barrister Sir Wilfred who concerned with the truth. He has taken on the task of defending the powerless and innocent. In the initial interview of the defendant, Sir Wilfred determines innocence by various bullying techniques. If he determines the defendant is innocent, then he will take the case and defend him by any means necessary including twisting testimony and harassing witnesses.
In "12 Angry Men", a boy is accused of killing his father and the whole story takes place in the jury room. There are no lawyers in sight — only jurors. Henry Fonda plays one of them, known simply as Juror #8. He is dressed completely in white and plays the virtuous Atticus Finch type. He says he is interested in the truth but doesn't know what the truth is. The rest of the jury is willing to vote guilty but Fonda is not willing to send a boy to the electric chair without examining the facts.
This is the only movie completely set in a jury room. Unlike a courtroom with
recognized authorities and procedures, a jury room has only the foreman as a semi-authority and there are no set procedures. The power struggle and group dynamics are an interesting facet of the move. Very early on it can be seen that the foreman is not much of a leader. His only experience with teams is little league where he is the assistant coach. So, in the course of the discussion of the case two other leaders emerge: Fonda and Juror #3 played by Lee J. Cobb.It is interesting to compare the movie with the conventional theory on team development. This theory, created by Bruce Tuckman, is a five stage process:
The first stage of team development is called "forming". In this stage, the leader answers everyone's questions. In the movie the opposite happens. As proposed by juror #12, every juror except Fonda gets to talk about his thoughts on the case. Juror #3 interrupts this process and turns it around, demanding answers from Fonda. This empowers Fonda and allows him to act as the unofficial leader of the first couple stages.
The second stage of team development is called "storming". According to Tuckman, this stage is defined as: "Clarity of purpose increases but plenty of uncertainties persist. Cliques and factions form and there may be power struggles. The team needs to be focused on its goals to avoid becoming distracted by relationships and emotional issues." http://www.businessballs.com/tuckmanformingstormingnormingperforming.htm
At this point of the movie, Fonda and Cobb each gains some allies, but there is no set process so animosity and antagonism run rampant.
The third stage of team development is called "Norming". At this stage, the team starts to come together by agreeing on processes. In the movie, the disagreeing factions agree on a process so they can proceed.
The last two stages of team development are called "performing" and "adjourning". At these stages, the leader guides consensus in the team. This is where the movie diverges from the convention. Instead of Fonda stepping forward to lead to group, he steps back and allows others to take charge. After all, he never wanted to lead or force his opinion on others; he just wanted to discuss the facts of the case.
The movie brings up an interesting element of jurisprudence: "Reasonable Doubt". This is not an absolute belief of whether the boy is guilty or not, but is there enough doubt of his guilt to be acquitted. Unlike in the Perry Mason world where the discovery of facts brought about a courtroom confession, the discovery of facts brings on a reasonable doubt in Fonda's mind. Fonda's growing belief in the boy's innocence causes him to start supposing circumstances where the boy did not kill his father. Another juror reminds him - and the viewers - that this is not the easy world of Perry Mason. So he poses a question to Fonda: "Supposin' you talk us all out of this and, uh, the kid really did knife his father? "
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse