There's an old 1957 "bizarre" movie that's 96 minutes long, but spends 90 percent of its time telling the story of 12 actors huddled in a cramped room about the guilt of a teenager, and there's nothing richer than that. But it is such a simple and unattractive film, but it is still regarded as a classic more than 60 years later. It is the classic American movie "Twelve Angry Men" with a Douban score of 9.4.
Directed by Sidney Lumet and starring and producing by Henry Fonda, the film tells the story of a teenager charged with a crime in court and 12 members of the jury discussing whether the teenager was guilty in the judging room. "Twelve Angry Men" was released at the box office, but it performed very well in word-of-mouth, winning several awards including the Golden Bear Award, and also spawned a number of films adapted to pay tribute.
Why is this film, which has no gorgeous visual effects and is almost bland and dramatic, been named one of the "100 Best Films of the Century" by the Motion Picture Association of America? How does it break the dreariness of the plot and make it gripping just through character dialogue?
Today, this article interprets its charm from the three angles of "the narrative method of the film, the processing of the lens perspective and the psychological change of the speculative process". In the fourth part of the article, I will combine personal movie-watching feelings to talk about how the minority can exert its power in group decision-making, persuade the majority to explore the truth of things, and discover the points of truth.
A slum boy was sued for allegedly killing his father. The facts of the crime were clear, and there were 3 pieces of evidence pointing to him as the killer, and it seemed that the jury had found the juvenile guilty almost without discussion. But in the conference room, when everyone voted on the opinion of juvenile guilt, eleven people agreed that only Davis, Juror No. 8, played by Henry Fonda, objected. So, under the rules that must be agreed upon by all the jurors, they engaged in a fierce argument of mutual persuasion in this small, dreary conference room.
The twelve members of the jury were members of different professions, with very different living conditions, and even the starting point for the case was not the same. On the basis of the film director's discussion of the rationality of the jury system, twelve juries represent the various angles of the general public's view of the problem, how can such a film plot attract the audience? The director has made clever arrangements in the narrative technique, controlling the rhythm of the story just right, and the layers of story development allow the audience to be enigmatically immersed.
Next, let's see how the plot of the movie progresses layer by layer:
(1) Juror No. 8 objected, which promoted inference and argument of facts
When the other eleven jurors all agreed that the juvenile was guilty, Juror No. 8 decided that the life and death of a juvenile who was only 18 years old could not be hastily decided, so why not look for doubts or loopholes in the case? This leads to jurors Nos. 3, 4 and 10's accounts of the case, testimony and exhibits.
(2) The fact that the evidence folding knife is not difficult to buy breaks the consensus of other people's opinions
The deceased had a folding knife in his chest, and after the suspect juvenile was confirmed to have been beaten by his father in the morning, he ran to the grocery store to buy the same folding knife as the murder scene, and the only one in the grocery store. This focus of evidence seems to have no doubts, but Juror Davis No. 8 took out the exact same folding knife he bought, breaking the unique judgment of the evidence.
(3) The testimony heard and seen by the old witness is overturned by combining it with other testimonies
The downstairs neighbor, the elderly, testified that he heard the sound of the case and saw the teenager running down the stairs. However, his testimony was combined with the testimony of another female witness, and Juror No. 9 found the suspicious point, when there was a rumble of trams passing through the street, and the old witness was old and probably hallucinating. And seeing the teenager running downstairs, he also found the problem of time difference through on-site simulation.
(4) The facts of the crime seen by the female witness occur, and it becomes a question as her myopia is discovered
The testimony of the female witness indicated that she had seen the juvenile delinquency on the opposite side, but as Juror No. 4 took off her glasses and rubbed her eyes, juror No. 9 was reminded of the spectacle marks on the bridge of the female witness's nose. The case took place at night, and people usually did not have the habit of sleeping and wearing glasses, and under this line of sight she may only see vague figures, rather than conclusive suspects committing crimes.
As the various doubts are raised, and then the minds of different jurors collide, the development of the story is always in a state of fierce reasoning debate.
In my opinion, this layered, rhythmic narrative approach, by giving the audience a thrill experience of peeling onions in the cycle of discovering doubts and reasoning, allows the audience to remain immersed in it even without grand scenes and exquisite pictures.
More than 90 minutes of film shots are concentrated in a narrow, suffocating room, in addition to the clever narrative techniques, it is inseparable from the switching of the camera perspective and the director's intentional de-scene processing.
Because the audience does not have the interference of other scenes and environmental changes, they focus more on the plot advanced through the dialogue of the characters, making the plot of the whole movie compact and logical.
For example, the changes in these scenes in the following movies, in line with the development of the plot, make a deep impression:
The use of long lenses reflects the transfer of juvenile suspected trials to twelve jurors
The suspect juvenile in the courtroom is silent, and as the plot progresses, the jurors continue to enter the conference room, which uses a long shot to show the state of each juror, and the overlap between them and the teenager at the trial metaphorically his fate is in the hands of the juror.
The use of axis composition pulls the unthinking vote back to a rational state
Juror No. 4 is engaged in stock analysis, he respects the truth of the facts, always maintains the same image in the sweltering room, and uses a head-up perspective when he first begins to represent him, and in the camera he looks at the stock analysis newspaper, reflecting his sanity and rigor. When he talks to Juror No. 8, it changes to an axis composition, more intuitively showing their rational discussion.
The appearance of the upward perspective reflects the reverence for life through the stubbornness of the elderly jurors
Juror No. 9 was the oldest, but he had a brilliant sense of observation, and he raised many questions about the testimony of witnesses. When the old man is represented in the shot, he mostly uses an upward perspective, and emphasizes his persuasiveness through close-ups of the camera.
The emergence of wide-angle lenses fully reflects the disgust of most people for extreme deviations in values
Juror No. 10 did not maintain the rationality and rigor of his duties, he looked down on people from slums, and after making remarks with strong class prejudice, the other jurors stood up and turned their backs on him, using a wide-angle lens to include the scene of everyone leaving the table, reflecting people's extreme disgust for such remarks.
In addition, there are some scenes in the film that are difficult to supplement the discussion or show the difficult process of mutual persuasion, such as interspersed with crime locations and intermission scenes under moving cameras.
In my opinion, the use of these different camera techniques perfectly covers up the drawbacks of single scenes and suffocating space, allowing the audience to focus more on the plot that is getting closer and closer to the truth, as well as the change in the position of different jurors, and portraying the entire speculative process to the fullest.
When the twelve jurors left the courtroom and entered the conference room, eleven of them were juvenile guilty, and when the vote was raised eleven agreed, only Juror Davis, No. 8, did not raise his hand. This feeling of standing against the majority must have been experienced by many people. Whether in work or life, even if you have different opinions that you want to express, but forced by the opinions of the majority, you will unconsciously be affected by the "heavy psychology" and choose to stand with the majority.
In "Twelve Angry Men", juror No. 8 chose to stick to his own opinion, from the initial opinion ratio of 1 to 11, to someone supporting his opinion, to the gradual addition of the proportion of innocent judgment to 6 to 6, and to the resolution of the last juror whose position has been deviated too much, the psychological changes of the eleven jurors who were persuaded in this process are actually not inconsistent with the decision-making and discussion process in real society.
In this process, we can divide into three stages of psychological change to analyze:
The first stage is to follow the majority opinion and not to think deeply about the doubts of the problem
When the court provided seemingly conclusive evidence and testimony, the jury raised their hands in favor of the first show of hands in the conference room, and as the first hand in favor of the juvenile guilty was raised, the others unanimously raised their hands in favor. Obviously, most people believe that there is no problem with the results of the current investigation of the case, and they do not think too much about whether the evidence is rigorous and credible.
In the second stage, the suspicious points of the evidence were discovered, and rational analysis based on experience began to appear
Juror No. 8, out of respect for life, first raised an objection and presented evidence he had found to refute uniqueness. As he began to pull out the identical folding knife he had purchased from his pocket, gradually other jurors became suspicious of their previous judgments, and from the distance from the old witness's bedroom to the doorway, and the female witness was a myopic eye, and the possibility of inference of innocence was found in the judgment of life experience.
The third stage, overturning evidence and testimony, transforming the "theory of guilt" into a "theory of innocence"
When the auditory misunderstandings and time lag errors in the testimony of the old witnesses were confirmed, the views of the majority of the twelve juries had been reversed, but they continued to delve deeper into the requirements of consistency of conclusions. At this time, the fact that the female witness was short-sighted was discovered, and then she deduced the problem of the deviation of the facts she saw, and the conclusion of whether the juvenile was guilty was finally reversed to the theory of innocence.
Throughout the debate, jurors, based on their identity, occupation and experience, did not stand on a rational and rigorous position from the beginning, but instead appeared some non-objective positions of rushing home, class discrimination and father-son contradictions.
And with the questioning of Juror Davis No. 8, people gradually awakened respect for life and legal justice. Rather than expressing the power of the judicial system, this film profoundly embodies the contest between the diversity of human nature and the value of rationality and doubt.
"Twelve Angry Men" has become more and more intelligent through historical precipitation, and it was even collected by the Library of Congress as a "national treasure film" in 2007. Beyond the film story, we see that truth often exists in the persistence and exploration of minorities, and if we just follow the choice of the majority, we are likely to miss the opportunity to discover the truth.
So, in daily work and life, when your opinion is in the minority, how can you exert your power in group decision-making, persuade the majority to explore the truth of things, and discover the truth? In my opinion, it takes the courage to break the mold, to think carefully and thoughtfully, and to be persuasive.
(1) The pressure of a small number of isolated factions requires the courage to break the norm
When you find that you have different opinions from most people, in addition to the expectation of truth, you feel the pressure from the majority invisibly, and whether you have the courage to insist on your own opinions and let the majority think and understand determines whether the values of the minority can be reflected.
The first time a vote is cast in the film, a public show of hands is raised, and when several people in favor of the "guilty" verdict begin to raise their hands, many hesitant people follow. At this time, juror No. 8's heart was fiercely struggling, and when he finally only did not express his position, under the eyes of everyone, the pressure of being isolated and helpless could be imagined how heavy it was.
If you want to express your independent thinking opinion and let it play a certain value, even if you will eventually be overwhelmed by the majority opinion, it can also reflect that you are not out of herd mentality. However, this requires breaking the conventional thinking and the courage to resist pressure and express yourself.
(2) Think carefully and dig deeply to find support for minority opinions
Some people are used to talking about problems on the opposite side of others, you say good he said it is not necessarily true, you said that you should walk on a rainy day with an umbrella, he said that he can wear a raincoat, anyway, always make yourself look different. It must be clearly distinguished that this is a minority that raises the bar and is not carefully considered and excavated, and the opinions of the minority must have reasonable support content, rather than being messed with.
Juror No. 8, out of respect for life, did not vote "guilty", although he was not sure whether the teenager was the murderer, but he had the factual basis that "the folding knife is not difficult to buy", and thus made some people who were already hesitant begin to shake their minds.
Without this factual basis as a basis, then no amount of compassion could have pried open the consensus of the majority.
(3) Break through the fortress of the majority's opinion in a convincing way
In group decision-making, only independent thinking opinions and the courage to break the mold are not enough, and if there is a fierce debate, either no one has the patience to listen or it is simply ignored. So what to do? You need to find a persuasive way for the majority to reflect on their opinions and take the initiative to understand your opinions, so that it is possible to break through the fortress of majority opinion.
The change in the jury vote from 1 to 11 to the final 12:0 in the movie "Twelve Angry Men" is a good way to persuade people.
First, Juror No. 8 took out his folding knife opinion and first reduced the influence of most absolute opinions, so that the opinions of those who voted because of the herd mentality were loosened.
Secondly, by digging deep into the doubts of the testimony of old witnesses, it triggered the thinking of some people in the majority, so that the hesitant part of the people began to reflect and explore the truth.
Finally, 11 jurors who approved of the guilt, on different grounds, began to argue with those who were opinionated and opinionated. When there is a gap in the consensus of the majority, the fortress of opinion will gradually collapse.
Of course, in the end, the film is the minority victory over the majority, but in reality, the value of minority opinions is not necessarily reflected in the overthrow of the majority, but let the majority reflect and improve their opinions, so as to avoid hasty and incomplete decisions.
It is meaningless to pretend to be a minority just to be a minority, or to deliberately arrange for a pretend minority in a team discussion, and once it cannot be found that this minority is false, it is even more impossible to stimulate meaningful discussion.
The classic movie "Twelve Angry Men", in addition to the narrative techniques, lens perspective processing and speculative psychological processes that make people immersed in it, are not only the viewing feelings. More reasons why it can become a timeless classic are the exploration of respect for life and human weaknesses, and the fact that it does not shy away from the ills of the American judicial system. And from the perspective of the art of debate, it shows how minorities can play their own value, make the discussion of group decision-making more rational, and make the final decision more perfect and accurate.
In the fourth part of this article, I shared how minorities exert their strength in group decision-making and persuade the majority to explore the truth in combination with my film-watching experience: (1) the pressure of the minority to be isolated and helpless requires the courage to break the norm; (2) think and dig carefully to find a support point for the minority opinion; (3) use a convincing way to break through the fortress of the majority opinion.