Last weekend I saw 12 Angry Men screened in Rose House. I was not expecting the movie to be in black and white, and was initially surprised by its age. (I suppose I should have read the flyer more closely.) Nevertheless, I genuinely enjoyed the film. It isn’t often that we see movies anymore that are filmed almost entirely in one room, and the lack of scenery changes really allows the viewer to hone in on the characters themselves without focusing on extrenuous details. I think that this element of the film in particular highlighted the ways in which it functioned as an examination of humanity itself. It’s almost as if we are watching these men in some kind of social experiment, that’s the feeling that the movie gives. It adds a really interesting dimension to the viewership.

Additionally, the film examines the biases and external factors which impact the outcome of court decisions. I specifically liked how the film did not show any of the case in question, and we are forced to determine what happened and form our own opinions on the basis of what the jurors themselves convey, just as we must often do when consuming media, etc. today. One of the most interesting elements of this is that the defendant is never explicitly said to be a person of color, yet it is known by viewers that he is. The bias that exists is so potent, and that is very interesting to witness in this film when it is so specifically divorced from the target of that prejudice. Thinking about modern legal issues, this kind of bias clearly persists today. Overall, the film itself was quite entertaining and remains strikingly relevant despite its age.