Corridors of Transition between 12 Angry Men and 12

“I have always found that mercy bears richer fruits than strict justice”. Abraham Lincoln

“The virtue of justice consists in moderation, as regulated by wisdom”. Aristotle

”Nobody gets justice. People only get good luck or bad luck”. Orson Welles

Justice = mid-12c., "the exercise of authority in vindication of right by assigning reward or punishment;" also "quality of being fair and just," from Old French justice "justice, legal rights, jurisdiction" (11c.), from Latin iustitia "righteousness, equity," from iustus "upright, just" . The Old French word had widespread senses, including "uprightness, equity, vindication of right, court of justice, judge." The word began to be used in English c.1200 as a title for a judicial officer. Meaning "right order, equity" is late 14c. Justice of the peace first attested early 14c. In the Mercian hymns, Latin iustitia is glossed by Old English rehtwisnisse. To do justice to (someone or something) "render fully and fairly showing due appreciation" is from 1670s.

This word, with such a strong connotation, influenced and formed the basis of many philosophical thinking; explained in a thousand ways, through a thousand procedures (methods), has been used for so long that it became hackneyed and often we do not know where it starts and where it ends anymore. Not only that it is not white or black, it is a lot of shades of gray, sometimes so similar that those who are color-blind will not even make a difference. But for the ones who do, it has been the subject of many works in many creative areas and if well-handled, it created art and great masterpieces. [1]

Sidney Lumet's film, 12 Angry Men (1957), is considered one of the best courthouse movies of all time. Although 93 of the 96 minutes happen in the jury room, the action never gets dull in any moment or any less intense. Through the simplicity of the framework, by the power of argument, the stereotypical characters, the symbols carefully placed throughout the film, the twists and the neat and calculated action, is depicted an issue of which the law and law enforcement have come across since centuries: the ethical conduct of judgment in terms of analyzing a court case considering all the details in front of which the laws remain silent most of the times.

50 years later, the Russian director Nikita Mikhalkov, armed with courage and the desire to broaden the view concerning the same subject, creates an impressive adaptation of the same scenario and a remake of the whole action: 12 (2007). The film, which is much longer (159 min.) always makes us think of its ancestor, of its original; the essence and the film's subject and even some details such as the characters or the objects, are almost the same, but what is designed to strike the viewer is the complexity of the added elements, the more entangled action and the mentality of a people that has experienced and lived most of life in a communist regime. My intention in this project is to identify and analyze the differences between the two films focusing on the temporal area, spatial area, the sequence of events, characters and symbols. I will approach a rather special parallel between them, in that I will not emphasize on the similarities that they share but exactly on what makes them distinct from one another, even though they share the same foundation. It is important to be aware of the diversity of conceptions about the human being when in a crisis situation; his/her concern in defining and seeking for their essence as individuals. The positive implications of this project reside in developing the introspection as a normal state; a more detailed version helps revealing the inner mechanisms, the very personal motivations and the spiritual springs. It’s about what you can trace back in their personal history by seeing their reaction- an entire belief system, born from experiencing life – as it is.

Temporal Area

Regarding the temporal area, the two films are set in two different periods: the mid-20th century USA and the 21st century Russia, both marked by political events and by two different regimes: one in a full bloom democracy while the other makes its first steps in a democracy with strong communist marks. It is only natural for a very large gap to exist between the two mentalities giving the fact that the social evolutionary moments are different. For example in Russia of 2007 the death penalty is not an option anymore; a worst case scenario being that the defendant to be sentenced to life imprisonment. It is a great challenge for director Nikita to display the same possible case in a period completely contemporary with him, in some very similar circumstances and from the point of view of more numerous and complex prospects. It is a time when Russia is a federal state and has many conflicts with other small states which fight for independence and try to preserve their national identity. A good time, found to justify the existence of a character, the young Chechen who stands in the middle of a permanent friction that generates dangerous situations for his people. His whole life is ruled by a war of harassment and the director uses it in a very suggestive way in order to characterize a way of life and thinking. It's an actual war, unfinished, with intermissions of apparent tranquility. In America, the events occur in a period of peace. People are not threatened by an imminent and permanent danger.

The language used by the Russian jurors is also in transformation b virtue of inertia still using words from the wooden language of communism. For example, they still address with the appellation “comrade” and phrases like “civic duty”. “Comrades…I mean…gentlemen. Let’s start” (min. 11:37). Their struggle to recover the old pattern to

represent their personalities and which previously had been totally distorted by the communist dictatorship is noticeable. If in the '57 movie version women had not yet gained the full right to be accepted in jobs that were reserved for men, here in the Russian film, the judge position is occupied by a woman. It shows a time when women already reap the fruits of a long struggle for emancipation. The technology development can not be avoided either. Jurors are asked to leave their cell phones outside before entering into the debate room. Communication brings its subtle influence in the interpersonal relationships manner which is immanent in the turn of phrase. Sidney Lumet introduced us to action in the hottest day of the year whereas Nikita Mihalkov opted for a cold day with snow and blizzard, more representative of the Russian soul essence. Another difference of perspective is the Russian creator’s use of a temporal collage where scenes from the accused young man’s past interfere with the present bringing their important contribution in understanding the situation. We are witnessing his childhood, his adolescence and the traumas experienced in this period. Time becomes a very poignant character for the director immortalizes it so well that the viewer senses it as someone who has an indispensable story to tell.

Spatial Area

The movie “12” places us in a totally different space from the “12 Angry Men” one. The décor exceeds in many ways the American film offering a wider range of deployment allowing the presentation of other adjacent events that enrich the action and eases the drama digestion. If the original film begins in an abrupt manner showing us from the very first seconds where all the action is happening and more precisely, the court, along the courtroom and afterwards the jury room; the remake begins by depicting images of the very action that triggers the trial. So the first images of the movie present us the defendant running down the stairs and out of the building in which the crime occurred. The next scene is a desolated space: a devastated place with victims and ruins after the Russian military action against the so-called Chechen terrorists. Along with the physical space, the access in the dream space is another important difference that occurs early in the movie; in his dream, the young defendant can contact his mother who died in the horrors of war. Thus we are introduced in the region of the Caucasus Mountains, his native place, wonderful by its nature and very bright through the transmitted messages. Even though both films show us from the beginning two slogans that motivate a whole existing, one of them is displayed in a space that provides security whereas the second one is on the battlefield. “12 Angry Men”:”Administration of Justice is the most firm pillar of good”; “12”: “Liberte, egalite, fraternite.”

The courtroom – in the American movie – is located in the very courthouse while in the Russian version all the deliberation takes place in a school adjacent to the court, namely in the gym. Before reaching the gym, the characters pass through several corridors of the school. It is a transition space that allows a light disconnection from the impending juror responsibility, the characters being surrounded by noisy children getting out of classes, while the usher explains why the court does not have an adequate room for such a

procedure. The place where they end up is a much larger one where sometimes you can hear the echo, with a more loaded decor which does not create the same sense of claustrophobia and restraint as in the Sidney Lumet's film. Moreover, by using the present objects an almost identical reenactment of the road taken by the old man who claimed he saw the young man running down the stairs, is possible. Also thanks to the width of the space another important sequence can be produced: the imaginary attack upon one of the jurors; it is introduced by locomotor and verbal manipulation into a fictional criminal attack on his entire family: juror number 11 attempting to convince juror number 4 to return to the vote of guilty. Continuing with the presentation of the spatial differences, the director adds the space in which the accused awaits the verdict, i.e. the cell where he is detained and imprisoned. This space is simple, cold, shabby, dark, strange and foreign. The boy’s memories bring along with the Russian space of Moscow, where the action takes place, another one in which he spent his childhood and made the first steps in his formation as an individual. We are introduced to the house where he lived as a child and later the backgrounds in which the war forced him to survive. Thus the audience transcends easily from one geographic area to another in order to receive political and historical information, necessary for understanding the entire situation.

Characters

Although there are some similarities between the characters of the two films, such as the fact that both defendants are part of a social minority, and the jurors seem to have about the same human characteristics, there are a lot of differences that give a different flavor to the Russian film.

The defendant

12 Angry Men 12
[pic] [pic]

In Nikita Mihalkov’s movie, the young man accused of murdering his adoptive father who was his biological uncle and also an officer of the Russian military, has a known identity: his name is Umar and he appears throughout the whole film. He is presented during two periods of his life: his childhood and his adolescence. If the viewer doesn’t know much about the defendant from “12 Angry Men” (background information, family history, name, childhood), Umar is not just a simple image, a simple idea, he is humanized, and all his evolution is well defined and interspersed throughout the film.

The audience has a clear image about his childhood, family background and social and historical factors influencing it. His entire family was killed in a military attack upon his home village. This set of information, images and short visual fragments brings him closer to the spectator, helping the latter form a clear and very personal version about the story of a life. Unlike Sidney Lumet's film, this young man moves in a setting where his mother, father, uncle and other key characters in his life appear. We can acknowledge his feelings of sadness, fear, pride, despair, helplessness and nonetheless of affection for his mother. All these elements help characterize him thus he is no longer the Other. We see his face, soul, thoughts and hopes; he gets under the viewer’s skin who finds it easy to empathize with him. We learn a few things about his original lineage tradition. Ever since he was a child he knew the knife folk dance specific to the Caucasus area. A very revealing dance of their brave, daring, bold and fighting spirit. It is easy to see how the character finds a way of expression in dance, a very percussive refuge. During the abidance in his cell, alone with his thoughts, waiting for the final decision, he resorts to the same dance which makes him warm, gives him strength and hope. Even if he is in a strange place, he connects to his roots and feels his belonging which makes him an exponent of his people. The fact that we are visually witnessing the traumatic experiences of the accused creates a much stronger impact than in the ’57 film, where a story about a childhood and a hard life was told in ambiguous terms. Umar forestalls the affectionate attention through the director’s complex presentation.

Juror no. 8 vs. Juror no. 3

[pic] [pic]

Although the essential similarity of these two characters from two different films, is the responsibility and self-consciousness both used in order to take a decision regarding the actions of a human life, as a result weighing in from the start with the presumption of a possible innocence, not hurrying to get it over with it as soon as possible; however, the differences are many. In “12 Angry Men” we had juror number 8 as the light figure, while in “12” we have juror number 3 as his correspondent. The director of the latter uses the same complex approaching style for the character’s personality.

By everything he sais and does step by step, the defining traits of juror number 3 are revealed. Thus he relates some aspects of his own life which justify his attitude and the desire that the whole case to be discussed very thoroughly and very carefully. If in Henry Fonda’s character we could only see his just and empathizing side, the side that was in strict connection with the discussed case of murder, in the one of the Russian juror the viewer has access to personal life stories, symbolic gestures and all their great effects and also testimonies about the reasons for voting not guilty. When proposing the second vote he confesses that he does not want to dirty his hands by voting the same as the others (unless everybody will stick with their initial vote – guilty) and explains his proposal in favor of a secret ballot: procrastination and the desire to avoid the effect of herd. The fact that he recounts a decisive sequence of his life, one which changed his life for the better, influenced the whole voting. Once the viewer and the other jurors have access to both personal and dramatic moments, each one of them give him an identity, he’s not just a simple juror anymore, and award him the substantiality of a human being. He knows how to use his own like experience so as to repay a good that he once received. His citizen obligation as a juror is based on his human being matrix but he is aware that along with his help of reaching the right verdict he would have done his duty and he would be returned to his everyday life with its own native responsibilities. A good example to demonstrate this feature of his is one of the last scenes of the film where he does not agree to take part in the action proposed by the first juror to help the young survive outside of prison. This kind of responsibility seems too cumbersome and beyond his powers. However the viewer does not see him more inferior in any way. The juror from “12 Angry Men” leaves the room along with the others once the vote is unanimous, while the Russian juror, at the end of the film, returns to the place of the debate after everybody left, saying a quick goodbye and closing that extraordinary case which challenged him and gave him strength to face eleven other jurors at the beginning of the film.

Juror no.1 vs. Juror no.1

[pic] [pic]

The director Sidney Lumet was very clear in his production which characters were meant to have a key role. Character juror number 1 was responsible only for maintaining the order and counting the votes. In the second production the same juror seems to have the same type of participation, up to a point. The twists at the end of the film is the also the climax bringing something extra that strikes the viewer in that he turns from a simple participant into a leader in an unexpected

situation. When everyone thought they had reached an absolute consensus, the one of not guilty, juror number 1 sticks with his original decision, still voting for guilty. Through the given arguments he proves that his vision is beyond the mere duty of solving a case and confesses his certainty of the boy’s innocence even from the beginning, but he believes that if the boy will remain locked he would be protected from some imminent danger that would threaten him constantly if he were in freedom. He is the only one who thinks about the future and Umar’s life once the vote will be of not guilty in unanimity. He is the only one who takes responsibility for homeless child left without any relatives. He proposes everyone to participate in his rescue and protection suggesting to be held in jail until those who might harm him are discovered and punished. Having no support from the other jurors, each arguing with their personal problems, work or family, he is put in the same situation with juror number three: that is to propose a vote and after that, if everybody remains in their decision of voting not guilty, he would join them. At this point he is very determined in what has to be done to give this child the proposed bailout. Indeed after the boy is released he thrusts out his hand and gives him shelter and the necessary support, promising that those who put him in his misery will be caught and punished.

The other jurors

The “12 Angry Men” character known as the juror number 9 is one of the most important figures in the film; is the one whose name we get to know along with the one of the main character’ and he is one of the key characters. His correspondent in “12” could be juror number 5.

[pic] [pic]

They have approximately the same age and are the first ones to change their vote, providing support for the juror who once was alone against all. I would dare say that their similarities stop there. If the viewer knows nothing concrete about the old man from the first movie, the one from the remake reveals his religion: namely Hebrew. Here we might even say that juror resembles Sidney Lumet's juror number 11, both being part of a minority.

[pic]

But unlike juror number 9 the character from the Russian film has no contribution to the elucidation of the essential arguments in the case. He has a relatively narrow participation and in a vast area of the film he is nothing more than an observant but passive participant. Another character, very stereotypical and quite easy to find in both films is juror number 3 respectively juror number 11.

[pic] [pic]

Both are portrayed as people who are easy tempered who remain very firm on their vote being adamant on the idea that the boy is guilty. Also, they both narrate a story related to their children, although slightly different. The one from the film “12” does not have that tyrant and dictatorial father feature; he is humanized and the viewer realizes this when he learns that his wife left him, starts working to provide a decent life for his son and by understanding the trauma that he was going through he can empathize with the trauma of the accused, thus changing his vote. What the viewer may find interesting is a slight resemblance to juror number 10 in the American film, both having prejudices: number 10 against racial minorities of the U.S., and number 11 against the Judaic religion.

[pic]

Two other characters with very different personalities, but who have something in common are juror number 5 and juror number 2. Both come from the so-called notorious areas thus having a broader view on some particular aspects of the case.

[pic] [pic]

Following other characters of the director Nikita we notice that each comes with an impressive life story, all ending with bringing out to light the best part of a human being; of this human characteristic that builds hope and confidence in one another. Most change their opinion after their own insights. In this regard, there are two similar characters from the two movies: juror number 12 and juror number 3; they both have troubles in sticking with their final votes.

[pic] [pic]

As if everyone would have equally important roles in bringing the truth to light, most of them get actively involved offering the viewer background information of their own lives, they become vulnerable and fragile and make us empathize and get involved at a very subtle level . Even if the ‘57 film everybody has something to say at some point, it can be seen with the naked eye who are the main characters, the ones that leave a mark on all the action; while the 2007 film disposes them all on the same level of importance regarding the events and even the end.
In the remake, humanity is the most important highlighted feature.

Symbols

Given that almost all the action is based on dialogue in the original movie, the symbols helped the viewer to ponder beyond the auditory images, but they weren’t all that many. So the white suit makes us think of an enlightened character, perhaps even with angelical characteristics. The one who chooses to look in his conscience, who is constantly searching for the truth, without any prejudices, always trying to keep his calm, his temper. Even in the tensest moments. The heat is contributing to tension and nervousness. Physical discomfort added to a group of people eager to leave and wash their hands of responsibility can only intensify the pressure. One could say that it is a big factor for the men’s anger, rising up to the surface those odors. The rain is meant to clear the air, to calm the spirits and to bring balance. It also helps in taking a large breath of fresh air to continue a discussion that seems endless, but which is starting to lead somewhere. That fact that it is a pouring rain may suggest to the audience that the reach of the climax is imminent. The whether, the light and the fan work hand in hand. After the rain starts, the room gets darker so the light is turned on. A few second after that the fan also starts working. The fact that they turn on the light may be interpreted by the viewer as if their minds are starting to enlighten and with the starting of the fan, the jurors continue their debate with reinforcements. The setting makes the audience feel like they are locked in the jury room participating with the other jurors to come to a verdict. There is no real access but a sense of integration is transmitted, that makes the viewer feel they can contribute to an important cause.

In the movie “12”, the symbolism is extraordinary rich and suggestive. In order of their appearance, they are:

• The dream of the young defendant. In a natural environment of peace and freedom, in a full sunny afternoon, the boy rushes on a bike to his mother who is waiting for him in a field of flowers and speaking in their native language: Chechen. He believed that this framework would have remained untouched in its beauty if people would have given up their desire for autonomy and independence. For this reason he asks his mother to speak in Russian. The fall off •

his bike brutally reminds him that everything was already lost, his mother actually died long ago and he is already in the dock.

• The group of children out of school and run the halls screaming and laughing. They appear to be carefree and untouched by the vicissitudes of life. They symbolize the liberty and innocence in contrast to Umar's lifetime. • The piano from the gym that is stored after closed bars, but which still can be played, demonstrates that despite the fact that access is denied and he is increasingly isolated it manages to achieve its mission and to embellish the atmosphere through music. It is presented as Umar’s lifeless brother who in turn is enclosed and confined, but who still appears to preserve hope and not give up on what he considers to be predestined to him. • The basketball thrown into the hoop by one of the jurors right before the debate gets stuck between the panel and the ring throughout the entire movie. Blocked and out of reach, it symbolizes the rigidity of the jurors’ minds, almost impossible to be moved and changed from their initial decision. Only at the end, after the clash of opinions reconciles and the decision is unanimous, the basketball leaves its fixed, motionless position, falling on the floor. • The popular dance of the knife from the Caucasus appears three times during the film. It is danced for the first time by Umar as a child and the Chechen soldiers, gathered outside the forest, in a halt. Full of pathos and vibrancy in a very fast pace, the knife dance is a form of unleashing the ideals, vital for a people. The second time the teenager Umar is dancing it in order to keep himself warm in the cold cell while waiting for the verdict. This time the dance is a friend who accompanies him everywhere as a part of his very being - in joy and sorrow. The third time, juror number two, who had grown up in the same area and knew very well the traditions and habits, out of the desire to prove how that type of knife is handled, which is a symbol of a philosophy and a lifestyle under the sign of a permanent defensive, calls at the dance to show how to apply a deadly blow. • The old and patched pipe from an already damaged installation, warns in an unpleasant way, outrages the look of one of the jurors. Initially used as a provisional solving method, unnoticing it becomes a permanent one. It represents the inertia of a communist regime that although promoted intentions of development, it always stumbled over its own shortcomings. • The next symbol that appears in the film, is a small bird that enters one of the room windows and remains there throughout the whole meeting. Its appearance is not in a moment of balance but when the scale was still inclined towards the guilty decision. As a shadow witness, it investigates, observes, hears and intervenes. When juror number 11 is in a state of nervous and quite dangerous overexcitement negatively influencing the atmosphere, making everyone tense, this bird brings him down to earth projecting her feces on the angry one’s forehead. It is the free will, the one who must govern the being to make the best choices without being constrained by prejudices or influences. When everything is in place and the storm has ended, she leaves the scene as a sign that it has served its purpose. •

• The electric light intervenes several times to emphasize certain states of evolution and stagnation in the decision. As the unproductive mind of man stands motionless in the dark, when it foresees solutions and resolutions, it lightens up. Light is needed when they try to reenact the events confessed by the old neighbor. As a warning, it goes off every time they persist in error and it seems that its purpose is to turn them on the right track. For example, when juror number four changes his vote back to guilty, suddenly they remain in the dark. Moment of mental reorganization. After presenting the situation from juror’s 6 totally new perspective that shows that it was actually a premeditated murder and the young man is just a scapegoat, the light turns back on and the discussion is heading towards the correct conclusion. Another timely intervention has the same moment the bird helped to calm the spirits. The last time light acts as a warning is when juror number four returns to the not guilty vote. The shocking interventions no longer being needed, they remain in a more frail light more until the end. • The religious icon, specific for the Christian Orthodox religion is placed from the beginning on one of the shelves; the audience does not realize it until the end, when the one to whom it belongs, namely juror number three, goes back in the already empty room, takes it and puts it back in his wallet. Along with the bird and light, the icon is also a sign of a people’s deeply religious faith. Element of divinity, it oversees the events. • The last symbol consists of the opening of the windows when the fresh air and the snowflakes come storming into the room; the room where Umar’s hope revived. Now the picture is totally changed and integrated into the world of matter.
-----------------------
[1] http://etymonline.com/?term=justice