The Difference between the Movie and Book Versions of “12 Angry Men”

Even though the movies "12 Angry Men" argued the same case, there were some important differences.

The first example between the two was the racial differences in the 1957 version. There was ambiguity over whether the boy was guilty or not. The boy seemed naïve and immature, not fully understanding the situation. The boy was convicted of murdering his father. Out of the white jury, only one man thought he was innocent. There was doubt in his mind that the boy had committed murder.

They argued for hours until they swayed the one man who initially thought the boy was guilty. In the 1997 version, there were not only white men but black men too. The boy convicted of killing his father was panic-stricken. That really altered my perception of the movie. The black jurors believed they were wasting time in the conference room while the white men wanted to discuss the case further. There was also an argument between an old white man and a black man. The black man wouldn't let the white man speak, causing a near altercation.

Another example of the differences was the disregard that occurred at inappropriate moments. In the 1957 version, despite all being white, they often treated each other with disrespect. When one wanted to discuss something, the other didn't want to because of their stubbornness. He stood alone. He didn't want to change his vote, thinking he knew everything. In the 1997 version, the black jurors were problematic. One was just like the man in the earlier version who refused to change his vote. He thought he knew everything, but he didn't. Eventually, another juror told him to sit down and be quiet. He remained silent until the jury asked him for his vote.

Another significant difference was seen in the court room set up. It was unusual because, in the 1957 version, a man was the judge, reflecting the traditional roles of the era where men worked and women were homemakers. There was also no swearing in the courtroom, a stark contrast to the 1997 version. In that version, a woman was judge and swearing was permitted in the courtroom. When evidence was needed in the 1957 version, knocking on the door was required. In the 1997 version, one had to ring the buzzer. It's amazing how things evolve over time.

The final example of difference revolved around the bathroom meetings. These meetings were quite unique. In the 1957 version, they used the bathroom for breaks and as a place to contemplate the trial's details. In the 1997 version, the jury used the bathroom to get away from the arguments and to catch a breather. They also used it to discuss their life outside of the conference room and trial. All in all, they were all good men, but some had rather bad tempers.

In conclusion, the differences in the movie were better in some ways and worse in others. But both versions portrayed the saving of a young boy's life.

Did you like this example?

330

19