All white, middle-aged men?

Actually at least 4 were younger than 40. Klugman, Fiedler, Weber, and Balsam - with Weber being 33 and Fiedler being 32 . Women could be on juries but in the 50's many had families and it would be a hardship to do jury duty. Unfortunately, jury duty is more of a burden than a privilege - so they were excused if said they needed to be home. White people made up about 80% of the population with 19% African-Americans - so going purely by the numbers only 2 African-Americans would have - but we were in the 50's so it wasn't a pure numbers game. They did serve - but an all-white jury wouldn't be unheard of if not common. I think you hit it on the head by mentioning the year. It was the 50's and even in NYC, which was diverse and progressive compared to most other cities, was still in the infancy stages of in many aspects.

User Error Please Try Again

Juries are selected from voter registration lists. In many states, racial minorities often faced hardship and discrimination when registering to vote, and while women could vote and therefore serve on a jury, in the 1950s they were often bound to domestic duties (homemaking, looking after children) as a priority, and therefore would rarely be able to spend the day away from home.

I hate to disappoint you but America at that time was 90% White. So people who complain about how 'white' period movies and shows were. It is REALISTIC not racist.+

How do you know none were transgender??

Please stop putting a 2016 social sensibility on a movie that's nearly 60 years old. Consider the era - before the civil rights movement, before the feminism heyday, before the waves of immigration in the 1970s.

I really wish people could watch classic movies without getting bogged down in political correctness.

Of course females and (sometimes) minorities served on juries, but I think writing it for 12 "average American males" (so defined as White by the general American populace in the 1950s) was probably a dramatic choice on the part of Reginald Rose, the playwright.

When you get a group of men together in one room, it's an entirely different dynamic than when there are women present. There will be less concern about good manners/politeness/decorum. We "let our hair down" more easily, so to speak. All guys who have ever been inside a sports bar or a locker room know this to be true.

So consider that in the '50s these conventions of politeness and decorum were even more deeply ingrained. You weren't supposed to swear in front of a lady, and if a cuss word accidentally slipped out you apologized profusely, and she was allowed to think less of you no matter how sorry about it you were. You weren't supposed to even raise your voice in anger around a lady in public.

If even one or two of the jurors in this piece had been female, the mounting tension and escalation of tempers and conflict (that nearly becomes physical) would have to have been curbed, otherwise audiences of the time would have probably been preoccupied with all the "rudeness" on display.

That's why when they produce the play on stage nowadays and cast women in some of the roles (I've seen female actors play Jurors 2, 9, 10 and 11...the bank teller, the old person, the racist, and the foreigner, respectively) there's something "off" about the whole thing. It just doesn't ring true.

Besides, 12 Angry Men is a much better title than 12 Angry Jurors, 10 Angry Men and 2 Pissed Off Women, or Juror #8 Saves The Day.

"If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it." - Mark Twain

Statistics show that the percentage of the African-American population in the 1950s was 10%, even it did not increase last year more than 15%. Therefore, it would be a normal and not that rare circumstance to have all-white and all-male jury then. Some scholars might not expect to see a jury of 12 white men, especially in Manhattan where the film is shot. Nevertheless, others would not be surprised today to have an all-white juror in one jury duty. I presume it might be so, but definitely not all males.

On the other hand, including black or female jurors among the white men, just to “shut people up,” would be more offensive than excluding them. Surprisingly again, a female had a chance in the past to request to be excluded after being summoned for serving in jury duties just by her being a woman! In the 1950s, women were housewives, and serving as jurors would make it hard for them to follow home needs, and prevent them from taking care of children.



Yafai M.

Race enters any conversation humans are hilarious and pitiful it's a great movie and has nothing to do with race

It was the 1950s. What did you expect? Non whites had little rights.