12 Angry Men (1957) Vs. Conclave (2024)

I shall begin by confessing that there is nothing even remotely original about the above title. If you search Conclave on Letterboxd or YouTube, you will find rather quickly that many others have made the same connection. So what I would like to discuss here, rather, is the distinctions and how these two films carry themselves as it pertains to philosophical quanderies.

12 Angry Men

12 Angry Men is a rather excellent film. It’s a film where new subtext pops out to me with every viewing. I'm not, to clarify, saying that any of this was purposeful on the part of the filmmakers, it’s not important to my purposes here anyways.

I think this film, with all its psychological weaving and the introspective nature of Henry Fonda's excellent performance, can be seen as a commentary on the Jungian shadow in many respects. I believe that to some degree, this film is taking place in one man's mind as he attempts to integrate his shadow. To unpack this further, I must endeavor upon a brief detour.

The Iliad may be seen as a Pagan retelling of the fall of man. The etymological basis for Achilles' name is "Man With No Lips," which was taken by the ancients as meaning a man born fully grown (Kallierges, Etymologicum Magnum/Apollodorus, Library, Book 3, Ch. 13/Clementine Homilies, Homily 5, Ch. 14). This, in conjuction with the weakness of Achilles' heel as it is pierced by an arrow poisoned by serpent's blood, connects the character in with Adam of Genesis. Likewise, Romulus and Remus recapitulates the story of Cain and Abel, with both Cain and Romulus murdering their brothers and beginning great cities.

So too, with 12 Angry Men, do I see and appreciate recapitulation of the Biblical narrative. I do not believe it coincidence that Juror #8 is the redemptive figure. The #8 signifies cultural renewal/new creation in Scripture. Israelite boys were circumcised on the eighth day to mark their being cut off from the Gentiles as a new creation. King David was the seventh son of Jesse, placing him as a figure of rest/judgement. But he was not allowed to build the temple/new creation partially because he was the seventh in the sequence. Rather, it is his son Solomon (the eighth in the sequence) who brings about the temple/new creation. Finally, we see Christ in John 20:1, 14, and 19 establishing the new creation on the first day of the week.... immediately following his fulfillment of the sevenfold sequence of creation (John 1 = Light shines in the darkness, John 2-4 = Baptisms of Christ & John, Fountain of Eternal Life etc). Immediately following that eightfold sequences, John’s gospel proceeds eight days further (John 20:26), and Thomas becomes the first disciple to place his faith in the resurrection. This is why St. John connects the blessing of Christ upon those who have faith but do not see with his writing down an account of the acts of Christ. Thomas is an imperfect vessel used to bring in a new creation/communal renewal twofold.

Thus, Juror #8 is placed as the redemptive figure of cultural renewal. Similarly to Thomas, he demands evidence if he is going to align with the position of the others there and is a flawed, but brilliant protagonist. This is a commentary on brother-murder. 11/12 wanting to kill the man may remind us of Reuben and his brothers discussing the murder of Joseph in Genesis or the inverse of 1/12 (Judas) wanting to kill Christ. The sin of Cain was to abandon God for his own ways. Likewise here do we see the abandonment of the system (innocent until proven guilty) for the prejudices of each individual man.

So we see that Juror #8 displays love. Love is neither exclusively emotion or choice, but the two combined into joyful sacrifice. Juror #8 has such a deep love for the man on trial that he risks mockery and abuse on the man's behalf, and in so doing, transforms the room. Juror #8 is indicative of our need to stand up to tyrants, both within and without. As I said prior, I believe that the film metaphysically takes place within the mind of an individual integrating his shadow, weaknesses, or prejudices. Just as each of us are tempted towards group-think, bigotry, racism, or other such problematic manners of thought that weaken our pursuit of justice and need to be overcome, so too here do we see that accomplished.

Conclave

*proceeds to take a deep breath.* So, I must admit that this film has been rather difficult for me to process. I was initially angered deeply by the film’s depictions of the Catholic Church and faith. How it resolved its plot was maddening to me. With that said, my appreciation for this film has slowly grown since first viewing it. Like I said prior, 12 Angry Men called out our need to stand up to both the outward and inward tyrant. St. Gregory of Nyssa demonstrated this best in his book The Life of Moses. Our lives must recapitulate that of Moses’s. We too must exit Egypt (our sin), cross the sea (baptism), journey through the wilderness (purification), and ascend the mountain (divine encounter).

So I see it important here in viewing Conclave to view the assault upon the systems of the Catholic Church and patriarchy (these are the words of screenwriter Peter Straughan whilst on the Script Apart podcast), to view it as another inward journey as well. As the writer takes aim upon his political or religious opponents through subtext, he likewise attacks that within himself that does not correspond to the goods he loves. Much like 12 Angry Men, we follow our protagonist (Fr. Lawrence) as he dismantles each papal candidate, one by one. He says of himself that although he does not doubt God, he doubts the church, he doubts Her structure. And thus the film is preoccupied with the dismantling of the structure he does not believe in and finally collapsing said structure with the ascendancy of an intersex pope.

See, screenwriter Peter Straughan is a lapsed Catholic and the film reflects his psychological world well. He has said that most of the papal candidates in the film are quite progressive or liberal leaning because that’s what he feels people will identify with. I guarantee you that I didn’t identify with that, nor did actual Roman Catholic bishops such as Robert Barron. But Straughan is writing with what he identifies with, and that’s important here.

Unlike 12 Angry Men, Conclave is not a story of brother-murder. Rather, it regards failure to protect the sanctuary (the sin of Adam). These men are not vying to protect or endanger a man. Rather, they are continually proven to be too cowardly, ambitious, or otherwise unfit to be a protector of the sanctuary. Like Adam, they are cast out of the mountain, which is why the Vatican is bombed and the structure destroyed by the introduction of a father without the capacity to be a natural father. These men allow a marginal figure to corrupt the center and invert the entire mountain.

How the Two Films Relate

Conclave is about the destruction of the system in order to uphold the individual. 12 Angry Men is about the upholding of the system in order to uphold the individual. One might say that the message of Conclave is best put in the words of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau: “Diversity is our strength.” There’s a subtle problem with such a message, however. To identify by the bottom of the mountain, by the marginal, and by multiplicity, is to identify by death. It is to identify with the dust of the Earth, but to despise the breath of God that gives said dust life. Consider my previous article on vampiric symbolism and how vampires are the encapsulation of death for they cannot count up to singularity. For all of Conclave’s religious musings and pious preaching, it is of the same ilk as modern vampiric films that identify by their throwing off of religious ordering. I do, however, absolutely laud Conclave for the honesty of the screenwriter in laying his heart out into this work. It’s a fascinating case study that I’m glad I put the time into watching and studying. Yes, it’s an example of letting the margin or the shadow overcome oneself. But a cautionary piece properly understood can be deeply helpful.

12 Angry Men is a much more satisfying watch due to the bringing together of unity and multiplicity. Yes, there is much diversity and fracturing throughout the film. But that’s not the goal or pursuit of the men. Juror #8’s placement as a redeemer who brings about renewal and resurrection gives the film a hope that Fr. Lawrence does not in his many doubts in existence. Both men are paradigmatically Thomas-like figures, but one identifies by his faith and the other by his doubt. Rather than cancelling the men who fall as in Conclave, Juror #8 shows Grace and even grabs Juror #3’s coat for him at the end of the film. It’s a call to Virtue even when others have wronged you.

I hope that if you watch either or both of these, that this may at least help you appreciate both of them better.

Have a blessed day.