Film Essay
The movie, 12 Angry Men, portrays the decision-making process of a case involving twelve men as the jury. Some have clear bias while others have the sincere goal of justice being served. In the beginning, 11 jurors were ready to give a guilty verdict before the details of the case were explored. However, the two men with the most complex relationship are Juror 3 and Juror 8. Juror 3 and Juror 8 are the two characters in 12 Angry Men that drive the plot along, although their persistent conflicting views stemming from differences in backgrounds, behaviors and attitudes cause them to constantly clash. Juror 3 and Juror 8 come from completely different background which impacts their decision-making. Juror 3, who is estranged from
…show more content…
The first sign of the clear difference in behavior between the two jurors occurs when the men fill the deliberation room. Juror 3 immediately begins to throw his beliefs onto the other jurors. For example, he pushes his influence onto Juror 2 who is apparently the weakest compared to the others. He forcefully tries to convince the men that the young boy is obviously guilty without apparent reasoning to support his claims. When Juror 8 is the only man that votes not guilty opposed the other eleven men, Juror 3 is shocked and makes that clear by standing up irritably. When a second juror changes his vote, unknowingly, Juror 3 angrily accuses Juror 5, although it was Juror 9 who admits later one. Instead of apologizing to Juror 5, he continues to show his irritableness. Further on, Juror 3 continues to behave dramatically and exerts his opinion when he screams, “This kid is guilty! He’s got to burn! We’re letting him slip through our fingers.” Juror 8 responds to his outburst by saying that he is sadist, showing his resentment of Juror 3’s conviction. Clearly, the two jurors that have the biggest impact on the movie’s plot have opposite behaviors that contribute to their incessant
Throughout the play, Juror 3 is stubborn and unwilling to listen to any other opinions. Juror 3 continually does or says whatever best suits his needs to convince the rest of the jurors that the teen boy murdered his father. When he first interjects, he describes his thoughts about the case being
Even before the jury sits to take an initial vote, the third man has found something to complain about. Describing “the way these lawyers can talk, and talk and talk, even when the case is as obvious as this” one was. Then, without discussing any of the facts presented in court, three immediately voiced his opinion that the boy is guilty. It is like this with juror number three quite often, jumping to conclusions without any kind of proof. When the idea that the murder weapon, a unique switchblade knife, is not the only one of its kind, three expresses “[that] it’s not possible!” Juror eight, on the other hand, is a man who takes a much more patient approach to the task of dictating which path the defendant's life takes. The actions of juror three are antagonistic to juror eight as he tries people to take time and look at the evidence. During any discussion, juror number three sided with those who shared his opinion and was put off by anyone who sided with “this golden-voiced little preacher over here,” juror eight. His superior attitude was an influence on his ability to admit when the jury’s argument was weak. Even when a fellow juror had provided a reasonable doubt for evidence to implicate the young defendant, three was the last one to let the argument go. Ironically, the play ends with a 180 turn from where it began; with juror three
Some Heroes don't wear capes in the play 12 Angry Men juror number 8 is that kind of person in the play is About a Boy on trial for murder and a jury filled with different people trying to decide his fate while some jurors want to leave or don't care juror number 8 is a man who fights for justice juror number 8 represents the best of our American justice system because he is truthful gentle and strong. He is interested in and getting to the facts and seeing Justice served “there were 11 votes for guilty it's not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first” (rose5). It might take a long time to reach a fair verdict but Juror 8 does not seem intimidated from the naysayers. Juror 8 even calls out juror
12 Angry Men is about 12 men who are the jury for an 18 year old accused of murder. The judge states in the opening scene that it is a premeditated murder in the 1st degree, if found guilty will automatically receive the death penalty. The 18 year old male is accused of killing his father with a “one of a kind” switch blade, in their home. The prosecutors have several eye witness testimonies, and all of the evidence that they could need to convict the 18 year old male. In the movie it takes place on the hottest day of the year in New York City. There are 12 jurors whom are to decide if the evidence is enough to convict the teen of murder in the first degree. In the first initial vote it is 11-1. The only way that the jurors could turn in their votes was if there was unanimous vote either guilty or not guilty among the 12 jurors. As the movie progressed the jurors ended up changing their minds as new evidence was brought to their attention by simple facts that were overlooked by the police and prosecutors in the initial investigation. Tempers were raised, and words flew, there was prejudice and laziness of a few of the jurors that affected the amount of time it took to go over all of the eye witness testimonies and evidence. The eye witness testimonies ended up being proven wrong and some of the evidence was thrown out because it was put there under false pretense.
The first vote ended with eleven men voting guilty and one man not guilty. We soon learn that several of the men voted guilty since the boy had a rough background not because of the facts they were presented with. Although numerous jurors did make racist or prejudice comments, juror ten and juror three seemed to be especially judgmental of certain types of people. Juror three happened to be intolerant of young men and stereotyped them due to an incident that happened to his son. In addition, the third juror began to become somewhat emotional talking about his son, showing his past experience may cloud his judgment. Juror ten who considered all people from the slums “those people” was clearly prejudiced against people from a different social background. Also, Juror ten stated in the beginning of the play “You 're not going to tell us that we 're supposed to believe that kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I 've lived among 'em all my life. You can 't believe a word they say. I mean, they 're born liars.” Juror ten did not respect people from the slums and believed them to all act the same. As a result, Juror ten believed that listening to the facts of the case were pointless. For this reason, the tenth juror already knew how “those people” acted and knew for sure the boy was not innocent. Even juror four mentioned just how the slums are a “breeding ground
These two jurors are almost the plain opposite of each other. Juror 3 appears to be a very intolerant man accustomed of forcing his wishes and views upon others. On the other hand, Juror 8 is an honest man who keeps an open mind for both evidence and reasonable doubt. Since these two people are indeed very different, they both have singular thoughts relating to the murder case. Juror 8 is a man who is loyal to justice. In the beginning of the play, he was the only one to vote ‘not guilty’ the first time the twelve men called a vote. Although his personality is reflected on being a quiet, thoughtful, gentle man, he is still a very persistent person who will fight for justice to be done. Juror 8 is a convincing man who presents his arguments well, but can also be seen as manipulative. An example would be when he kept provoking Juror 3 until he finally said “I’m going to kill you" to Juror 8. He did this because he wanted to prove that saying "I’ll kill you" doesn’t necessarily mean that Juror 3 was actually going to kill him. Juror 3 is a totally different character. He is a stubborn man who can be detected with a streak of sad...
Juror number eight is the main protagonist, he also a reserved with his thoughts, yet very strategic with them. He is the defender of the down trodden victim. He has a calm rational approach to everything and he reveals the gaps in the testimonies placed against the defendant. These examples would be; that the old man couldn’t have seen the boy run out of the house, as the old man had a limp and therefore could not make it to the door in time. The old lady across the road could have never saw the boy stab his father, due to she wasn’t wearing her glasses and it was pitch black. Number eight is a man that s...
Juror #3 is very biased against the 19-year-old boy that is being tried, and this affects all of his thoughts and actions regarding the case. He has this bias because his own son hit him in the jaw and ran away from home at the age of 15: “I’ve got a kid…when he was fifteen he hit me in the face…I haven’t seen him in three years. Rotten kid! I hate tough kids! You work your heart out [but it’s no use] (21).”According to this quote from the text, this juror condemns all teenagers and feels resentment towards them. He especially feels strongly about the boy being tried, because the boy grew up in the slums, and this juror is also biased against these people who grew up there. It is because of these feelings that he is strongly cemented in his vote of guilty.
...a unanimous vote of not guilty. The final scene takes place signifying the "adjourning stage". Two of the jurors, eight and three exchange the only character names mentioned during the film. The entire process of groupthink occurs in multiple ways that display its symptoms on individual behavior, emotions, and personal filters. These symptoms adversity affected the productivity throughout the juror's debate. In all, all twelve men came to an agreement but displayed group social psychological aspects.
It was not a good idea to take a vote without a discussion, because the other jurors do not know other opinions that might change their mind. The eighth juror voted not guilty because he did think about all of the details that happened the night of the murder. It turned out that the jurors had over looked a few
A juror of reason would use facts and evidence; instead juror three leaned on stereotypes and prejudices to obscure the truth. He leaned on the fact that the boy was from the slums and the stereotype that he must be up to no good to convince other members that the defendant was just young trash and could not be innocent because of his upbringing. Juror three’s prejudices come from the fact that it is a case involving a young boy who is defying his father. Juror three already has a strong prejudice against children. His son has grown up, challenged his authority and rejected his values. This is why he is so quick to judge the boy on
Twelve Angry Men is a play written by Reginald Rose concerning the jury of a murder trial. It is centred around a debate of wether the accused is guilty or not guilty of murdering his father. Initially, 11 out of the 12 jurors deem him as guilty, however the 8th votes
Another conflict is that some of the jurors were hard/hot headed and stubborn. They refused to accept the stories that juror 8 proposed even when they knew he was right. It's a conflict that could've easily been avoided if half of them weren't so fulsome. The decision in the case could've been resolved sooner if not for their stubbornness.
Juror #2 was a grandpa, and was new the whole jury idea. He never said much, but when he did he was always very insightful. Though he starts with the boys guilty, throughout the hour he was willing to listen to what others had to say, particularly guy # 8. He was the one who asked the other men, to think more about the crime scene. When Guy#8 reenacted the scene he was the one who took the time to see how long it took for the witness to get to the door and see the boy running. Also he studied on how the boy used the knife, and where he got such a knife. Has a grandson who looks like fat Albert. Had a small Argument with guy #10, but never really had much conflict with others. As they come to closing with the votes, he ended up changing his vote to not guilty.
The quietness and patience juror 8 displayed caused tension amongst the other jurors creating careful and adequate (Flouri & Fitsakis, 2007, p.453) deliberations. Juror 8 's circle of influence (Covey, 2013) directly influenced the other jurors’ circle of concern (Covey, 2013) when forcing them to question their thought process. Juror 8 chose a collaborative negotiation (Budjac Corvette, 2007, p. 63) method when deliberating with the other jurors immediately handing down guilty verdicts for the defendant. Furthermore, juror 8 used his ACES to help the other jurors cross the creek (Budjac Corvette, 2007, p.