12 Angry Men Summary

Recently in my AP English class, we watched The film “Twelve Angry Men”. The film was unique in the fact that it only had one setting, the Jury Room. The film showed no one else but the jurors and the warden, who all remained completely nameless throughout the entire movie and we're only identified by their juror numbers. The jurors were drastically different which I believe added more diversity and made the plot more complex and intriguing to the audience. I don't believe the film had a specific intended audience, I believe that this show can be appreciated by all audiences because it shows that reasonable doubt is a much easier state of mind then certainty.

12 Angry Men is an example of the role cinematography can play in creating the atmosphere of a film. This film is set almost entirely in one room, but is still able to construct extreme tension like few other films have been able to do. It establishes this partly through the brilliant dialogue and fiery performances of its twelve actors, but also through powerful use of cinematography that helps in creating the gradually-festering atmosphere of the film.

The movie "12 Angry Men" focuses on a jury's decision on a capital murder case. A 12-man jury is sent to begin decisions on the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year-old Latino accused of stabbing his father to death, where a guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence. The case appears to be open-and-shut: The defendant has a weak alibi; a knife he claimed to have lost is found at the murder scene; and several witnesses either heard screaming, saw the killing or the boy fleeing the scene. Eleven of the jurors immediately vote guilty; only Juror No. 8 (Mr. Davis) casts a not guilty vote. At first Mr. Davis' bases his vote more so for the sake of discussion after all, the jurors must believe beyond a

To start it off, we have juror number 2. Juror number 2 is a very hesitant man who doesn't have an opinion on his own. He is very quiet and doesn't have much to say. During the story he constantly kept changing his mind whenever the last person spoke. “Well, sure, I've heard of it. I know what it is. I . . . what I meant . . . well, anyway, I think he was guilty.” (Juror 2) This quote is the juror thinking he was guilty in the beginning but later on he changes his mind. His past experiences have influenced his opinion on the

The Constitution guarantees the right to trial by an impartial jury. Impartiality is the principle holding that all parties should be subject to equal treatment under the law. Being impartial requires jury members to reach a decision based on the evidence presented. The chosen jury must be unbiased, and capable of weighing out the evidence objectively. In order to counter bias, The Supreme Court established a rule that the selection of jurors must be from a pool representative of a cross-section of the community.

Juror number 8 just vote for the first time “not guilty” as the juror 1 (the president of the assembly) ask “what do we do now” he answered “I guess we talk”. That can be a collaborative management as he wants to explain why he voted that. But the juror 3 gets mad because he is the only one who voted no. He talk to him in an aggressive way, and do not seem to respect his position, because he wants to be right; Juror 3 is more competitive because he has a firm stand and he knows what he wants “he stabbed his own father, 12 inches in the chest, they proved that...”. On the same scene, jurors 11 are asking him question on why he disagree. They are more on the collaborative than juror 3 because they do try to understand his position even if they

It is not until the end of the film that the audience fully understands why Juror #3 is hostile and angry. He hinted earlier in the movie that his son and he got into a fight and his son left. This anger that he shows through the movie is the anger that he has for his son leaving. Because of this anger, he does not think critically. He heard the basic facts and made his decision off of that. Without questioning the evidence, he is quick to form an opinion and defend it despite the other details presented by the other jurors. He lacks the ability to successfully critically think because he does not analyze the evidence nor does he present his own arguments skillfully. He only defends his stance based off of personal pathos which hinders his ability to critically think.

You can tell that some of the jurors is looking around to see what the other jurors are voting. When they later votes anonymously, some of them do not comply. Joseph Sweeny switches his vote once the voting is private. This is a strong proof of how there was pressure to conform to the majority.

being stated, and questioned the legitimacy of what was being said in its entirety. There wasn’t a single part of the trial that he didn’t bring up to the other men, and you could tell that he had thought deeply about every argument that he presented. He held no prejudice against the boy or any of the witnesses that had stepped forth, which is ultimately what led him to instil a reasonable doubt in the others. One great example of this is when he presented the ideas about the El train being too loud for the boys shout to have been heard, or that the old man would’ve taken longer than he said he did to get from one side of the room to the other. He made the other juror’s consider his arguments through his logical claims and persistence. Even though the other men didn’t want to listen to him at first, they

His premise was that this young man’s life was in their hands and they should not reach a decision without having a conversation first. He made several references to how bad of a job the boy’s lawyer did in refuting the evidence that was presented at the trial. He stated several times when asked if he thought the boy was not guilty that he wasn’t sure and they should talk about it. By being persistent and not changing his position on several votes he was able to get other members to see that there were several holes in the testimony that was presented. At one point during deliberations he was even able to have each member explain the rationale behind their vote.

Twelve Angry Men does quite a fantastic job of setting up a hypothetical situation in which the audience is exposed to quite a well developed plot that entails an interesting metamorphosis of character between the twelve jurors. At first glance, it would be easy to want to condemn most of the men as immoral, however taking into account Hursthouse's three core ideas of virtuosity many of the men exhibit these traits once critical thinking finally takes hold over their judgment. All three core ideas can be seen by a vast majority of the jurors and thus will examine how the following traits come to manifest: “the right thing to do is what a virtuous agent would do in the circumstance”, “a virtuous person is one who has and exercises the virtues”, and “a virtue is a character trait that a person needs in order to have eudaimonia” (Jacobus 402) . Conversely, one character in particular will push against these morale codes, at least until the bitter end.

In the beginning of the film, conflict between the jury members arise when the initial vote was taken and only one member of the jury voted that the verdict was not guilty (Juror 8). Because Juror 8 did not agree with the other jury members, Juror 12 suggested that the group should try and convince Juror 8, why they think defendant is indeed guilty. Conflict also increases when it was decided that each Juror should give a reason for why he initially voted that verdict is guilty or not guilty. In the process of discussing the reasoning behind each members vote, the preconceptions of some Jurors, namely Juror 10, lead to the conformity of other group members, namely Juror 5. During the film, miscommunication between the members leads to further misunderstanding which eventually resulted in role conflict. Simple conflict also took place when the jury members could not agree on a certain issue. Ego conflict occurred because of the group members personality disagreements.

The storming stage began with conflicting opinions being stated. Tense conversation ensued regarding Juror No. 8’s “Not Guilty” vote and Juror No. 10’s discriminatory remarks. The norming stage showed Juror No. 1, the jury foreman, keeping Jurors No, 11 and 12 on topic to create a productive discussion. In addition, Juror No. 12 suggests discussing views one person at a time. Personally, I do not believe there was a true performing stage in the film. Although they achieved some cohesion during the norming stage, they were still confrontational and were not unified. The adjourning stage showed the characters finally coming to an agreement on a “Not Guilty” verdict, giving that verdict to the bailiff, and all leaving separately.

According the five Methods for Influencing Other Group Members - use of reason, assertiveness, coalition building, higher values, and bargaining - when Juror Eight said: “we are talking about somebody life here, we can’t just decide within five minutes, suppose we are wrong”, he used the youth human-being life’s important and the danger of a false decision as good reasons to force other jurors in analyzing the facts carefully. He then talks about the boy’s backgrounds for appealing to logic and rational thinking of other jurors. Juror Three was overt prejudice, hostility, and used “assertiveness” to influence the other ten jurors of jury provided an antagonist for juror Eight. Juror eight used “coalition building” method to seek alignment with other group members. He never says that he believes the defendant is innocent but his mantra throughout the movie was “it’s possible!” referring to the reasonable doubt, which he convinced others’ thought. Juror Eight continued to appeal other eleven juror’s higher values by repeatedly reinforcing their moral and judicial obligation to convict only if there was no reasonable doubt. He challenged each juror to look at the facts more thoughtfully. “Bargaining” is offering an instrument exchange. Juror 8 used this method when he said: “I want to call for another vote… If there are 11 votes for guilty, I won’t stand alone… But if anyone votes not guilty, we stay here and talk it out.”

Throughout the film, 12 Angry Men, the jury can be seen going through Tuckman’s five stage model of development a theoretical model that describes how groups change over time. Each stage is marked by a different processes and characteristics that can be seen throughout the duration of the film. The jury does not adhere to each stage in the strictest sense but does loosely go through each stage. Noticeable through the progression of the film, the forming stage is short and the storming stage seems to occupy most of the space of the film; followed by shorter norming, performing and finally adjourning phases.