Essay 12 Angry Men Analysis

931 Words4 Pages
12 Angry Men Analysis 12 Angry Men is a movie, directed by Sidney Lumet, about twelve jurors who are deliberating a murder trial. An 18 year old has been accused of murdering his father and the jury has retired to determine his fate. The jury performs a preliminary vote and the results came out to be eleven for guilty and one, the architect played by Henry Fonda, for not-guilty. The rest of the jury then begins to persuade the architect that the accused is actually guilty. Each member of the jury played a key role in the development of the group and the task at hand. The foreman played a major task role and was almost like a manager of the group. He didn’t have much to contribute to the discussion of the case, but he tried to…show more content…
He the low level manual labor worker who wasn’t paid to think. Once he changed his vote he began to defend the weaker members, who had switched to not-guilty, from the angry father. The seventh juror, the baseball fan, played a self-centered role because he was more concerned about the Yankees’ game than the trial. He was one of the more difficult jurors because he made inappropriate remarks and jokes, he didn’t contribute very much to the discussion, he insulted a few of the other jurors, and he changed his vote without having a reason other than, “I don’t think he’s guilty.” Henry Fonda’s character was an architect and who played a task and maintenance role. He was the first person to say not-guilty and started the entire discussion which ultimately made everyone change their vote to not-guilty. The ninth juror, the wise elderly man, played a maintenance role. At one point in the movie the architect decides that after a vote he would say guilty if the rest of the jury still voted guilty. After the vote, the old man was the only person to change to not-guilty because he felt that standing alone isn’t easy and he wanted to hear more facts about the trial. The tenth juror, the garage owner, was a self-centered bigot and seemed to stick to the fact that the accused was guilty because of his race or social level. After a while it seemed that the race of the accused was the only grounds that he had to argue

More about Essay 12 Angry Men Analysis

Open Document