12 Angry Men Character Analysis

The play "Twelve Angry Men", By Reginald Rose, is a play about 12 jurors that in an

Twelve Angry Men takes you into a day in the lives of twelve jurors in a New York City courthouse. In the hands of the jurors lies the fate of a young man accused of stabbing his father.

In the film 12 Angry Men, a group of twelve jurors are deciding the fate of a young boy accused of murdering his father. Throughout the juries dilleration, one man exhibits all of the qualities of leadership. This man is juror number 8 played by Henry Fonda. Fonda not only exhibits the the 10 qualities of a leader but he uses these qualities to lead the entire jury to a vote of not guilty (Fonda & Lumet, 1957).

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

The film “12 Angry Men” gives the audience insight as to how jury deliberations work. The film follows 12 jurors throughout the process of finding the defendant’s sentencing. The jury is overseeing a case surrounding a young boy who is charged with the murder of his father. It was interesting to see the process of this paired with the way each character’s vote had an effect on each of the other juror’s decisions. The film “12 Angry Men” portrays a realistic fluctuation of stances in a room of jurors as a whole and individually based upon the prior experiences and ethics of each juror.

or this project we viewed the original 1957 version of Twelve Angry Men, an American Drama, adapted from the teleplay written by Reginald Rose with the same name starring Henry Fonda as the lead role.

“A person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.” In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, a 19-year-old is on trial for the murder of his father. After many pieces of evidence were presented, the three that are shaky include the height of the father, the woman who saw from the el train, and the old man who saw the boy running down from the stair. Based on these, the boy is not guilty.

While the above points may be valid and prove a point, nothing really shows who someone is more than what he or she may do. The character’s

The movie 12 Angry Men takes place in a room of 12 jurors as they discuss the guilt of a boy charged with the murder of his father. The facts of the case have been laid out, and each juror already has decided how they feel. Initially the vote was 11-1 guilty. The one vote for not guilty came from Juror Number Eight, Mr. Davis, played by Henry Fonda. Mr. Davis voted not guilty because he had reasonable doubt about evidence presented by the prosecution. As Mr. Davis explains his reasoning behind his reasonable doubt, the core values of himself and other jurors are displayed. As the movie continues, the vote slowly turns from 11-1 guilty to 12-0 not guilty. Mr. Davis brings up point after point that force his fellow jurors to analyze themselves and in the end, change the way they vote. Ultimately, the 1957 film 12 Angry Men forces the audience to look inward after watching the juror’s words, manners, and priorities change throughout the jury session.

In the movie 12 Angry Men, juror number 8 (Henry Fonda) was not sure if evidence presented...

The last fact that I have is that the boy was accused of stabbing his dad in a downward motion. That would not have been accurate evidence because the boy was an experienced knife fighter. An experienced knife fighter would not have stabbed like that.

Although the film also shows how a man like him can become soft, and then

When the Judge admonished the Jury, he told them they must reach a unanimous decision beyond a reasonable doubt. The "hero" of this movie appears to be Henry Fonda, the first juror to vote "not guilty". He kept challenging the evidence by saying "isn 't it possible?"...that the evidence was wrong. Do some critical thinking on this...using a good paragraph answer if "isn 't it possible?" is the same thing as "beyond a reasonable doubt." Start with a “yes” or “no” and then eleaborate.

Twelve Angry Men is a courtroom drama that was brought to the big screens in 1957. The storyline follows twelve men selected for jury duty, who are trying to reach a verdict on a young man’s trial following the murder of his father. Throughout the debates and voting, the men all reveal their personalities and motives behind their opinions. Because of all the differences of the men, their communication skills lack in some ways and are excellent in others. The three small group communication variables that I found portrayed throughout the movie were prejudice, past experience and preoccupation.

The character of Davis, played by Henry Fonda, used persuasion to help convince the other jurors of why the defendant was not guilty. He was able to read the other jurors, and actively listened to what was being said. He was able to establish credibility by maintaining his composure, he gave a positive impression of himself to the others, and establish his trustworthiness. He would