preview

Juror 8 12 Angry Men

Decent Essays
Open Document

I will be analyzing the movie 12 Angry Men with Aristotle’s six elements of drama. After I analyze everything, I will be making a critic on how I felt about the movie. Starting with plot is basically a jury of 12 men trying to find out if a boy is guilty or not guilty for the stabbing of his father. Juror 8 changed the other eleven jurors with facts and the help of the others the boy was set free. The exposition of the story was about how juror 3 at the end would not vote not guilty because of his bad history with his son. The point of attack is when the one guy that says not guilty and starts to change the others minds little by little. The complication of the story was trying to put all the pieces together to make sense that the boy did …show more content…

Juror 1 was a high football coach and was the head of the ballots. Juror 2 was a bank clerk and kind of shy. He seemed intimated by the more outspoken ones but he did change his mind. Juror 3 was a middle- aged man who him and his son did not get along. I truly believe that was the only reason he did not vote not guilty. Juror 4 was a stock broker and juror 5 just remained silent, to declare with great dignity that he was raised in a slum. Juror 6 a blue-collar worker, go over the evidence which determined their verdicts with much detail and thought. Juror 7 was a salesman that just wanted everything to be over. Juror 8 is an architect that is the character that was the only one to say not guilty in the beginning. Juror 9 was an older man that nobody really looked at until he was the first to vote not guilty. Juror 10 owner of a garage, declares that the juror 8 is just having sympathy for the kid because he grew up in the slums. Juror 11 an Eastern European refugee, for changing his mind. Last on the background story is juror 12 advertising executive, suggests that each juror present the reasons behind his verdict as a means of convincing Juror 8. The protagonist is juror 8 the one who started it all. Juror 3 is the antagonist because he literally declines everything that anyone is saying to him. I feel that his confidante was juror 9 because one he was the first one to change his decision. …show more content…

The thought of this stories and some of the guys work together to proven to the other person that they are right. The theme of this story is justice, social inequality, and social responsibility. Juror 8 wins because he has proven to everybody even with some help that there was no way that the boy killed his father. The actions of the jurors mainly 3 was one of those who just was mean and did not want anyone to be right. The language of the story is all around dialogue and formal speech. There are different men from different countries with different accents and everything. Some even when they get upset into to arguments they would cuss. Some almost got into fit fights because it was so heated. Some talked really fast that you could barely understand what they were saying. Some were kind of timid and soft like to where they sounded afraid to speak or something. There was not a lot of music but it did play apart in how some things went down. The music throughout was very kind of sad and soft. The music really set the mood to where we knew when they were frustrated or sad. Until the end with the kind of joyful music because the decision was made the boy did not go to

Get Access