Twelve Angry Men : The Character Analysis Of Twelve Angry Men

1177 Words5 Pages
Twelve Angry Men is a play that has been written down and put into a book format, for the enjoyment of a wider audience. The play involves a jury in which one juror doesn’t agree with the rest over the verdict of the case that they all witnessed take place in the court. After much argument, hostility, and anger, all of the jurors change their vote from “guilty” to “not guilty.” This all happened through the strong efforts of juror #8 in which he got to the bottom of the logical facts of the case, and through the prejudices of his other jurors. This would make the protagonist of the play juror #8, since he was the only juror who was willing to give the young boy whose life was on the line, a chance. Although most people may consider the antagonist of the play to be one of the more hostile, prejudiced juror’s, I disagree with this idea. In my opinion, it is the defensive attorney who is the true antagonist of this play. As for the theme, it seems quite clear that the writer of the play is trying to show us that one strong person can make others aware of their true prejudices and present ideas in a new way.

Juror #8 was a very calm and collected man, who had a collection of traits unique from all of the other juror’s. It is because of this that he was able to look at the case through a different lens, in which he didn’t simply accept the facts of the case as facts. He looked beyond what was
Harutyunyan 2 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

More about Twelve Angry Men : The Character Analysis Of Twelve Angry Men

Get Access