Analysis Of The Film Twelve Angry Men

Personal baggage, this is the flaw that juror three represents. Juror three was very stubborn throughout the movie, a personal issue with his son had caused his stubbornness. It may be seen as a flaw that each juror in the movie carried personal baggage, but the jury consists of peers of the accused, and without personal baggage would the jury system work the same? In Figure 1 juror three is represented by a square, he is very opinionated and snappy. Juror three was stubborn and didn’t consider the thoughts of other or the facts that others had brought up.

“When you go into court you are putting your fate into the hands of twelve people who weren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty” quoted by a man whose name is Norm Crosby. People who get called in for jury duty who are biased or unfair on the case have a valid reasoning to be dismissed from sitting in on a jury duty. Although some people don’t always take advantage of this opportunity, they are stuck in attending the jury duty and is unfair because they are biased to the situation. This ties into the short play called “Twelve Angry Men” written by Reginald Rose, because there were jurors who sat in on the case who were biased to the setting and continued to make an appearance at the jury duty. “Twelve Angry Men”, Rose demonstrates the danger

It is clear that Juror Ten’s uncompromising belief that the accused is guilty is because of his dislike for the boy’s race. His prejudice is clear when he says that “I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say” when speaking about the boy (16). Juror Ten’s prejudice causes him to disregard all of the facts that are presented to him by Juror Eight that can prove that the accused is not guilty. Juror 10 allows his prejudice to blind him of the truth.

The play clearly shows a great representation of the problems in the modern day court system. These complications include biased jurors, ignorant and careless jurors, and lazy court-appointed lawyers. A major problem in the court system is, biased and close minded jurors can often slip through the interview process before the court case. In Twelve Angry Men, Juror Four makes a point that offends Juror Five and shows how judgmentally he thinks; “The children who come out of slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society” (Rose 318). Juror Five takes offense to this because he was successful and born in the slums, and carries on to fight to break the stereotype in the

A juror that was very vulnerable to the pressure was Juror 2. He lacks diction, and seems weak in his beliefs. When the men are asked to share their opinions he says, “Well, it’s hard to put into words. I just-think he’s guilty” (Rose 14). Contrary to the second juror, the third jurors resents being pressured by his peers.

The jurors react violently to the dissenting vote but ultimately decide to go around the table in hope of convincing the 8th juror. This process continues throughout the course of the movie, and each juror’s biases is slowly revealed. Earlier through the movie, it is already justifiable to label juror 10 as a bigoted racist as he reveals strong racist tendencies against the defendant, stating his only reason for voting guilty is the boy’s ethnicity and background. . Another interesting aspect of this 1957 film is the “reverse prejudice” portrayed by juror

Number 3 was very strongly convinced throughout the whole trial that the boy was guilty. Juror number 8 and number 3 didn’t have much in common. But the only things they had in common were negative things, they never could agree on the evidence that was being brought to them to help the case. “NO. 8: (to NO.

The jurors took literally almost day just bickering and arguing over whether the boy was guilty or not. In act two the jurors were starting to change their mind about their vote on whether or not the boy was guilty or not. That is where they started to kind of come to an agreement. From the beginning of act one juror number eight was always on the boys side, and the other guys always questioned why he thought the boy was innocent. Juror number eight did not have a reason he said “ he’s nineteen years old”.

It is not known if the boy is actually guilty or innocent, it will always remain hidden with the boy. It is about whether the jury has a reasonable doubt about his guilt, and this is how the whole debate started when the jury eight had a reasonable doubt about the whole incident of the boy killing his father and the witnesses. Juror eight who entered in the trial with an open mind finally managed to convince the others to do so. The movie illustrates that everything is not what it appears to be. The movie also reflects the prevailing sexism of America in the 1950’s.

Early on he drops small and subtle remarks that indicates he’s bias. These alone don’t amount to much, but as the film progresses and as he becomes more emotional, his remarks begin to escalate. Until the end of the film when he outs himself for what he truly is. This elicits disgust from the other jurors, most notably from juror number 4 who also firmly votes guilty. Juror number 4 is the one who is able to remain the most level-headed and emotionless throughout the trial.