Character Analysis Of 'Juror In 12 Angry Men'

1643 Words7 Pages
Foreman (juror1): He being a foreman was forced to act as a leader. As he was a football team coach, he was well aware of the importance of team playing and team coherence. Juror #6 is probably the most invisible juror of the entire bunch. He only has a handful of lines in the movie, and he tends to come across as a guy who's willing to change his mind if people can convince him. As he says toward the beginning of the movie, "I don't know. I started to be convinced, you know, with the testimony from those people across the hall. Didn't they say something about an argument between the father and the boy around seven o'clock that night? I mean, I can be wrong." This kind of talk shows us that he has a fair mind and simply thinks the kid is guilty, although he's willing to admit he could be wrong. The only time…show more content…
Juror 4 Of all the jurors, #4 is the nearest to a robot. The guy doesn't even sweat when all the other guys have made their shirts see-through. He's pretty convinced of a Guilty verdict in the beginning, but only because he believes in the power of evidence, while the others who cling to a Guilty verdict tend to have some personal bias against the defendant. Whenever an argument breaks out, #4 is always quick to say stuff like they all need to behave like gentlemen and that there was no point in arguing. But when it comes to reaching a verdict in the case, #4 is completely unsympathetic, saying, the boy's entire story was flimsy and he also claimed that he was at the movies. He couldn't even remember what pictures he saw and that it was little ridiculous. While he might seem cold and harsh, Juror #4 is actually not all that bad. For one thing, he's totally willing to be swayed by evidence. He tosses aside some of the early arguments about the defendant's innocence not because he's prejudiced, but because he doesn't believe

More about Character Analysis Of 'Juror In 12 Angry Men'

Open Document