Foreshadowing In 12 Angry Men

I watched the original 1957 version of 12 Angry Men, the premise of which surrounds a jury deciding the fate of an 18 year old charged with the murder of his father. We join the story after trial has concluded and the twelve jurors are beginning deliberation. For the purpose of this paper I have chosen to focus on juror number three played by Lee J. Cobb. From the very beginning of the film the audience is given a small glimpse of juror number three with the use of foreshadowing. After the judge dismisses the jury, number three is the first to stand and look at the accused before leaving the courtroom. Further foreshadowing occurs when the character is casually speaking to juror number two. After number two states that he found the trial interesting,

First, some of these men are obviously prejudice against the defendant as he is “one of them” meaning under privileged because he grew up in a slum or possibly meaning an immigrant or even both. The others, if they are not openly prejudice they allow it to go on or don’t speak up which is just as unethical. The only time any juror defends a “minority” is when juror number six defends the elderly juror number 9 from number three. Second, with the exception of number eight, this group of men are victims of what psychologist Irving Janis termed groupthink. As Johnson described in our text, “…cohesion is the greatest obstacle faced by groups charged with making effective ethical decisions.” (293) The jurors meet all applicable characteristics listed by Johnson, “considering alternatives” “gathering additional information” carefully weighing risks” and “discussing important moral issues” . I believe juror number three has a locus of control in which he not only thinks but knows with certainty that with enough shouting and even physical intimidation he can control everyone and every situation. This is demonstrated when he speaks of his relationship with his son, “…when he was nine he ran away from a fight, I saw it, I was so embarrassed I almost threw up. I said, I’m gonna make a man outta you if I have to break you in two trying…well, I made a man outta him”. This is also the significant emotional event for this character. Throughout the trial he takes everything very personally and even contradicts himself arguing himself into a corner at times. The man he turned his son into turns against him resulting in a fight after which his son leaves home and number three not seeing him in two years. Juror number three has a personality trait that is closely linked and reinforces his locus of control. He is hard-nosed, reluctant to change and generally cynical of anything other than what he would thought himself. I believe that number