To render a verdict, they must unanimously vote that the boy did or did not kill his father beyond all reasonable doubt. The jurors have in common that they are middle aged to older white men. However, it soon becomes apparent that this is where the similarities end. Their differing backgrounds, education, jobs, personal experiences and personalities mean that they come to the table with very different skills, beliefs and values to form a multi-faceted team. In fact, it is this dynamic on which the trial-by-jury system relies.
In the movie 12 Angry Men there are several people who could be considered a hero. Some would say that the true hero was Juror Number 6, who first doubted the guiltiness of the young man; some would say it was the Foreman who kept relative order in the room; however, Juror Number 7 should definitely not be overlooked. Number 7, along with contributing an important piece of knowledge, was the one who stopped the delivery of the guilty verdict, he was the first to vocally agree with Juror Number 6. Juror Number 6 was without a doubt one of the most important men in the room, but without the help of Juror Number 7 the guilty verdict would have been given to the judge. Number 7 was the first true believer; he went out on a limb, in wanting to find the truth, when he could have very easily anonymously voted guilty and they could have been done with the situation.
The first Juror to vote not-guilty in the case, is Juror eight, a self-actualized man with an Engineer-type personality, who suggests the jury first discuss the facts of the case before condemning the accused eighteen year old to death. As a natural thinker, expert in rhetoric, and individual with a high social and emotional IQ, which allows him to relate and understand people well, Juror eight manages to put doubt into the minds of the other juror’s about the accuracy of the evidence provided in the courtroom. For instance, he uses a combination of ethos, logos and pathos when explaining how the court story of the club legged old man, who heard the murder and saw the boy running down the stairs, flawed. In the story the club legged old man tells in court, he heard someone cry-out and a body hit the floor above him before he hurried from his bed to the door at the end of the hall, about sixty-five feet away, in ten seconds and opened the door just in time to see the eighteen year old running down the stairs. In the jury room, Juror eight first used pathos, to appease to the emotion and sympathy of the
With only 350,000 dollars cost and finished in less than 3 weeks, Lumet as TV show director defines how to be thrift and efficient. Low investment, but high quality. A black-and-white film with brilliant dialogues and various shots, seldom audience feel boring or dull, instead the film draws them into the play and keeps them “What do you think?” As a winner of Golden Bear and several other prizes, it has become a classic trial film which explores juror system, justice, social responsibility, as well as human nature. A jury consisting of twelve nameless, ordinary people from different classes and careers need to decide whether a defendant is guilty or not in a sultry and claustrophobic room. They’ve listened to the trial for six days, and most of them believe the boy is the murderer.
He claims a brick-wall outside office chambers to be black for ages which signifies that the place has not come to light for ages (p. 102). He also explains how the wall-street echoes with vacancy in the nightfall and how deserted it is on the weekends (p. 112). This suggests a sense of emptiness and lifelessness of the work place. Before Bartleby, the lawyer had three employees, Turkey, Nippers and Ginger-Nut who mutually conferred these nicknames to each-other. Turkey was of same age as lawyer, and used to work very hard with dedication until noon, after which he used to get drunk.
Juror 8, played by Henry Fonda, was an architect named Davis and the only one to vote towards not guilty. When questioned as to if he really believes that the boy is innocent he simply responded “I don’t know.” Davis felt that if they have the boy’s life in their hands then the least they could do is talk about it for an hour. Davis’s claim was that he had reasonable doubt about whether or not the boy actually killed his father. There were many little things that they overlooked in the cross-examination and Davis said “if I were him I would have asked for a new lawyer.” By voting not guilty, and presenting his reasoning, Davis was able to get the jury to take a look at the evidence once again with a fine-toothed comb. In order to provide a valid argument, Davis needed to show the jury the grounds under which he believed the evidence presented was not credible enough to send him to the chair.
Juror #2 was a very frantic and nervous type of guy. In the beginning he voted the boy guilty, but by the end of the film his reasonable doubt had him opposed to that previous notion. Juror #3 was the assumed “antagonist” which fits his character very well. He was all for the young boy’s execution the whole time until he glanced at a picture that held some type of symbolism to him when he finally broke down and voted innocent. Juror #4 the Wall Street guy was very analytical about his vote.
This movie was all about non-ethical and lazy like sayings, such as: “lets get it over quick” and “who really cares”. One guy, the 8th juror, did not agree with these saying’s and believed that a tough decision like this could not be decided in 5 minutes. He played a smart game, which we call ’playing devils advocate’. While the 11 men thought the person charged was guilty, this one juror thought differently. The 12 angry men were your average men, but each one had a different side.
Sometimes I would not even eat at all and I would just sit in the break room with no one to talk to. None of the other employees had any interest to anything that I had to say or to what my opinion was. I felt the tension and the awkwardness in the atmosphere as another employee or manager walked by me. Kohl’s was an unpleasant job and an uncomfortable one to having
Even in the man’s rhetoric he chastised the Baltimore fan for simply being a Baltimore fan. Going back to the bigoted man, the second that he said "there’s always one" the viewer right away knew that this man was indeed going to be rude to not only Henry Fonda but to the rest of the jury as well. It was in the way he said to Fonda "there’s always one" was the beginning of the end of his talking influence over the rest of the jury. If one looks closely when he said "there’s always one", the rest of the jury was not exactly in agreement with his remarks but agreeing with the fact that there was a man that simply did not agree with their verdict and that the deciding was going to take a little longer than 5-10 minutes. The interesting aspect about the man who yells a lot and has issues with his son is he has the stress factor that Janis talks about in her article.