In many cases Twelve Angry Men shows how personal feelings can intertwine with decision making. The play shows how jurors could instantly presume one is guilty before thinking about the truth behind the evidence, and if it’s moral at all to vote guilty and deprive a man’s life for convenience and selfish acts for most of the jurors. “I think maybe we owe him a few words.” The eighth juror here tries to calm down the jurors In the courtroom and gives a chance of opinion so the members of the jury can discuss and give enlightened hope for the defendant. This occurs before the tenth juror states “He got a fair trial didn’t he”. The tenth juror is evocative of how he believes that the defendant doesn’t deserve any reasoning.
In the film 12 Angry Men there was only one juror who initially showed critical thinking in his evaluation of the trial. This juror was Juror Number 8. In my opinion, when the story first opened Juror 8 chose ‘not guilty’ because he was unconvinced that the defendant was guilty. However he was also unsure that the defendant was ‘not guilty.’ Because of his uncertainty, Juror 8 had to really on critical thinking skills to get answers and solidify his decision. The film presents the story so that Juror 8 would have to persuade the rest of the jurors to choose not guilty.
He seemed to want approval from other members of the jury by making jokes and not being a part of much of the discussion. He always voted with the majority and did not firmly commit to one side or the other, but rather voted to which way the wind was blowing at that time. There was even one point at which he had voted not guilty, based on the majority at that time, but changed it back to guilty because he felt pressure from one of the other jurors. He definitely appeared to want to avoid confrontation with any of the other jurors. Juror #12 did not offer any suggestions or add to the discussion unless asked to clarify his position, which he really never
Furthermore, the 10th Juror’s angry monologue at the end of ACT II, he demonizes people who are ‘different’. He reinforces McCarthyism by saying ‘get him before his kind gets us’. Later, he openly admits ‘I don’t give a goddamn about the law’. This evokes shock in the audience because of his disrespect for justice. This bitter diatribe leads to a narrative turning point when the 4th Juror angrily turns against his former ally and tells him to not open his ‘filthy mouth’ again.
In the beginning of the movie, the judge announces that the ultimate jurors are excused, and the other 12 jurors enter the room. Few jurors talk to each other about the task and get to know each other very briefly. The foreman asks for suggestions on how to sit, and they collectively decide to sit according to their jury numbers and they must choose whether to discuss first and then vote, or vote first to see where they stand and then discuss. In the storming phase, the 11 jurors who vote guilty have a conflict with one person who votes not guilty. Collectively the 11 jurors question him as to why he voted guilty.
Juror #1 is the Foreman of the jury. He is serious about his role and tries to run the proceedings in an orderly fashion, reminding the jurors “Just let’s remember we’ve got a first degree murder charge here. If we vote guilty, we send the accused to the electric chair.” Juror #2 is timid, quiet and unsure of himself, finding it hard to maintain an independent opinion until he finds the courage to point out an important question about how the murder was actually committed. Juror #3 is the antagonist. He is a forceful, intolerant bully who sees the case as simple and believes the accused is absolutely guilty.
He immediately becomes hostile towards George “He glanced coldly” and wants to fight Lennie “his hands closed into fists”. He is
1. One of the norms that were established among the jurors were their attitudes towards time. It was a general feeling that everybody had the case figured out and wanted to leave. Another norm was that none of the juror members addressed anybody by name. This might have been a tactic used in the film but it is something that I noticed.
The Prime Instigator of Conflict is Fear Fear and violence is rampant within the Salem society in “The Crucible”. This insular society is obsessed with sin and damnation, where neighbors are found pitted against each other and judgment is the norm. This is an extremely conflicted environment that engenders fear. The structure of this community fights itself because it is in massive conflict, so hysteria and anarchy is the rule of the day. The rigid and apprehensive nature of the society encourages conflict as it denies the individuals the opportunity for legitimately voicing and enunciating ones true self.
102-105). With his sudden spree of violent acts, Macbeth causes inner turmoil for himself by forgetting what he once stood for. He contradicts his previous statement that " Bloody instructions, which, being taught, return / To plague th' inventor" (1. 7. 9-10).The new idea manifests in his mind, pushing him over the edge and morphing him into a completely different character.