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.
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.
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.
I st arted to be convinced, you know, with the testimony from those people across the hall" (12 Angry Men , p.137.) This quote from six clearly shows his slowness to the situation and also his characteristi c of coming upon his opinions slowly and being hard to convince. I believe that Six does not really fully understand the entire situation with the murder and really isn't sure who he agrees with. Howe ver he takes all the jurors opinions into consideration and eventually makes the right choice to vot e non-guilty. Another characteristic of six is that he is a calm man and is one of the few jurymen t hat actually wants to stay in the room and keep the debate going.
All other eleven men are certain that the boy is guilty. However, Davis smartly utilizes some key tools to move his cause forward. Some of the other men are outraged that Davis could even fathom that the boy is innocent and promptly lash out towards him. Davis, instead of retaliating in kind, uses polite and friendly talk to express his concerns. In fact, throughout the entire film, it is probably Davis’s amicable nature as well as cool reasoning that most persuades the jury members.
Raskolnikov wonders why so many crimes are committed so poorly. He concludes that criminals go through a failure of the will. He endeavors not to let anything prevent him from carrying out the crime in complete control of his reason and will, which is a huge sign that his psychological and intellectual mind are working together, instead of battling like most people’s. However, both reason, and will fail him during some parts of the murder. He does have the good sense to clean his axe and boots, but he leaves the door open as a sign that he isn’t thinking clearly.
Finally, the juror who pushed for not guilty from the start gets the coat of the juror who was the last hold out for guilty and helps him into it. No dialogue is spoken. Four times, gestures of kindness between men who were at each others’ throat take place. This silent scene is so much more powerful than if one of the characters had simply said, “I think we’ve come to a place where we can respect each other despite our differences.” Making the same point with non-verbal cues was much more effective story telling. According to me, all of the jurors except one showed passive behavior in the start of the movie.
When he came out of prison he had doubts about his innocence in the matter and was convinced that he was indeed a convict. “Under the whip, under the chain, in the cell...he recognized that he was not an innocent man, unjustly punished” (Hugo 23). Later in his life Jean Val Jean does overcome this and turns out to be a huge benefactor for his community, giving to the poor and providing many jobs. This however is done only with great resistance from society, as they do not accept convicts as normal people. Jean Val Jean had to conceal his identity in order to help people.
The fist vote taken by the jury was susceptible to social influence as a result of fear of appearing different or abnormal due to the obvious case that the defense made. Hesitancy is an obvious emotion in many of the eleven jurors as they cast their initial guilty votes. This hesitation can be interpreted as a weak conviction persuaded by the guilty majority’s influence. This could also be seen as deindividuation. Time constraints can also play and part here as well.
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.