Critical Review: 12

Angry Men
The following paragraphs are a critical review of the prominent characters of the
movie 12 Angry Men. The movie comprises of a 12 member jury which from
being heavily in favour of indicting a young 18 year old boy change their stance
eventually. This happens due to a single juror who believes in constructive
discussion before indictment and hence the jury through careful critical
examination of the evidence and witness accounts come to a conclusion where
they pronounce that these are inconclusive to pronounce the accused as guilty.
The jurors are numbered 1 to 12 in the order of their seating in the courtroom.

Juror 1 : He is the jury foreman and the moderator of the jury discussion. A
football coach he structures the group discussion and restates voting rules
through a secret ballot or an open show of hands. He directs the group towards
fruitful discussion and provides direction to the discussion. Over a period of time
when the discrepancies of the preceding verdict become clearer he changes his
stance (the 9th to do so) but never explains why he did so. It might be that
through the course of time he has discovered how he was at fault and this makes
him change his stance towards the accused.

Juror 2 : A bank worker with a timid voice and one who at first looks like a
doormat as compared to others in the group. However over the course of time
we see he has a strong opinion and his voice though weak produces strong
arguments throughout the course of the discussion. The fifth to change his
stance he proves towards the end to be one of the most able contributors to the
jury.

Juror 3 : He is the strongest advocator towards indicting the boy of murder and
left alone is the last to change his stance. His traumatic personal past has
created a strong pre conceived judgement in this case. Most probably he relates
this case as a parallel to his own son who he once worked his heart out for and
one whom he brought up as a strong young man. It has been two long years
since his son has deserted him. The juror feels the verdict would bring him
significant emotional closure as he sees the younger generation getting punished
for inflicting pain to their predecessors. However it is this own traumatic
experience which leads to his excitable nature and frequent emotional outbreaks.
These outbreaks make a significant impact on both the jury as well as this juror
and lead towards his emotional breakdown at the end where he finally accepts
his fault and overturns his stance.

Juror 4 : A stockbroker by profession his character possesses a very analytical

and calculating approach to the process. He clearly remembers the fine details of

the prosecution remarks and logically concludes the accuseds argument as

flimsy compared to the evidence and witness accounts. Throughout the course
of the discussion he discovers how the witness accounts and the evidences were
logically flawed but only changes his stance(the 11 th to do so) once all the
represented facts of the case have been critically proved inconclusive to
pronounce the accused guilty.

Juror 5 : A sensitive silent juror who was born in a slum he perhaps at first
goes with the flow and votes in majority stating the accused as guilty. This also
might be due to his apprehensions that he also being a slum child as the accused
may look sympathetic towards the latter. These apprehensions are cleared once
the oldest juror stands up as being the secret ballot voter to change his stance.
He now too finds his own voice and judgement and provides support (is the 3 rd to
do so) to the overturned decision of calling the accused as not guilty.

Juror 6 : His initial participation into the discussion provides that he has made a
judgement too soon in to the hearing of the case. Easily moved by the strong
arguments of the prosecutors he feels they are comprehensive enough to
pronounce the accused as a murderer. Not a very strong contributor to the
discussion he changes his stance early on once he feels that the flow of the
discussion has taken a strong opposite route.

Juror 7 : An ardent football fan this juror is the most apathetic towards the
discussion of the jury. He is only interested in doing away with the decision
quickly so that he could attend a football game he has bought tickets to. Initially
due to the accuseds unstable past he has pre conceivably judged the boy as
guilty but soon he conveniently changes his stance going with the flow of the
discussion. He is severely reprimanded for his nonchalance towards the case and
disrespect towards the human life which is at stake.

Juror 9 : The oldest member of the jury he is the first to change his stance.
Intrigued by the courage of his adjacent juror, he after changing his stance
provides two powerful insights into the witness accounts which make several
fellow members of the jury to switch sides. The first of him being a old man- he
could easily fit himself into the first witnesss shoes as an old man who now
being a prime witness to murder has found at last himself to be the centre of
attention. The second is the insight of the nose marks which are left by the eye
rim of spectacles which people with weak vision wear. These two profound
remarks are able to successfully contribute to the inconclusiveness of the two
prime witness accounts and make a significant impact to changing the flow of
the discussion to now clearing the boy of murder.

Juror 10 : An aggressive middle aged juror who has preconceived notions

towards the slum children and pronounces them as apathetic human beings who
are trivial towards serious criminal offences such as the one being discussed. He

is one of the most aggressive members of the jury and often aggressively tries to
maraud the group into keeping their stance. These cultural differences of his
upbringing and a strong superiority complex shrouds his judgement. Appalled at
his ugly racist sentiments the group even walks away from him showing their
backs to him. Once strongly cross argued and fought successfully off this shroud
lifts and he logically changes his stance (amongst the last jurors to do so).

Juror 11: A watchmaker by profession he has significant deductive qualities.

Once he finds himself logically outwitted he swiftly and correctly changes his
stance (he is the 4th to do so). He makes several observations and comments
which make him a strong contributor to the group.
Juror 12: An advertising agent by profession he too is quite apathetic to the
accuseds cause. He cracks jokes frequently and towards the later part of the
discussion these seem out of context with the serious discussion at hand. He is
the 8th to change his stance but seems weak at making strong points in the
discussion

Juror 8: Juror 8 is the protagonist of the discussion. The lone most powerful
voice of this discussion he stands out immediately at the start. He aloof from the
group looks out of the window perhaps contemplating the fate of the young boy
which stands on the choices which are to be made in the same room.
Apprehensive of his own notions, he courageously stands up to the group and
forces the group to initiate discussion, which bring out the discrepancies in the
prosecutions case. He strongly argues towards his cause and brings upon
several revelations shattering preconceived notions held amongst his fellow
jurors. For example, his possession of an exact duplicate switchblade knife
startles his fellow jurors who impressed by the move are forced to re-evaluate
their own judgements. An architect by profession he impressively demonstrates
the fallacies in the old mans account by enacting the witnesss statement.
Eventually he starts finding strong support as the case starts opening up and the
inconclusiveness of the prosecution starts taking centre stage. He impressively
makes his fellow jurors discover their own faults, insecurities and prejudices
against the accused. A shrewd negotiator he articulates his way across fellow
jurors by logically outwitting them. He smartly baits out the most excitable juror
3 into making emotional outbreaks which have a significant impact on the jury.
He makes several resounding arguments which show the fallacy in each of the
witness accounts. His examples of the roaring sound of the el train, the
emotional stress under the son might be due to his fathers murder, and the
huge time difference due to the limp of the old man make several fellow jury
member switch sides. He tactfully guides the discussion which makes his most
powerful opponent Juror 3 to emotionally break and self-contradict his own
arguments. We learn from him how one can successfully channel a group
towards constructive discussions and come to a powerful consensus through
logical analysis. He is the embodiment of a compassionate, empathetic fighter
who has the courage to go against the flow and prove others to discover for
themselves how they are at fault. His strong persuasive assertive powers stand
out and his compassion is clearly depicted when he helps the heartbroken Juror 3
to wear his coat. He provides us with a remarkable lesson on how to persevere

to ones own judgement and be not swayed by the flow, because at the end it
matters if your choices are able to save a fellow innocent human life. Others
respect his courage and soon follow his ways to a righteous decision.