12 Angry Men

By Tom McGovern
Reginald Rose
Reginald Rose was born on
December 10, 1920 in Manhattan,
New York City, USA. He was a
writer and producer, known for
12 Angry Men (1957), Studio One
in Hollywood (1948) and The
Defenders (1961). He was married
to Ellen McLaughlin and Barbara
E. Langbart. He died on April
19, 2002 in Norwalk,
Connecticut, USA.
Courtroom Drama Genre
A legal drama, or a courtroom drama, is a genre of film and
television that generally focuses on narratives regarding
legal practice and the justice system. The American Film
Institute defines "courtroom drama" as a genre of film in
which a system of justice plays a critical role in the
film's narrative. Legal dramas have also followed the lives
of the fictional attorneys, defendants, plaintiffs, or other
persons related to the practice of law present in television
show or film.
Mid 20th century American theatre
The economic crisis of the Great Depression led to the
creation of the Federal Theatre Project (1935–39), a New
Deal program which funded theatre and other live artistic
performances throughout the country. National director
Hallie Flanagan shaped the project into a federation of
regional theatres that created relevant art, encouraged
experimentation and made it possible for millions of
Americans to see theatre for the first time. The project
directly employed 15,000 men and women and played 1,200
productions to nearly 30 million people in 200 theatres
nationwide, with 65% being presented free of charge, at a
total cost of $46 million.
American Politics and society in the 1950’s
The United States was the world’s strongest military power.
Its economy was booming, and the fruits of this
prosperity–new cars, suburban houses and other consumer
goods–were available to more people than ever before.
However, the 1950s were also an era of great conflict. For
example, the nascent civil rights movement and the crusade
against communism at home and abroad exposed the underlying
divisions in American society.
How ‘jury trials’ work
The jury must reach its verdict by considering only the
evidence introduced in court and the directions of the
judge. During all stages of the trial, jurors may take notes
of proceedings. Jurors may also pass notes to the foreman or
forewoman of the jury to ask the judge to explain certain
aspects of the case.
Plot summary
We enter a courthouse and see twelve men sitting in a jury
box. The judge gives them instructions to reach a ruling on
a trial for first-degree murder. The accused is an eighteen
year-old kid who's been charged with murdering his dad, and
all of the jurors seem pretty convinced that he did it. It
barely takes them any time to vote for Guilty when they
enter the jury room. But one holds out for a Not Guilty
verdict. In the U.S., juries usually need to reach a
unanimous vote in order to decide a case, so it looks like
the jurors aren't going anywhere until they can get Juror #8
to change his mind. In the end the jury reaches a vote of 13
votes of not guilty
Juror 1
Juror #1 seems like a soft-spoken person who's willing to
assert himself when he needs to. He makes a decent effort at
trying to keep the other jurors in order because as Juror
#1, he is also the jury's foreman and is responsible for
keeping the group under control.

Quote- “All right Gentlemen, Let’s take our seats.

Juror 2
Juror Two is a timid, submissive, and nervous man. He
doesn't have strong convictions and is easily influenced by
others. In the beginning, Juror Two votes that the
defendant, a nineteen-year-old boy, is guilty of murdering
his father, but he can't give any reasons why he feels that
way.

Quote- “You can't send someone off to die on evidence like

that!”
Juror 3
Juror # 3 is a prejudiced and deeply unhappy man. His son
had problems with anger and struck his father in the face.
#3 places his anger toward his son on the back of the
accused. In many ways, he is the antagonist to the
constantly calm Juror #8.

Quote- “I'm gonna make a man outta you if I have to break

you in two tryin'".
Juror 4
Although Rose positions Juror 8 as the hero, the strongest
character is in fact Juror 4, who is an independent thinker,
rational and calm even as tension begins to build. Although
Juror 4 initially votes guilty, he is able to admit his
fault and change his vote.

Quote- “Now calm down, calm down!”

Juror 5
Juror 5 is a respectful gentlemen, but can be very shy and
does not speak very much while the other jurors are arguing.
though he may be quiet, he can be quite sensitive when it
comes to personal matters but knows when to speak up when
it's important

Quote- “Oh now just wait a minute, listen, you can't talk to
me that, who do you think you are?"
Juror 6
Juror Six is not one of the more dynamic characters on the
jury. He is a blue collar worker that makes his living as a
house painter and finds the more educated jurors
intimidating. He is not terribly bright or inventive, but he
listens to others and over time absorbs the opinions of
others as his own.

Quote- “Well, I'm not used to supposin'. I'm just a workin'

man.”
Juror 7
Juror 7 is one of the antagonistic Jurors. He doesn't care
about the case one bit, and wants to get out as soon as
possible in order to make it to the baseball game. He could
let the guilty man go free or let the innocent be condemned
because baseball game is his only concern.

Quote- “Now wait a minute! You can't talk like that to me”
Juror 8
Juror 8 is focused on the truth of the case and refuses to
give up until the other jurors face that truth. It is
through his persuasive abilities that one by one, the other
jurors change their initial vote from guilty to not guilty.

Quote- “I think testimony that could put a boy into the

electric chair should be that accurate.”
Juror 9
Juror 9 is a respectful person that doesn't get much respect
from the other characters in the book. He can relate to the
old man below the apartment that the boy lived in. He has
seen more than all the other jurors. It doesn't matter to
him if he is here or not and he very honest also caring.

Quote- “Now I'm talking here! You have no right to leave

this room”
Juror 10
Juror 10 is the secondary antagonist. His motive for voting
the defendant guilty is because he had a prejudice against
the people from the boy's neighborhood, which are called
'Slums'.

Quote- “Where're you going? Human life don't mean as much to

them as it does to us!”
Juror 11
Juror eleven was Originally from Germany, He Escaped. He was
also a "watch maker",Now he's a Juror who feels
self-conscious about his foreign accent. He is very serious
about democracy and America's legal system. Juror Eleven was
a brave juror

Quote- “He *doesn't* speak good English.”

Juror 12
Juror 12 works for a marketing agency. He doesn't really
understand people; instead what makes the most sense to him
are graphs and figures. All that he really cares about is
getting a decision made and getting out of the room.

Quote- couldn’t find one

Theme’s
The three main themes in Twelve Angry Men are justice,
innocence, and class. These themes are interwoven, playing
off of each other as the jury deliberates. In their hands,
justice seems fragile, subject to the whims of men who just
want to go home.
Theme of “Race”
It would be nice to think that the race of the defendant in
a murder trial wouldn't sway the jury's decision. But even
in the present day, this is unfortunately not the case. Race
still has a huge impact on how juries will vote on certain
crimes. So you can imagine how much race would matter back
in the 1950s when you've got an entire room full of angry
white men. You're bound to get one or two people who want a
Guilty verdict just because the defendant isn't white—and
that's totally what happens in 12 Angry Men.
Theme of “justice and judgement”
It's probably not surprising that justice and judgment are
major themes in a movie that takes place entirely in a jury
room. In fact, you could say that the whole story of 12
Angry Men revolves around the issue of how people determine
guilt and innocence in a democratic society. Sure, democracy
can be really messy and really annoying, but this movie is
definitely optimistic about the ability for people to come
together and make the right decision, even if they're not
all making it for the right reasons.
Theme of “old age”
Of the twelve angry men in this movie, some are definitely
older than others, and this age gap colors some of the
decisions they make. But even more importantly, one of the
key witnesses in the murder trial is an old man who may be
making stuff up just to feel important. The only character
who really understands the witness' motives is the oldest
man on the jury, a man who understands what it's like to be
old and to have nobody care about you.In this sense, 12
Angry Men gives us a nice lesson in empathy for people whose
experiences we might not usually think about. It also shows
one more way in which the facts aren't quite as clear-cut as
they originally seemed.
Symbol- “the window”
The jury room where the entire action of the play occurs has
a single window. The jurors disagree on whether or not this
window should be open or closed. This disagreement
foreshadows and symbolizes the deep divides between the
jurors that will prevent them from agreeing throughout most
of the play.
Symbol- “Switch knife”
The murder weapon which features at the heart of the legal
case takes on symbolic meaning when Eight brings a matching
weapon into the jury room to prove his point about
reasonable doubt. When Eight sticks a matching knife in the
wall, the murder weapon represents the certainty of the
jurors that is quickly draining away.
Symbol- “secret ballot”
This play deals with the idealistic principles behind the
American legal system and the ways in which real people must
struggle to meet these principles and interpret them in
their own ways. The legal system attempts to achieve a fair
trial through the use of unbiased citizens on a jury. Most
of the jurors are far from unbiased, though, and they
struggle against a variety of prejudices while attempting to
interpret the language of “reasonable doubt.”
My opinion
I found the film very interesting and I thoroughly enjoyed
it. I thought that this film highlighted many different
themes throughout the 20th century such as “racism”. I also
really like the way that juror 8 was able to change
everyone’s opinion, even though he was the only person who
initially voted “not guilty. I also loved the way each juror
had a different personalities and this caused a lot of
tension and caused many arguments.