Film Analysis: Angry 12 Men
Directed by: Sydney Lumet
(1957)
Submitted by: Navarro, Lorenzo Hiroyuki P.
Submitted to: Lyndon, Jade
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction.................................................................................................................1
II. Philosophical Themes................................................................................................2
III. Analysis of Characters and Actions......................................................................... 3
IV. Application of Philosophical Theories.....................................................................4
V. Personal Reflection....................................................................................................5
VI. Conclusion................................................................................................................6
2
I. INTRODUCTION
The film begins with the twelve jurors casting their initial vote on whether the
18 year old defendant is guilty or not guilty. The jury, composed of 12 men, began
their deliberations on the fate of an 18 year old defendant. Initially, eleven jurors
voted to convict, while only one, Juror #8, stood firm in his belief of the defendant's
innocence. Despite the overwhelming majority, Juror #8 remained steadfast in his
conviction, refusing to be swayed by the arguments of his peers.
Most of the jurors think the young man is guilty of killing his dad, but one juror
isn't sure. This starts a big question, to find someone guilty, you need to be very
certain they did it. The one juror doesn't think they know for sure, so he votes not
guilty.
As they talk more, the jurors start to doubt what they thought. They hear
arguments and questions, and some change their minds. The tension gets higher as
they think about if they're right. They look at the evidence again, and one juror even
finds a knife just like the one used in the crime. This makes them even more unsure
about the case. Everyone in the group had some kind of problem that made it hard to
talk to each other. Like, some people weren't paying attention, others were distracted,
and some just weren't interested. There were also differences in how people saw
things, and some people had prejudices or were angry. Plus, some people didn't feel
confident enough to speak up, and there were even personality clashes. It was hard for
anyone to change their ways, and nobody seemed very motivated to communicate. All
these things made it really tough to have a good conversation and listen to each other.
3 1
II. PHILOSOPHICAL THEMES
Critical Thinking
Juror #8's approach in the first scene is questioning the pieces of evidence
presented at trial and proving that the 18-year-old boy killed his father. He argues
about the possibilities and the common sense like the stroke elder running, he acted
the action and it took him 41 while the evidence said that it took him 15. Juror #8
didn't rush to conclusions instead he used his critical thinking knowing that the 18
year old boy life is at stake
Utilitarianism
Other jurors, especially Juror# 7, want to quickly end the trial so they can go
home instead of being fair. While Juror #8 focuses on the importance of a just and
reasoned verdict, even if it takes longer
Deontological
Juror #8's stance emphasizes duty and moral imperative to deliver a fair trial.
For Juror #8, it's not about whether the defendant is guilty or innocent, but it is about
the jury who can convince him with the argument
4 2
III. ANALYSIS OF CHARACTERS AND ACTIONS
Juror #8 The Protagonist
As they start each character has a different action and personality, Juror #8 is
the only Juror who agrees that the 18-year-old boy didn't kill his father though the
other Juror thinks that his voting not guilty is a waste of time he stays calm and states
all his facts to the other jurors, he also is a very critical thinking person stating every
details and possibilities.
Juror #3 The Antagonist
Juror #3 is a hot-tempered and emotional man. He is the most vocal advocate
for the defendant's guilt, his opinions and biases are driven by his relationship with his
son, making him hard to convince due to his past.
Juror #10 The Bigot
Juror #10 is a bigoted, angry, and prejudiced man who is racist because of the
defendant's background of being poor and life of trouble.
Juror #7 The Self Interested
Juror #7 is impatient, focusing on finishing the case, and wants to escape the
jury right away to attend the baseball game rather than talk about the man's life at
stake.
Juror #5 The Sensitive, The Empathetic
Juror #5 is a young man from a poor neighborhood, he speak up about his
understanding of living in a poor neighborhood and understanding life in a poor
neighborhood
Juror #4 The Rational Thinker
Juror #4 is calm, logical, and methodical. He is very analytical and is focused on
facts rather than emotion or personal bias
1 3
IV. APPLICATION OF PHILOSOPHICAL THEORIES
As jurors initially favor convicting the defendant, even with doubts,
because they believe it benefits society. They think it maintains order and
prevents future crime, aligning with a utilitarian perspective that prioritizes the
greatest good for the most people. However, Juror #8 argues that convicting
someone without absolute certainty is wrong. He believes punishing an
innocent person is a greater injustice than letting a guilty person go free. This
highlights the potential dangers of focusing solely on the collective good, as it
can disregard individual rights. Juror #8's success in swaying the jury
demonstrates that justice requires a balanced approach, considering both
societal well-being and individual rights.
It also illustrates how social influence can shape our opinions. Initially,
almost all jurors agree the defendant is guilty, even with doubts, fearing social
isolation or ridicule. This demonstrates the power of conformity, where
individuals follow the group, even if they privately disagree. However, Juror #8,
through his unwavering conviction and reasoned arguments, challenges the
group's assumptions. His courage to dissent and use logic to challenge the
prevailing opinion shows how one individual can make a difference, even
when outnumbered.
4
V. PERSONAL REFLECTION
The 12 Angry Men shows me that every person has their judgment and point of
view and it can all change once you think critically, judging something so quickly is
not a way to determine the situation and this shows me that I should always question
those thoughts, by gathering all the thoughts and facts of other people it will make me
think critically and have a right answer to my problems and solve them. Juror #8 I can
stand alone if I know I'm in the right path. Juror #3 showed that sometimes I can be
dragged by my emotions and make my decisions biased because of what I experience
and this shows how emotions can get in our way of deciding.
5
VI. CONCLUSION
To sum it, 12 Angry Men is a powerful examination of moral responsibility,
justice, and human nature. The movie explores the intricacies of group dynamics,
individual prejudices, and the value of critical thinking in decision-making by
showing a jury's deliberations. It forces the audience to consider how bias,
compassion, and logic influence how we see justice and truth. In times of decision-
making, the movie invites viewers to consider their own beliefs, prejudices, and
behavior. It acts as a moving reminder that we must always work to make our
decisions with greater consideration, empathy, and responsibility both in our own
lives and in the broader social context. We must actively seek justice with humility
and dedication to the truth; it is not something that just happens. The compelling idea
that one individual may influence a decision and so improve the lives of others even
in a room full of opposing viewpoints is what 12 Angry Men leaves us with.
