You are on page 1of 8

Twelve Angry Men CHARACTERS FOREMAN: A small, petty man who is impressed with the authority he has and

handles himself quite formally. Not overly bright, but dogged. JUROR NO. 2: A meek, hesitant man who finds it difficult to maintain any opinions of his own. Easily swayed and usually adopts the opinion of the last person to whom he has spoken. JUROR NO. 3: A very strong, very forceful, extremely opinionated man within whom can be detected a streak of sadism. He is a humorless man who is intolerant of opinions other than his own and accustomed to forcing his wishes and views upon others. JUROR NO. 4: Seems to be a man of wealth and position. He is a practiced speaker who presents himself well at all times. He seems to feel a little bit above the rest of the jurors. His only concern is with the facts in this case, and he is appalled at the behavior of the others. JUROR NO. 5: A naive, very frightened young man who takes his obligations in this case very seriously but, who finds it difficult to speak up when his elders have the floor. JUROR NO. 6: An honest but dull-witted man who comes upon his decisions slowly and carefully. A man who finds it difficult to create positive opinions, but who must listen to and digest and accept those opinions offered by others which appeal to him most. JUROR NO. 7: A loud, flashy-handed salesman type who has more important things to do than to sit on a jury. He is quick to show temper, quick to form opinions on things about which he knows nothing. Is a bully and, of course, a coward. JUROR NO. 8: A quiet, thoughtful, gentle man. A man who sees all sides of every question and constantly seeks the truth. A man of strength tempered with compassion. Above all, he is a man who wants justice to be done and will fight to see that it is. JUROR NO. 9: A mild gentle old man long since defeated by life and now merely waiting to die. A man who recognizes himself for what he is and mourns the days when it would have been possible to be courageous without shielding himself behind his many years. JUROR NO. 10 An angry, bitter man. He is man who antagonizes almost at sight. A bigot who places no values on any human life save his own, a man who has been nowhere and is going nowhere and knows it deep within him. JUROR NO. 11: A man who speaks with an accent and who is ashamed humble, almost subservient to the people around him, but who will honestly seek justice because he has suffered through so much injustice.

He plays the role of “leader”.6 is a simple man. No. angry and sadistic man finally deserved our sorrow.4 played the role of the coldly. quite readily admitting that everyone in the room is better qualified than he is to make decisions and offer explanations. Reacting strongly and defensive. He appears at ease only once during the film – when he talks about football. and polls and has no real understanding of people. In his subdued “observer” and meek “information giver” role. “dominator” and “blocker” roles.4 is a self -assured.” Juror no. A simple man who clearly does not understand the complexity of the task that lies before him but is trying to do everything not to let anyone else find this out. He starts off like a pleasant self-made successful businessman. But he really wants to see justice done and it worries him that he might make a mistake. Agreeing with everyone and talking even less. His studious and ever stern glare cuts down those who disagree with his. and he approaches the case with cool heartless logic but he does not take into account the feelings. He comes from the same social background as the accused boy – with whom he almost unwillingly seems to identify with. the passions. 6’s role is the “silent” and “conformist. No. explaining the arguments well and is reasonably self-assured. He obviously considers himself more intelligent than anyone else in the room. quiet man who is clearly unaccustomed to giving his own opinion much less to expecting his views to be of any importance. No. bright advertising man who thinks of human beings in terms of percentages graphs. analytical “information giver. slightly arrogant stockbroker. 3 is probably the most complex personality in the film.” . Paradoxically this appears one of the main reasons for him voting guilty – he does not want compassion to influence him – so ironically it does. 2 apparently finds comfort in his job – he is an accountant.Juror NO. Juror no. 5 represents the “emotional.1 tries to impose order in his capacity as Leader(or Foreman).2 is a small.5 is a man under great emotional stress. Juror no. but trying to be a good fellow. Juror no. His personal baggage with his own son “blocked” or prolonged the decision-making. He is a superficial snob. No. Juror no. 12: A slick.” He ticks off the facts in the case as if he were reading closing stock prices from the newspaper. As time goes on he becomes more and more passionate exploding in disbelieving anger and seems somehow to be personally involved with the case. No.3 namely plays the “aggressive”. Juror no. He has the misfortune to be selected Foreman of the jury – a task he clearly does not enjoy. His motivation for behaving as he does is revealed when he discloses that he’s not on good terms with his own son. analyzing the case impartially. and the characters of the people involved in the case. Yet this overbearing. Illusions to his animosity toward youth were made when he says that kids today have no respect and that he has not see his son in over a decade.

Juror #8’s performance as a surrogate defender is instructive with regard to the interlocking ideals of due process and a jury of one’s peers. is a careful analytical man.So now all have to sit and discuss the case. His role is that of “group observer” as well as “opinion giver. Juror no. The tragedy comes from the fact that his own social position is only a cut above the boy’s – which makes him all the more eager to stress the difference. If all other 11 men vote guilty. Juror #8 alone has noticed this. of fixing the fan but the only reason he has for voting this way or that is to speed things up a bit so he might be out of the jury room as soon as possible.11.9 is a wise old man. He respects the right of people to have different opinions to his –and is willing to look at both sides of the problem. Failing to take the group seriously. After the juror no. he will also vote the same and case can be closed. Juror no. He says that they all will have a second round of voting in which he will not vote.But this time Juror no 9 joins him and now it becomes 2 vs.” Analysis: Eleven jurors take the defendant’s guilt for granted at the beginning of 12 Angry Men because the defense attorney has done so little to challenge the prosecution’s narrative. and “blocker” roles throughout the film.12 is a young business type – perhaps he has his own opinions – but is careful to hide them.8 is a caring man who has put more thought into the case than any of the other jurors. 8 had refused to go without discussion he is ridiculed by the fellow men and is forced to change his decision but he doesn’t move. Not an evil man he just has no sense of morality whatsoever – he can tell right from wrong but does not seem to think its worth the bother. “debunker”. No.10 is the most horrifying character in the film. He is a smooth-talking but easily swayed young “airhead” who plays the role of “conformist. 8 acts as “model person” and “nonconformist. 12 works in advertising and views serving on a jury no more seriously than he would creating a laundry soap jingle. there is reasonable doubt in his mind. He loses his temper only once – horrified by the complete indifference of Juror No.7 is the only one who really has no opinion on the case – he talks of baseball. well mannered and soft spoken. He votes guilty and does not even try to hide the fact hat he does so only because of the boy’s social background. . Both confident and nervous. The repulsive and poisonous bigotry of No.” Juror no. 7.” Juror no. No. 10. No. Of the heat. 8 states that he couldn't vote in that way for one simple reason. No.Juror no. What he has learnt out of life seems to be that intelligence is equal with agreeing with what the majority of people think. With his great life experience he has quite a unique way of looking at the case. 7 falls into the “playboy” and “bored one” roles. an immigrant watchmaker. He tries to do his best in the face of seemingly impossible odds. 10 puts him in “aggressive”. as well as being under intense and hostile scrutiny. Juror no.

one by one. These begin. and to reenact the elderly witness’s testimony. as the trial surely did. as the prosecution’s case is laid out.The process of considering competing narratives on which Juror #8 insists leads to a recounting of the trial through the jury’s deliberations. But maybe if we go deeper . The jury’s certainty. explains why the elderly witness might have .” Juror #9. despite Juror #3’s earlier claim that people making such threats always mean it. and motive. “From what was presented at the trial the boy looks guilty. a murder weapon. In the process “certain facts” are revealed as “social facts” shaped by contexts and interpretations. as he gets jurors to contradict what they have already claimed to be unassailably true over and over again. Juror #8 asks him whether he can know with certainty that they have not made a mistake. apparently missed the physical characteristics of certain witnesses (a limp in one case. . With his own imperfect knowledge implicated. we are led to suspect. the peculiar thing that juries do starts to happen: their individual experience and impressions begin to work together. Juror #8 does what the defense attorney failed to do—he tests whether the prosecution’s case leaves room for reasonable doubt. Juror #12 is forced to concede that “*t+his isn’t an exact science. showing the witness could not have seen the defendant’s face. Juror #8 baits Juror #3 into threatening to kill him. Even without bias. Once Juror #8 has established the possibility of reasonable doubt. and the pro-conviction majority. however.” The case entails two eyewitnesses. with the jurors’ impressions of the prosecutor: an “expert” with “a lot of drive” who “hammered home his points. a part of the prosecutor’s story that has been “bothering me a little. In this part of the deliberations. . Both the district attorney and the defense have. “on the surface. When Juror #12 resists the idea that witnesses might be wrong. An early instance is his challenge of Juror #10’s reliance on the testimony of a witness when he had previously insisted that everyone of that witness’s ethnicity is a liar. bad eyesight in another) that might have undermined their veracity. Juror #8’s lawyerly method gradually induces the others to interpret the meaning of the prosecutor’s “facts” for themselves. The momentum of the deliberations begins to change when Juror #8 questions the motive offered by the prosecution (being hit by his father) when “violence is practically a normal state of affairs for” the defendant. begins to erode. for example. . in logical sequence.” Later.” Juror #2 wonders about the angle of the stab wound. an older man himself. He goes on to produce a knife identical to the murder weapon. Juror #8’s masterly cross-examination technique only strengthens this point. undermining the prosecution’s association of a particular weapon with the defendant.” he observes. Juror #3’s insistence that “*y+ou can’t refute facts” seems correct.” The case this “impressive” man has made is reproduced primarily by Juror #3 (an “excitable” man certain of the defendant’s guilt for what turn out to be personal reasons) and Juror #4 (a coolly logical man certain of the defendant’s guilt for abstract sociological reasons) through what they call “the facts. backed up. Juror #11 wonders why the defendant would return to the scene of the crime. But Juror #3 has confused facts for proof. by assumptions based on the defendant’s class and ethnicity.

however. The collaborative process of interpreting the evidence that begins once Juror #8 has successfully questioned the prosecution’s narrative has two effects. and the group enforces the mandate that no individual should be silenced. Juror #8 explains his not-guilty vote in terms of integrity—“It’s not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first”—as does Juror #9.exaggerated what he saw to be important. A juror must believe in his vote. and in this way the process the jury employs further reveals the “job” the jury must do—to reach a verdict when it is not possible to know with certainty.Without actual deliberation there can be no fair trial. In the breaks in the deliberation. the sharing of a personal anecdote—replace previously defensive and . the film reveals the crucial role that the individual experiences and knowledge of jurors plays in what a jury does. Discussing the evidence strikes proconviction jurors as a “waste of time. One is disinterest or impartiality—the sense that the deliberations ought not become personal. it becomes increasingly clear that time and talk are the essential tools of a jury.” Each man has to own his position publicly. Another important value that emerges more slowly from the deliberations is integrity. moments of interpersonal intimacy—the acceptance of an offered cough drop. its connection to the democratic values of dissent and independence also emerges.” By the time that Juror #7 attempts to change his vote merely to expedite a verdict. In this way.” but as the film unfolds. Juror #6 has been painting near an el track and knows the deafening sound of a passing train. Just as the defendant is not required to prove his innocence. Only guilt must be proved. “*t+here are no secrets in a jury room. insists that their task is to “talk*+ about” the evidence offered at trial. that only those who vote guilty are required to justify their position. the majority of the jury rejects the shift because it lacks conviction. One is to generate a sense of community among the group of strangers. It is significant. Juror #8. as well as the collaborative process through which juries deliberate. As the central importance of integrity is established in the group. no juror with reasonable doubt must defend that doubt. By his initial not-guilty vote. (The one exception is the exclusion of Juror #10 during his racist rant—and the group here is rejecting Juror #10’s position as not merely ignorant but undemocratic. when he changes his vote in support of Juror #8 out of “respect” for his “motives. Each man has a voice as well as a vote. Juror #5 grew up in a neighborhood like the defendant’s and can demonstrate the proper use of a switchblade knife.) Deliberation: procedure puts the integrity of each juror very much on the line—as the group discovers when it attempts to employ a secret ballot on the second vote.

productive. The second effect of the group’s collaborative interpretation of the evidence—exploring alternative narratives—provokes pro-conviction jurors to accuse Juror #8 and others of inventing “fables” and “stories” and “fairy tales. the meek are empowered and the powerful are brought low. but erupts into divisive and unproductive anger— ends not in a verdict but in renunciation. energetic. humility Forward-looking . indicating just how much the conversation has changed. concerned about the future. whose bigotry breaks down into insecurity. whose anger dissolves into heartbreak. positive about the future Leaders excite followers with new options and ideas (vision) . is trustworthy. And by the end of the film the formal process of voting has been woven informally into the conversation. foresighted. Gradually.uplifting. Blind certainty—whether it derives from sociological generalization or personal experience—is as much on trial in 12 Angry Men as the young man accused of killing his father. effective. “Supposing you talk us all outa this. and the kid really did knife his father?” But as Juror #6 himself comes to recognize. Leadership traits from “12 Angry Men” (juror #8) Power & Influence: • Influence others even when they lack formal authority • Understand sources of power • Find out how effective leaders create support and loyalty • Understand why authority alone often won’t get the outcomes you expect Most Common Characteristics of Great Leaders Honesty – truthful. humorous.” Juror #6 articulates the danger starkly when he asks Juror #8. By the time Juror #10 launches into his bigoted tirade. efficient. embody the human cost of blind certainty. Both Juror #10. This trial of prejudice—which first appears as a diffuse and dispassionate presumption of guilt uniting the jurors. and Juror #3.hostile asides. has character Competence . In the process. thorough.visionary. the jury moves in unison physically to isolate and reject him. has integrity. cheerful. enthusiastic.capable.” of manipulating the “facts. ignoring these alternative narratives leads to the dogmatic certainty that ultimately reveals itself as destructive to personhood. sense of direction Inspiring . the members of the jury jettison their prejudices and assumptions as they confront the complexity and ambiguity of lived experience.

Inspires follower loyalty and creates an enthusiastic vision that others work to attain. according to defined roles). Makes it difficult to find a replacement if the leader dies or leaves the organization. Leaders have a sense of “self” based on mastery of their world which separates them from their environment and from other people. . Types of Power Legitimate Power Referent Power Expert Power Information Power Reward Power Coercive Power Leadership Styles Authoritative (autocratic) Participative (democratic) Delegative (laissez faire) Teaching (technical) Coaching (cheerleading) Charismatic Situational Charismatic Leadership Style and Information Power – juror 8 The leader injects huge doses of enthusiasm into his or team.Leaders prefer solitary activities (even though they relate to people with great empathy) while managers prefer working with others (but relate more superficially. and is very energetic in driving others forward.

5. 5. Produced needed results. Juror 10 says. Communicating openly and honestly. 2. Being consistent in actions and statements. they’re born liars. . You can’t believe a word they say. but rather to consider everyone equally as human beings. I mean. 3. Followed through on promises. Inconsistency Personality based decision-making Unwarranted secrecy about decisions and operations Lack of communication Demonstrate a loss of mastery with respect to technical skills Negative qualities exhibited by #3. 6. 2. “I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. Made decisions based on universally applied principles as opposed to personalities involved. Throughout the play.Credibility Believability The very foundation of a person’s source of power The most critical factor in being an authentic leader How juror 8 got it? 1. 4. various jurors present prejudices against not only the accused but also against other jurors. The play calls upon us not simply to judge others by their appearance or other preconceived notions we may hold. Knew his job well. How juror #3 lost credibility 1. 4. #10: Prejudice Early on in Twelve Angry Men.” as he refers to the young man on trial and all individuals like him. 3.