Twelve Angry Men Film Analysis
Reginald Rose in 1950s penned his renowned masterwork, 12 Angry Men. This film presents twelve men of distinct statures. They are all members of the jury who were to make decisions on the fate of an 18-year-old boy accused of stabbing his father to death. Superficially, the witnesses’ testimonies in the trial, the audience would perhaps concur with the norm of the jury on the guilt ruling of the young man. However, if it were not for juror 8, who is an important character in the play, the trial’s deliberations would have been unreal. Another juror number 3 at the end of the film recounts his virtually impenetrable judgment, almost causing the jury to (hang Hans, 2007).
Every juror’s approach to their responsibility within the justice system is deeply explored by the movie; however, this is just a metaphor for the juror’s approach to life. Every juror symbolizes a distinctive behavioral peculiarity that typically aligns with his socioeconomic settings. Even though we are not provided with detailed explanations of their respective names, class, age, and/or ethnicity, their intermittent passing statements or hall conversation grants us rare hint to their background and profession. This is mainly the limit of information provided about every character; hence it builds an unclear timelessness sense and general applicability regarding the jurors (Grossi & Velázquez-Quesada, 2010). Therefore, the characters are put up as ambiguous, however available figures for the available audience to develop their personal meaning and understanding onto.
The manner the juror undertakes the process of deciding their verdict double as more than an explanation on the justice system of America. We are provided a view into how all the characters make their decisions with the persuasion of predetermined biases and prejudices. The movie is mainly a side view of the major behavioral traits of the American civilization. The revelation of whatever happens when diverse characters interact and the manner every character is prejudiced by others is evident. Logically, the film grants us an external outlook into the manner diverse individuals’ function and intermingles with the society. The triumphant, articulate coherent stockbroker is juxtaposed on opposition to a shy and apprehensive workingman who grew in the slums and witnessed knife fights. Moreover, in between, we are provided with each working man level.
The movie commences in a courthouse in New York, where a young boy eighteen years of age from a slum is being tried for allegedly murdering his father through stabbing. The jury retreat to a private room where it obvious they have made decisions that the boy is guilty on the grounds of two witnesses and the lack of the murder weapon. They resolve to return their ruling without discussing. Consequently, in the preliminary vote Henry Fonda (juror 8) becomes the only one who votes not guilty. It is apparent that juror 8 appears to show sympathy for the boy’s background, as he counters a unanimous guilty vote.
From the onset, juror 8 is revealed as a somewhat protagonist in the pursuit of accurate justice. According to Torre et al. (2015), he is gentle and thoughtful, and this stirs some discussions, nevertheless as the movie progresses, and the jurors start to avoid their defined prejudices and biases, juror 8 upholds unrelenting compassion for the boy’s situation. Ostensibly, juror 8 can be perceived as the protagonist for the truth. However, his prejudice lack towards the boy can instinctively double up as prejudice too. Nevertheless, he tries to imply that there is a predicament with the justice system and that the entire blame must not be placed on the person. He further questions the unique nature of the perceived weapon of murder, revealing an identical knife to the one owned by the boy he had just purchased. Moreover, he challenges the testimony of the old man who couldn’t make it to the door to see the fleeing boy.
However, everything that we grasp from all the characters featured within this film is articulated through their conversation. The power competition is a prevailing element. Juror 3 desires to run the show, manipulate others into declaring the boy guilty, and retreat to their homes. Juror 8 uses the information to convince the other jurors of logical doubt in the case. Numerous jurors want to be conventional and vote guilty from the beginning. The moment they begin to listen and engage through effective and get imaginative in their perspective of the case, the relationship dynamics amid them start to change (Torre et al., 2015).
In a nutshell, the political, cultural, personal, and social setting comes into play with all characters. Juror 11 is appreciative of the justice system of America and shares with others the fact that he was victimized within his country. Juror 3 confesses a terrible fight with his son, the resentment and anger he feels towards his son is also apparent through his narration. Juror 4 is learned and independent, and this portrays his attitude and demeanor, he is calm and articulate. Juror 8 is also learned, an architect thus naturally logical. Juror 5 grew in slums and a peevish neighborhood; he takes the trial seriously, but because of respect for his elders within the group, he does not fully participate as he wished.
To conclude, there is no question. Every single individual who functions and lives in contemporary civilization must watch this movie. Although it was made five decades away, the film’s characters have a remarkable relevance to today’s world.
References
Grossi, D., & Velázquez-Quesada, F. R. (2010). Twelve angry men: a dynamic-epistemic study of awareness, implicit, and explicit information. Logic and Interactive Rationality, 34.
Hans, V. P. (2007). Deliberation and dissent: 12 angry men versus the empirical reality of juries. Chi.-Kent L. Rev., 82, 579.
Torre, E., Gramaglia, C., Jona, A., & Zeppegno, P. (2015). “Twelve Angry Men.” The Group and the Individual: From Objectiveness to Subjectiveness. Rivista internazionale di Filosofia e Psicologia, 6(3), 528-537.