12 angry man essay

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

English Works

12 Angry Men: Sample essays (justice/jurors)

Sample Plan/Essay

Topic: “ This is one of the reasons we are strong.” Through his play, Twelve Angry Men , Reginald Rose suggest that the judicial system has more strengths than it does flaws.

In an era when America was attempting to find her identity and heal divisions wrought by Cold War hostilities, Reginald Rose, in his didactic play Twelve Angry Men, affirms the dire importance of a diverse jury’s ability to deliver justice to its people. Whilst Rose suggests that the judicial system has its imperfections, he also endorses the benefits he claims are invaluable to society. Initially, as the jurors respond to the task of judging the guilt or innocence of the 16 year old boy, charged with first degree murder of his father, shortcomings are flagrantly obvious. However, owing to the integrity and perspicacity of the 8 th juror and his insistence the principles of justice and reasonable doubt, he orchestrates a careful examination of the circumstantial evidence. As Rose clearly shows, honouring these safeguards not only empowers individuals to engage in the judicial process, but acts as the basis for a just verdict which reflects a decent, caring democratic society; diversity may hinder, but in this case it can facilitate also justice. Thus, the fundamental mechanisms of the process are what makes the system “strong”.

The flaws in the judicial system owing to the 12 “angry men”

Rose depicts a judicial system that is essentially flawed because of its dependence upon twelve “angry” Caucasian men who possess different views, personalities and personal agendas.  Specifically, and through the use of a real-time deliberation process, the playwright emphasizes how the integrity of the judicial system is undermined when the jurors arrive at the table clothed in their own personal experiences and prejudices. (quote from the 10 th )

Rose deliberately constructs a parallel story for the 3rd Juror, whose broken relationship with his son, influences his decision. In the stage directions he notes how he is reeling from the pain of being “stabbed in the chest” which foreshadows his revenge agenda and his rigid, patriarchal view of parenting.  Throughout the play, there are repetitive references to the “knife”, which will be critical to the evidence, but in this case the stab wounds symbolically refer to the 3 rd juror’s raw and personal emotions.   Knife…

Climate of prejudice; a fault that Rose implies was a pressing issue in trials conducted during the post-war era of McCarthy-style hysteria.

Another shortcoming is the legal competence of the jurors, many of whom lack the aptitude to carry out their duties because they have a distorted or deficient understanding of their legal duties. The meek 2nd Juror’s fragmented speech conveyed through Rose’s use of ellipses and indicated in the stage directions as “nervous”, suggests he fears voicing his opinion because of his relative inexperience as a juror. As a result, he “just thinks the boy is guilty” and cannot express his reasoning, intimidated by the louder voices that dominate the early stages of the play. From the beginning, the 12th Juror, who believes that “the whole thing is unimportant”, is fixated on the “view”, the “impression” and the “drive” of the lawyers, a manifestation of his embodiment as post war materialism .  The game of the tic-tac toe also becomes a figurative manifestation of their indifference as is the “doodling”. Likewise, the mindless whistling of the 7 th juror and the change of his vote to “not guilty” because he has “had enough” highlights his obvious apathy. Rose suggests this attitude, which is compounded by the heat, is counterproductive to the notion of active citizenship.

The strengths of the system because of the emphasis on the safeguards of justice

In order to overcome these innate limitations, Rose suggests that the emphasis on and adherence to the safeguards are essential assets to the deliberation process. The power of the process lies within its ability to expose their “personal prejudice” in a “locked room ”, where the men cannot escape scrutiny. The locked room also becomes a metaphoric representation of the men’s closed minds that are gradually enlightened as the trial proceeds. Furthermore, Rose uses the “harsh white light” as a device to reveal the men’s limitations, confirming that the process contributes to greater self-awareness.

8 th juror: embodiment and “architect” of justice

In this regard, the role of the 8 th juror, who believes the boy deserves the courtesy of “talking” about the evidence before arriving at hasty assumptions, is critical to the exposure of injustices and prejudices . He is the juror who most faithfully follows the  disembodied voice of the judge and his reminder that the jurors must deliberate “honestly and thoughtfully”and sift “fact” from “fancy”.   By focusing on the concept of reasonable doubt, he exposes the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the eye-witnesses and urges the jurors to question the “circumstantial evidence”. His probing casts doubt and his question to the jurors, “What if the facts are wrong”, also serves to whet the audience’s curiosity.

The 9th Juror, whose experience derived from his age and experience is vital, asserts that no one has a “monopoly on the truth” as “coincidences are possible.” As such, the jurors are forced to question the reliability of the evidence such as the psychiatrist’s report which indicates that the defendant had “strong homicidal tendencies,” only to conclude that these tendencies don’t always manifest as action; likewise the threat “I’m going to kill you” which becomes a humiliating experience for the third juror.  The fact that the old man could not have physically walked to the door to verify the identity of escaping person and the absence of the woman’s glasses all conspire to plant doubt.

8 th juror: empowers diversity rather than conformity

In the right context and circumstances, Rose also suggests that diversity, a hallmark of democracy, can hinder, but can also facilitate justice. The gradual self-awareness and enlightenment of many of the jurors helps the collective team more effectively scrutinise the evidence. In many ways, such diversity of provides a plethora of contexts for identification which in turn helps the jurors gain an insight into the flaws of the evidence. The 5 th Juror’s “slum background” and upbringing empower him to challenge the angle of the knife wound and the 9 th Juror’s age creates doubt in the reliability of the old man’s testimony. He empathetically observes [2]   that the man’s need to be “quoted just once” provides motivation to lie. The painter’s experience of apartments near an el-train also reveal the difficulty a witness would have hearing the boy. The 4 th juror recognises the woman’s impossibility of seeing clearly without glasses – another metaphoric representation of how the “facts” become increasingly blurred and murky.

Furthermore, minority groups are enfranchised as evident through the middle-European 11 th Juror, who reminds audiences that people “entitled to their unpopular opinions.” The notion that “there are no secrets in a jury room” holds its ground to both ensure that all voices are heard but also that extreme views are unveiled. Consequently, the 10 th Juror is silenced and “defeated” as them men “turn their backs” on him acting as a powerful reminder that in seeking consensus in society, we must reject the “darkening” threat posed by venomous views.

8 th juror: symbolism of democratic, social harmony

As the juror’s are freed from the “locked room” and the cathartic rain ceases to fall, the boy and thus the men are liberated by the civilising power of democracy. Indeed, in an act of social harmony, the 8 th Juror’s gesture of helping the 3rd Juror with his coat demonstrates the potential for fractured sides to find consensus in a society attempting to find her identity post war From the liberating ability of the process, Rose celebrates democracy as a powerful and enlightening asset and is accordingly the ultimate strength of the jury system.

Through the 8th juror’s gaze through the window to the New York Skyline, Rose suggests that the delivery of justice and vigilance is important to ensure the protection of democratic values and to secure justice for those most in need of it protection. Therefore, a focus on the safeguards yields benefits beyond the achievement of justice. The process can empower the disempowered and act as a resounding model for a democratic society.  It is the reason we “are strong”.

Therefore, a focus on the safeguards yields benefits beyond the achievement of justice. The process can empower the disempowered and act as a resounding model for a democratic society.  Through the Foreman’s “Slattery” metaphor, Rose suggests that the democratic foundation of the system is not reliant on individuals, but rather endorses the collaboration of diverse voices and experiences they bring to the “scarred table”. Indeed, self aware individuals prove useful in directing the discussion away from extreme and potentially divisive views.

In an era which was plagued by “Cold war” mentalities of relentless suspicion, Rose acknowledges that the jury system is inherently flawed. However, the play serves as a source of inspiration to the strength of the judicial process should the principles of justice be appropriately upheld. Ultimately the concept of reasonable doubt affords the best protection against the miscarriage of justice. Only when the safeguards of democracy are consciously followed, can any reward be in sight. Rose serves us with a timely reminder that we must accept our civic duties and remain self-aware and “watchful” for those who attempt to hinder the system in order witness what “makes us strong”.

‘Twelve Angry Men is less about guilt or innocence than about reasonable doubt.’ Discuss

Set in 1950s New York with a backdrop of post McCarthyism hysteria, Reginald Rose’s Twelve Angry Men explores the deliberations of a jury in a homicide trial. Although the McCarthyist witch-hunts caused a legacy of suspicion, Rose suggests that ‘reasonable doubt’ remains the best safeguard of justice. The audience are thus taken into the customary black box scenario and witness the difficulties faced by the twelve individuals when attempting to follow the judge’s instruction to “deliberate honestly and thoughtfully” as prejudice and experiences cloud their judgements. According to David Mamet’s introduction it is the fact that each individual interprets the standard of ‘reasonable doubt’ differently that is “the genius of the trial.” By staging the heated discussion, Rose exposes the difficulties that surround the legal concept of ‘reasonable doubt and its application. Eventually, if applied rigorously, Rose suggests that it is the best mean of protecting a person’s innocence. If applied insightfully, it can also expose a person’s bigoted attitude and distorted personal agendas.

Rose characterises the 8 th juror as a spokesperson for justice because he foregrounds the concept of reasonable doubt; Rose thereby suggests that this provdes the best safeguard of the legal system. The fact that he cannot “send a boy off to die, without talking about it first.” Forces the other jurors to carefully consider witness testimonies. Rose’s use of anonymous numbers depersonalises the jury members to show that their personalties should not play a factor. Ironically, the 8 th juror seems to be the only one who best abides by this nameless system. Rose thereby suggests that the emphasis must be on the boy and the irrefutable nature of his crime. Moreover, the 8 th juror’s focus on ‘reasonable doubt’ leads to insightful questioning of the eye-witnesses; the old man could not have heard the boy yell over the sound of the elevated train or made it to his front door in time, and “the woman’s eyesight is in question.” As the 8 th juror exposes the inconsistencies and false assumption associated with the evidence, Rose poses the importance of the idea that ‘reasonable doubt’ could save someone’s life.

Rose sets up the 8 th juror as a contrasting voice of dissent in order to expose the extent to which the other jurors are controlled by their preconceived notions of guilt and innocence. Despite his insistence to scrutinise the evidence, other jurors still base their votes on biases, attitudes and personal experiences. The 3 rd juror, who says, “The man’s a dangerous killer” and the 10 th , who remarks “You know what you’re dealing with” may be the most vociferous in their accusations of the boy’s guilt and it is this emphasis on guilt that threatens a fair trial. The locked room appears as a metaphoric representation of their “locked minds” and their prejudice, which may lead to a miscarriage of justice. Hence, owing to preconceived biases, jurors are too quick to arrive at hasty conclusions and are less willing to accept the apparent doubt in the circumstantial evidence.

With an emphasis on reasonable doubt, the trial changes direction and the flaws in the evidence become increasingly apparent, making it difficult for many jurors to insist on the boy’s guilt. At the exposition of the play, almost all the jurors are convinced of the defendant’s guilt. The 10 th juror flippantly states, “A kid kills his father. Bing! Just like that,” evincing that there is no element of doubt in his mind. Similarly, the 6 th juror comments, “There’s not a doubt in the world.” However as the play progresses, doubt slowly creeps into the minds of the jurors as evidence is cross-examined. The tension is diffused as ‘the sound of the rain’ is heard in the silence. The storm and the ‘flickering of harsh white light’ could be interpreted as symbols of reality and truth. Afterwards, the 4 th juror, one of the most logical and methodical jurors, (“Let’s stick to the facts.”) eventually votes ‘not guilty’ stating he now has a ‘reasonable doubt’. Likewise, the 11 th juror switches his vote as he “now has a reasonable doubt in his mind.” The jurors are aware of the importance of investigating the evidence and henceforth acknowledge that their prior certainties may have faults.

The 8 th juror, through a stage direction that mimics his state of mind and are shown that “this is the problem that has been tormenting him. He does not know and he never will.”

** Based on ‘reasonable doubt’, a verdict of ‘not guilty’ is reached, which Rose suggests is the only correct verdict under these circumstances. AS the evidence is not conclusive, the jurors are not able to confidently prove the boy’s guilt. Critical to the “not guilty” verdict is the capitulation of the 10 th and 3 rd jurors owing to their vociferous opposition. The 10 th juror concedes that he has been outmanoeuvred by the “smart bastards” precisely because he must recognise that his bigoted misconceptions cannot prove the boy’s guilt. Likewise, the 3 rd is forced to recognise the degree to which his personal vendetta interfered with the decision-making process. The reminder that “he’s not your boy”, finally shames him  into concurring with the ‘not guilty’ verdict. The deconstruction of these obstacles finally paves the way for an honest and just outcome. The unlocking of the door and the knife in the table – which was critical to the fact-finding process – suggest that prejudice has been dispelled. Thus Rose would suggest they reach a fair and reasonable verdict.

It is unequivocal that the legal drama Twelve Angry men imparts the notion that ‘reasonable doubt’ is a portentous part of America’s judicial system and it is of greater concern than the truth. Rose demonstrates this though the jury, a microcosm representation of a cross-section of America, who works together to form a just, unanimous decision. The variety of symbolic techniques show how Rose supports the ‘not guilty’ verdict and his view that ‘reasonable doubt’, if applied rigorously and insightfully, can expose personals aspects and agendas that may conspire to affect a fair trial. Ultimately, Rose reveals he is less concerned about the guilt or innocence of the accused but that a vote of ‘reasonable doubt’ is better than wrongly putting an innocent man to death and acts as a safeguard in the justice system.

• Return to Summary: literary Devices
• Return to Notes: Article on 12 Angry Men
• A sample/ plan essay on Twelve Angry Men

For Sponsorship and Other Enquiries

Keep in touch.

12 Angry Men

Table of contents.

• Sample Essay 1
• Sample Essay 2
• Sample Essay 3
• Sample Essay 4
• Sample Essay 5
• Sample Essay 6
• Sample Essay 7
• Sample Essay 8

Sample Essay 1: DOUBT VS CERTAINTY

It is human nature to act on emotionality rather than rationality. The dramatic play, Twelve Angry Men , by Reginald Rose, depicts a seemingly open and shut case based on initially compelling evidence against a boy accused of murder. However, it becomes increasingly clear that individuals are fallible to preconceived, biased beliefs derived from past experiences, social power and rampant prejudices. Therefore, Rose cements the principle that the criminal justice system is founded upon the uncovering doubt, rather than determining guilt. That is, the seeds of doubt is representative of self-reflection on one’s initial judgements, which are subjective and inaccurate. Nevertheless, the playwright imbues an unwavering certainty in the play; individuals who are logical and faithful to legal procedures, in the face of oppression and higher power, can be certain in standing their ground in the jury room.

Rose condemns certainty in judgements which are not founded upon facts but, rather, personal afflictions and generalised prejudice. In fact, the characters in the play demonstrate how judgements based on emotional influence irrelevant to the case at hand prove to be the most certain, despite being misinformed and wholly biased. Juror Three epitomises certainty in projecting his personal experiences on the boy, asserting that he “could see” that the boy was guilty and affirming that he had “never seen a guiltier man in his life”. Rose demonstrates the irony in his confident judgement; rather than “see[ing]”, Juror Three was entirely blindsided in viewing the case through his own lens. Thus, Juror Three fails to objectively judge the case due to his conflicted relationship with his son and wrongfully projects this bias onto the accused boy through the repetition of “it was his father”. In addition, Rose demonstrates how societal bigotry is based on unreasonable attachment and certainty to a belief, which is detrimental to the justice system. Based on the boy’s “type”, Juror Ten makes overarching generalisations on the poorer faction of society through the usage of “these people” or “them”. Through numerous assumptions attributed to the boy through unfounded opinions that “you’ve got to expect that” and how “those people lie”, the playwright epitomises Juror Ten’s intolerance and shortsightedness through the claustrophobic space of the jury room. The juxtaposition of inwardness to the outward city engenders the failure of introspection, resulting in the certainty of prejudiced judgements.

Nevertheless, Rose offers the balanced view that doubting the initial certainty of a case from a logical approach transgresses the emotionality of prejudice. In many aspects, Juror Four represents desirable traits in the justice system. Despite being initially characterised as “a man of wealth and position”, Rose demonstrates how Juror Four’s clear focus to “discuss the facts” mitigates individual biases and emotional attachment to the case, allowing him to resolutely acknowledge that he “now [has] reasonable doubt”. Through Juror Four, Rose represents the higher class, corporate society of 1950s America, embodying many values of active participation and impartial thinking in the legal system. In the same vein, Juror Eleven functions as a voice of reason from a less socially powerful background as a refugee from Europe. In spite of this, Juror Eleven has resolute faith in individuals’ civic responsibilities, advocating that serving in the jury is what is “remarkable about democracy”, making America “strong”. Echoing Juror Four, Juror Eleven demonstrates the admirable ability to segregate emotionality towards the case from the facts, reminding the jurors that “they had nothing to gain or lose by the verdict” and, thus, “should no make it a personal thing.” Therefore, through Juror Four and Juror Eleven, Rose draws parallels between two characters from vastly different backgrounds, which is the unfaltering and certain adherence to rationality and the jury role. Contradictorily, critical thinking manifests doubt and self-reflection, allowing members of the jury to acknowledge that there is “reasonable doubt” in the case.

As the plot unfolds, it becomes evident that absolute certainty and doubt coexist in the courtroom. Rose validates the confident judgements of individuals who are fully conscious of their power and obligations as a juror. Juror Eight displays his certainty as the only one who votes “not guilty”, garnering the support of the audience to implicate the ideals championed by the character. Indeed, as the other jurors deliberate and hold the boy accountable for his silence, Juror Eight reminds the panel that “nobody has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the prosecution”, which is a principle entrenched in “the Constitution”. This argument is purposely organised in a logical portrayal, referring back to the entrenched responsibilities of their duty in the justice system. This is in direct contrast to Juror Two, who inadequately and ineloquently rebuts Juror Eight with the stage direct that “he looks around helplessly”, solidifying the audience’s belief that the second juror no longer holds certainty in his judgement and refutes out of stubbornness. Through this juxtaposition, Rose posits that Juror Eight’s certainty in his rightful and rational argument underpins morality and legal fairness. The use of stage direction further endorses Juror Eight’s outward thinking through the recurring motif that he “looked out the window”. Distinguishing himself from the other jurors, Juror Eight erodes the certainty arising from personal bias and instils confidence on critical examination. Thus, Rose embodies the ideal of active citizenship and civic fulfilment in 1950s America, supporting an unparalleled determination in basing judgements according to interactive discussion and self-scrutiny.

Twelve Angry Men is a play which argues the necessity doubt which arises from one’s certainty in their morality and sense of responsibility. In the courtroom, where the border between guilt and innocence is clouded by emotional and personal partiality, Rose champions how justice can be ethically achieved through a focused observation of facts. The characters symbolise certain societal archetypes in American society and reveal inherent human faults under the criminal justice system. However, in the face of discriminatory attitudes and values in post-war America, Rose elevates the conscientiousness of one’s legal power above all.

Sample Essay 2: JUSTICE

The criminal justice system encapsulates many principles in order to achieve justice for the parties involved. Twelve Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, is a dramatic play which explores the intricate construct of a just and fair trial. In the context of 1950s America, Rose enquires the ideal of fairness in a society divided by ethnic and social backgrounds. As a narrative develops, it is evident that the unequal power relations of social division interferes with the objectivity of the jury verdict due to personally biased and irrational beliefs. Furthermore, Rose demonstrates how the importance of justice itself is directly dependent to one’s past experiences, resulting in differing perceptions in what constitutes a righteous outcome. Ultimately, the play is a complex insight into the contradictions of justice, arguing that a strict abidance to proving a case beyond “reasonable doubt” is the standard that should be normalised.

As a commentary on post-war America, Rose depicts bigotry as a form of injustice imposed on less fortunate groups in society. 1950s America witnessed the widening of class divisions, resulting in widespread ignorance from individuals in privileged positions. This attitude is embodied by Juror Ten, who applies his personal, discriminative views on the boy, referring to him as a part of the “slums”, who are “common ignorant slob[s]”. This is echoed by Juror Four, who asserts that “The slums are a breeding ground for criminals”. Hence, Juror Four wholly attributes his guilty verdict to the boy’s social status, making a sweeping, blanket statement that lack of financial power is directly correlated to crime. These generalised statements, which are made before examining the facts of the case, are a condemnation of the systematic misinformation perpetuated by ignorant members of society. Rose warns of the consequence of predetermined values, which thereby disregards and disrespects justice. The blatant bias of some jurors is contrasted with the characterisation of Juror Eleven, who speaks out against the lower-class prejudice, understanding that “facts may be coloured by the personalities who present them”. Hence, Juror Eleven reminds the audience that subjective beliefs are often forwarded as truth, despite their highly partial nature. Therefore, through the juxtaposition of various jurors, Rose identifies the root of prejudice; often, stigmatised opinions are automatically assumed to be the truth due to ignorance, resulting in an unequal, unjust society.

Furthermore, Rose reflects on the shortcomings of the criminal justice system, demonstrating that the notion of justice is subjective. Juror Three showcases how an individual’s understanding of justice is dependent on their past experience, allowing them to project their personal conflicts onto others. It is evident in the play that Juror Three’s longstanding resentment stems from the behaviours his son, cursing him as a “rotten kid” who had once “hit [him] in the face”. Juror Three justifies his hatred, stating that he “work[ed] [his] heart out”, implying that he had once been understanding and sympathetic towards his son. Nevertheless, due to the treatment Juror Three had previously endured, his sense of justice is resolved by physical violence and intimidation, stating to that it would be deservedly fair to “belt him one”. On the other hand, Rose depicts Juror Five on the opposite spectrum, relating back to his similar past experiences to the accused, conveying that “I’ve lived in a slum all my life”. Through the lenses of his past, Juror Five reveals that he would rather suppress traumatic memories in “try[ing] to [forget] those things”. This serves as an fascinating parallel to the boy, who also fails to recall events of his father’s death. Hence, Rose utilises the past of experience of Juror Three to demonstrate how individuals perceive achieving justice as a resolution of their personal resentments. Despite this, Juror Five’s experiences allows him and the audience to understand an empathetic definition of justice.

Rose further explores a more nuanced construction of justice, which is judicially intended to be purely focused on facts and separate from external influences. However, Juror Four is one of the last jurors to vote “not guilty”, yet, is the epitome of detached, logical thinking. That is, Juror Four relies on authoritative opinion and relevant evidence, clearly detailing “why”, as the “most damning evidence was given by the woman… who claimed she actually saw the murder”. Here, Juror Four draws from a witness’s testimony to rightfully assert his verdict, unlike the prejudiced attitudes of some jurors present. By providing the context, Rose renders Juror Four’s judgement as entirely plausible. In addition, Juror Four is characterised as rational and level-headed, despite the rising tensions of the deliberations, stating that “we ought to be able to behave like gentlemen”. As the emotionality of the discussion is represented by pathetic fallacy in the heat of the jury room, Juror Four’s calm mannerisms is further portrayed as admirable. Though, notably, Juror Four initially does not believe that the case possesses adequate doubt.  Nevertheless, Rose contends that the idea of “reasonable doubt” is, to an extent, founded upon a level of human empathy. This is conveyed through Juror Nine, who raises the important point that witness testimony is not always reliable, as someone like the old man “like this needs to be recognised”, positing self-interest as a possible motivation for the witness to “lie”. Rose demonstrates that human nature and the ability to view the case empathetically is a necessary skill to recognise “reasonable doubt” in addition to rationality. Thus, only through this can justice be realised.

Twelve Angry Men is a reflection of both societal discourses and human nature. Rose illustrates that the idea of justice stems from individual beliefs and changing values of society. With the rise of social hierarchies and wealth disparities of post-war America, Rose argues that such inequalities are damaging for the criminal justice system. Furthermore, Rose highlights the essentiality for one to remove themselves from unresolved, personal conflicts, as this shapes their understanding of justice. Despite this, Rose demonstrates the delicate balance between detached, factual approaches and compassionate empathy required to scrutinise the existence of “reasonable doubt”.

Sample Essay 3: Twelve Angry Men power

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Twelve Angry Men

by Reginald Rose

Bryan Aubrey

Aubrey holds a PhD in English and has published many articles on twentieth-century literature. In this essay, he discusses the play in the context of jury behavior, the unreliability of eyewitness testimony, and the inadequacy of defense counsel in many capital cases in the United States .

There must be many playgoers or moviegoers who come away from a performance or showing of Twelve Angry Men filled with images of themselves acting as the heroic Juror Eight. They, too, when their time came, would be calm and rational in the jury room and motivated only by a desire for justice, and they would gradually, through their integrity and persistence, persuade the other eleven jurors to adopt their viewpoint. It is, of course, natural for the audience to identify with the hero, but people may not realize that this aspect of Twelve Angry Men , in which one juror persuades eleven others to change their positions, is fiction, not reality. The truth is that in real life, no one would be able to act out the admirable role of Henry Fonda (or Jack Lemmon, who played Juror Eight in the 1997 remake of the movie).

The dynamics of group behavior simply do not work that way. In the 1950s, a study of 255 trials by the Chicago Jury Project turned up no examples of such an occurrence. The study, in which microphones were placed in the jury room to record deliberations, found that 30 percent of cases were decided, either for conviction or acquittal, on the first ballot. In 95 percent of cases, the majority on the first ballot persuaded the minority to their point of view. In other words, the way a jury first casts its vote preferences is the best predictor of the final verdict. This conclusion has been confirmed by much research in jury behavior over the past half-century. So if Twelve Angry Men had been true to life, the defendant would almost certainly have been convicted. In group situations such as jury deliberations, there is simply too much pressure on a lone individual to conform to the view of the majority. The Chicago Jury Project showed that in the 5 percent of cases in which the original minority prevailed, there were always three or four jurors who held their minority views from the start of deliberations. (The results of the Chicago Jury Project are reported in " Twelve Angry Men Presents an Idealized View of the Jury System," by David Burnell Smith.)

In cases where one juror persists in maintaining his or her view against the majority, the result will be a hung jury, although research on juries suggests that hung juries are more common when there is a sizable minority rather than a minority of one. There is also a body of opinion within the legal profession that indicates that in cases where a lone juror opposes the majority, the holdout is unlikely to resemble Juror Eight in Twelve Angry Men , who is devoted to justice and acts with integrity. In fact, such a juror is more likely to be the opposite, a stubborn and antisocial person who, for some reason, feels driven to oppose the majority, sticking to his or her opinion when there is no evidence to support it. In a review of the play in the Michigan Law Review , Phoebe C. Ellsworth summarizes this view:

The juror who opposes the majority is seen as essentially unreasonable…. The majority jurors, on the other hand, are seen as reasonable, willing to spend time sifting through the issues and listening carefully to the arguments of the minority even if the initial verdict is 11-1 and they have enough votes to declare a verdict.

If this aspect of Twelve Angry Men is more fiction than truth, the play does raise other issues that are as relevant for the criminal justice system today as they were in the 1950s. The most important of them is the nature of eyewitness testimony. At first, the jurors in Twelve Angry Men , with one exception, accept the eyewitness testimony at the trial at face value. This testimony is crucial to the case for the prosecution, and the jurors do not think to question the old man's claim that he saw the murdered man's son fleeing or the testimony of the woman across the street, who said that she actually saw the murder being committed. The jurors repeatedly refer to this testimony as the "facts" of the case, and near the end of the play, Juror Four even says that the woman's account of what she saw is "unshakable testimony." Juror Three adds, "That's the whole case."

The jurors in the play are conforming to what most people, when called to jury duty, believe—that eyewitness testimony is extremely reliable. The truth is rather different. Many studies have shown that eyewitness testimony is often unreliable, with an accuracy rate of only about 50 percent. Some experiments have shown even lower percentages for accurate identification, such as the 41.8 percent reported in Brian Cutler and Stephen Penrod's Mistaken Identification: The Eyewitness, Psychology, and the Law .

It seems that despite what people believe, humans do not have a good ability to identify people they may have seen for only a few seconds. Eyewitnesses have been shown to be especially poor at making interracial identification (in the film, a white man and a white woman identify a Hispanic individual). Research has also shown that people in stressful situations have less reliability of recall than those in nonstressful situations. Obviously, witnessing a murder is almost by definition a stressful situation. In addition, people find it harder to recall information about a violent event than about a nonviolent one.

Many experts believe that mistaken identity based on eyewitness testimony is a leading cause of wrongful convictions in the United States. In her book Eyewitness Testimony , Elizabeth F. Loftus discusses the issue in depth. She analyzes the famous and controversial Sacco and Vanzetti case in the 1920s, in which two men, Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, were convicted and executed for murder. It appears that eyewitnesses initially failed to identify either man as the perpetrator of the crime but later testified that they were certain of their identifications. (Loftus raises the possibility that they were improperly influenced by repeated questioning.) The jurors believed the eyewitnesses, despite plausible alibis presented by both defendants establishing that they were elsewhere at the time of the murder.

Loftus describes another case in which eyewitness testimony against the accused was accepted by a jury, even when evidence pointing to the man's innocence far outweighed it. (The conviction was later reversed.) Loftus also discusses an experiment in which subjects were asked to play the role of jurors trying a criminal case. When eyewitness testimony was included in the experiment, establishing that someone saw the murder, the percentage of the fifty jurors voting for conviction rose from 18 percent to 72 percent. Then a variation in the case was introduced that has some relevance for Twelve Angry Men . The defense established that the witness had not been wearing his glasses on the day of the crime and had very poor vision. Therefore he could not have seen the robber's face. Even with this variation, 68 percent of jurors still voted for conviction. In Twelve Angry Men , it is a juror's realization that an eyewitness who wears glasses could not have been wearing them at the time she witnessed the crime that is the decisive factor in swinging the final three jurors to a vote of not guilty.

The legal system does have safeguards against misidentification by eyewitnesses. Since Twelve Angry Men was written, there has been a trend toward accepting expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitness identification. In such cases, an expert would advise the jurors on how much weight they should attach to the eyewitness testimony presented at the trial. Another legal safeguard is the right of the defense attorney to cross-examine an eyewitness. The attorney may ask questions about how long the eyewitnesses saw the defendant, what the lighting was like, how much stress they were under, the degree of certainty in their identification, and other relevant questions.

Such cross-examination requires a competent attorney. In Twelve Angry Men , the defense attorney's cross-examination of the witnesses is weak, according to Juror Eight, who says, "Somehow I felt that the defense counsel never really conducted a thorough cross-examination. Too many questions were left unasked." Juror Four agrees with him that the defense attorney was bad. In the 1957 film, this point is expanded. Juror Eight points out to Juror Seven that since the defense attorney was court appointed, he may not have wanted to take the case. There would have been neither money nor glory in it for him. In addition, he probably did not believe in the innocence of his client and so did not mount a vigorous defense. Thus, in Twelve Angry Men , the jury ends up doing the defense attorney's job for him, which is hardly an ideal situation.

Unfortunately, the inadequacy of defense counsel in death penalty cases is a persistent problem in the criminal justice system in the United States. On its website, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) summarizes several death penalty cases in which inadequate representation has led to wrongful or dubious convictions. The reason for this is that capital cases are extremely complex and require expertise and experience on the part of the defense counsel, who must devote large amounts of time to the case. Because most defendants cannot afford a lawyer, the court provides them with one, but few states offer adequate compensation in such cases. The result, according to the ACLU, is that "capital defendants are frequently represented by inexperienced, often over-worked, and in many cases incompetent, lawyers." The ACLU cites one egregious example of a court-appointed lawyer in Alabama who was so drunk during a capital trial in 1989 that he was held in contempt and jailed.

The facts as presented by the ACLU suggest that the ability of the jurors in Twelve Angry Men to reach a just verdict despite the failures of the defense counsel is not replicated in real life. Although some playgoers and moviegoers may feel that Twelve Angry Men vindicates the criminal justice system—because the right verdict is reached—it seems more accurate to view the play as an indictment of the system, since had it not been for the presence of the larger-than-life Juror Eight, justice would most certainly not have been served. The system was saved by one man, and that, sadly, is the stuff of fiction, not reality.

Source: Bryan Aubrey, Critical Essay on Twelve Angry Men , in Drama for Students , Thomson Gale, 2006.

Cite this page as follows:

"Twelve Angry Men - Bryan Aubrey." Drama for Students, Vol. 23. Gale Cengage, 30 Aug. 2024 <https://www.enotes.com/topics/twelve-angry-men/critical-essays#critical-essays-criticism-twelve-angry-men-criticism-aubrey>

Thomas J. Harris

In the following essay, Harris provides an overview of the plot and characters in the film version of Twelve Angry Men, taking issue with Juror 8's omniscience and some of the story's simplistic philosophies, but praising it as "exhilarating drama."

An Orion/Nova Production, released through United Artists, 1957. Coproducers: Henry Fonda and Reginald Rose. Director: Sidney Lumet. Story and Screenplay: Reginald Rose. Director of Photography: Boris Kaufman, A.S.C. Editor: Carl Lerner. Art Director: Robert Markell. Music: Kenyon Hopkins. Assistant Producer: George Justin. Assistant Director: Donald Kranze. Operative Cameraman: Saul Midwall. Sound: James A. Gleason. Script Supervisor: Faith Elliott. Makeup: Herman Buchman. Black-and-white. Running time: 96 minutes. Cast: Henry Fonda (Juror 8), Lee J. Cobb (Juror 3), Ed Begley (Juror 10), E. G. Marshall (Juror 4), Jack Warden (Juror 7), Martin Balsam (Juror 1), John Fiedler (Juror 2), Jack Klugman (Juror 5), Joseph Sweeney (Juror 9), Edward Binns (Juror 6), George Voskovec (Juror 11), Robert Webber (Juror 12), Rudy Bond (Judge), James A. Kelly (Guard), Bill Nelson (Court Clerk), John Savoca (Defendant).

It is convenient that the first chapter of this book on courtroom cinema should center on the most pivotal aspect of a trial—the jury: with a thorough understanding of its intricacies, the reader will be able to appreciate better the statements made by the writers and directors of the films to come regarding the reliability of the judicial system in general.

Strangely enough, as of 1957 the subject of the jury had only received one serious treatment in all of world cinema—by French writer-director Andre Cayette in his 1950 film Justice est Faite (Let Justice Be Done), which explored the extent to which the personal lives of the jury members in a mercy killing affected their verdict. Its main point was that the attainment of absolute impartiality is impossible in a jury situation, to which people unavoidably carry with them deep-seated prejudices and convictions.

Some three years after the release of the Cayette film in France, a young American TV writer named Reginald Rose found himself confronting precisely the same dilemmas that had plagued Cayette's characters when he was asked to serve on a New York jury. Rose was so affected by his experience that he fashioned a teleplay from it. When 12 Angry Men , as it was called, aired in early 1954, it proved an immediate critical and commercial hit—its potency of theme appearing all the more credible due to its basis on actual events.

Two years later, in 1956, Rose was asked by Henry Fonda, who had seen the TV production of 12 Angry Men and who was looking for a commercial property over which he could serve as producer as well as a starring vehicle for himself, to expand his teleplay to feature length. This practice had become fairly common during the 1950s, what with the number of original story ideas for motion pictures steadily declining. Producers had begun to turn to their greatest rival, television, for new material. Paddy Chayefsky's TV plays Marty and The Bachelor Party were both transferred to the screen in 1955 and 1957, respectively, by their original director, Delbert Mann. Since television was primarily a writer's (although to a great extent an actor's) medium, it was wisely decided that the screen adaptations of these teleplays would rely heavily on dialogue, in addition to the other fundamentals of television: "a narrative style based on medium close-ups … a highly mobile camera enclosed within a limited space and the intimate quality of … situations."

These films were also made at low costs, because they utilized television crews instead of motion picture crews (Alfred Hitchcock was to discover just how cheaply a feature film could be made in 1960 when, using the crew from his TV show, he produced and directed Psycho , his top-grossing film of all time, for a mere $800,000).

The man chosen to direct the screen version of 12 Angry Men was Sidney Lumet, who was still a novice to movies (hard to believe from today's stand-point) but who was well-experienced in TV, having directed episodes for such popular series as You Are There, Playhouse 90, Kraft Television Theatre , and Studio One . In addition, most of the acting ensemble was drawn from among the ranks of TV performers: E. G. Marshall, Jack Warden, Edward Binns, John Fiedler, Martin Balsam, among others.

12 Angry Men opens on a steamy summer afternoon in a courtroom inside Manhattan's Court of General Sessions. A judge is wearily grumping his charge to an equally dog-tired and heat-soaked jury: first-degree manslaughter with a death penalty mandatory upon a guilty verdict. However, he reminds them, to send the defendant (a slum boy) to the chair their verdict of guilty must be unanimous; if there exists in any juror's mind a reasonable doubt as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, a vote of not guilty must be entered. As the jury remove themselves from the box, the viewer is shown a lingering close-up of the frightened boy. Kenyon Hopkins' grim, sympathetic theme (which will recur each time a life-or-death situation is faced) continues until the credits fade as the jury—and the audience—settle themselves in that sweltering broom closet for the next hour and a half. Already Rose has established the contrast between the slum kid of a minority race and the white, middle-class males who have been selected to determine his fate. We will soon discover that the defendant in the case is not only the boy on trial but also the jury and, in a broader sense, the judicial system itself.

Once inside the jury room, the men are introduced to the viewer as they talk among themselves about how "open-and-shut" the case against the boy seems. Assuming the airs of the intelligent, respectable citizens they presume themselves to be, they never for a moment doubt the validity of their convictions, but instead speak of how "exciting" the trial was or of the stifling atmosphere of the room (they are unable to get the fan to work) or of how the proceedings have rudely interrupted their daily routines (one is anxious to get to the ball park). They act as though they've seen it all before; in fact, one of them later says to Henry Fonda, who casts the only vote for not-guilty, "You couldn't change my mind if you talked for a hundred years." However, by the end of the film all eleven of them will have been persuaded by Fonda to open their minds to the possibility of the existence of a reasonable doubt in the case.

Juror 1 (Martin Balsam) is chosen to be the foreman. He is a high-school gym teacher, about 30, somewhat dumb and weak-willed, and extremely sensitive—when someone objects to one of his decisions, he says, "All right, then do it yourself. See how you like being in charge." His opinions will be overlooked while the other eleven take over. In short, he is a foreman by name only.

Juror 2 (John Fiedler) is a wimpy bank teller of about 35. He (like some of the others) is used to having decisions made for him and enjoys going along with the majority so he'll look good and won't have to stand up for himself. Whatever views he has are usually silenced by the more aggressive types in the group. However, he does make an effort to maintain the level of interpersonal contact among the men when arguments ensue by offering cough drops.

Juror 3 (Lee J. Cobb) is a husky, loud-mouthed, domineering bully who runs a messenger service. He states in the beginning that he has no personal feelings about the case, but we eventually learn that his own teenaged son has deserted him and for that reason he is taking out his anger on the defendant. His blind desire to side with anyone who is ready to convict the boy allows Fonda and the others on his side to come up with new evidence to support the theory that there exists a reasonable doubt concerning the boy's guilt.

Juror 4 (E. G. Marshall), the stockbroker, is a cold-blooded (so much so that he says he never sweats) rationalist who treats the whole case as if it were a detective puzzle and not a question of whether a human being is going to live or die. "Studies confirm that slum kids are potential criminals," he declares. He is conceited and stuffy and does not hesitate to tell the others what he thinks of them whenever the opportunity arises. He is, however, obviously a good producer of information and has excellent recall, and is helpful in that respect at least.

Juror 5 (Jack Klugman) is an insecure victim of a slum upbringing. He is not a mean man, but would vote in favor of the boy's guilt simply because discussing the details of a case with many parallels to his own childhood is too much for his conscience to bear. However, once he has come to grips with his past, he is eager to assist Fonda and the others in reevaluating the case against the boy.

Juror 6 (Edward Binns) is a working-class "Joe" more inclined toward using his hands than his brains. "I'm not used to supposing," he tells Fonda. "My boss does that for me." He provides a facilitation function in the group—that is, he tries to make things go smoothly—as when he badgers the bully for silencing Juror 9, the old man: "You say stuff like that to him again, and I'll lay you out."

Juror 7's (Jack Warden) only desire is to get out of his seat in the jury room and into one at the ball park. In fact, he is so completely obsessed with baseball that he makes unconscious references to it in virtually everything he says; he calls Juror 5 "Baltimore" because of his attachment to the Orioles; he tells the foreman to "just stand there and pitch" when he says something irritating; he recites the ratio of guilty to not-guilty votes as if it were a player's hit-and-miss record. He is perhaps the most alarming figure in the whole group because he has absolutely no concern for the defendant's welfare. He preoccupies himself with cracking jokes and performing stupid acts like throwing paper balls at the fan. When Fonda finally secures a majority of not-guilty votes, he switches his vote to not-guilty simply to facilitate the establishment of a unanimous verdict; he has no convictions either way. That he appears amusing on the surface seems all the more appalling when one reflects upon the seriousness of the situation which he's making light of.

Juror 9 (Joseph Sweeney), the old man, needs moral support, for he has an inferiority complex. Fortunately, Fonda, the working man, and some of the others manage to see to it that he gets the floor once in a while despite the dominance of the loudmouths in the group. In spite of his years, however, he is extremely perceptive, and some of his observations—unseen by any of the others—result in altering the opinions of a few of the more stubborn among the men.

Juror 10 (Ed Begley) is a garage owner who is absolutely seething with racial prejudice. "They're all the same—can't trust any of 'em—know what I mean?" is his recurrent statement with regard to the boy's ethnic background. He is nasty and quick to accuse (when Fonda is the only one to vote not-guilty at the beginning, he immediately snickers, "Boyoboy, there's always one"). Although he acts tough, it becomes increasingly clear that his rantings and ravings last only as long as there are supporters to urge him on.

Juror 11 (George Voskovec), a German-American, is an immigrant watchmaker who initially votes guilty simply because his reverence for the principles of American justice has blinded him into believing that the system is infallible: the boy seems guilty, therefore he must be. He is somewhat arrogant but is rightfully angered at the baseball fan's indifference and the bully's rudeness. By standing up for his beliefs he gives direction to the group.

Juror 12 (Robert Webber) is an ad man accustomed to making decisions for appearance's sake. He has no deep-seated convictions regarding the guilt or innocence of the boy and as a result has difficulty making up his mind when his opinion is needed to break a tie vote.

From an examination of these men it becomes clear that Rose has chosen a pretty fair cross-section of society to fill his jury. After they are certain that they've given the case a thorough evaluation (they've talked for all of five minutes), one calls to the man (Juror 8, Henry Fonda) who has been standing alone by the window. Fonda has been thinking the case over in his mind, not worrying about his own problems. The contrast between him and his fellow jurors is firmly established when a vote is taken and he is the only one who raises his hand for not-guilty. After the others have somewhat tempered their initial hostility, they agree to explain to him why they think he should change his mind. It must be pointed out that he has not voted not-guilty because he is sure the boy is innocent, but because there exists in his mind a reasonable doubt as to guilt. The law states that this is all that is necessary for acquittal.

After a once-around-the-table, it becomes obvious that no one has given the case much thought. "I just think he's guilty … the evidence all seemed to point in that direction," are the empty generalizations spouted by these eleven men who are prepared to send a boy to the chair without even a second thought.

Since it is evident that they would rather ignore Fonda and wait for him to "come to his senses" than try to help him see their point of view, Fonda realizes that it is up to him to convince them that there is room for reasonable doubt. He has his work cut out for him, though, for he must contend with the hostility of the others in the group—the garage mechanic in particular—who are growing more and more impatient.

It is already clear to the viewer that Fonda is the only man present who is not indifferent and who has not allowed personal prejudice to obscure his perception of the case. He is also apparently the only one with a lucid understanding of the judicial process—and the one with the most common sense. He has to remind the bank teller that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. He cleverly makes the ad man contradict his belief that witnesses who say things under oath cannot be wrong by getting him to admit, "This isn't an exact science."

Nevertheless, for all his effort, Fonda elicits nothing but jeers from those to whom he points out shortcomings in reasoning. Discouraged, but secretly hoping that he has penetrated the stubborn veneer of at least one of the other jurors, he agrees to another vote—but this time on secret ballot, with himself abstaining. He says that if the outcome is a unanimous guilty vote, he will not stand in their way; however, if there is one vote for not-guilty among them, then they must stay and talk it out. He is taking a great risk by placing his confidence in this largely ignorant and biased bunch.

Fortunately, there is one vote for not-guilty (we later discover that it came from the old man). Reluctantly, the other members of the jury set out to reexamine the case. Fonda's task from this point on will be to convince the other ten that there is a question of doubt regarding the case of the defendant. Because he is a keen judge of character, he avoids pleading his cause directly to the most seemingly intractable types—the baseball fan, the garage owner, and the messenger-service operator—and instead concentrates on the more reasonable types—the working man, the slum kid, the bank teller, etc. He knows that once they begin to accept him as a leader, he will be able to break down the stronghold of personal prejudice that the others possess. It should be mentioned at this point that there are many temporary leaders in the group; practically everyone gets the floor once in a while. Leadership is a function, not a position. However, Fonda becomes the strongest and most influential leader because he manages to gain the support of the others in the group; lasting leadership demands followers. Fonda's unfaltering independence of judgment will gradually strengthen the independence of judgment of the others. One by one, the other jurors will begin to realize how close they came to sending a boy to die due to their indifferent attitudes.

Fonda begins to introduce pieces of evidence that throw doubt upon the so-called "open-and-shut" appearance of the case against the boy. He confounds the other jurors when he produces a knife identical to the one with which the boy allegedly stabbed his father. His point is that someone else could have bought the knife, as he did, at a store in the boy's neighborhood and used it to kill the boy's father. "It's possible, but not very probable," declares the stockbroker in his usual perfunctory tone. Nevertheless, it is still to Fonda's credit that he was concerned enough to give up some of his free time to search the boy's area, whereas the others never gave the knife a second thought because it was an unusual-looking instrument and seemed to be one of a kind.

Fonda also brings up the crucial question of the accuracy of the testimony of the lame old man who said that he got up from his seat in his bedroom after hearing what he thought were screams, went to the front door immediately, opened it, and saw the boy running past. Using a diagram of the man's apartment and imitating his movements while clocking them, Fonda shows that it would have been impossible for the handicapped witness to walk forty feet from his bedroom to the door in the twelve seconds he said it took him to do so. It would have taken him at least three times that long. Therefore, it is highly probable that the man merely heard someone running past and assumed it was the boy. Earlier, Fonda had reasoned that the old man's statement that he heard the boy say he was going to kill his father would have meant that the shouts were picked up over the deafening roar of an L-train. When Juror 3 asked what difference it made how many seconds it took before the old man heard the screams, that no one could be that positive, Fonda had replied, "I think that testimony that could send a boy to the chair should be as accurate as seconds." This points up another major concern of the film—the reliability of the testimony of people who are, after all, only human and therefore prone to making mistakes. Just because someone says something under oath does not necessarily signify that it is unquestionable. Sometimes people say things for appearance's sake—as Juror 9 points out when he says that the old man on the stand may have been making an effort to look distinguished for possibly the first time in his life and that as a result he may have deliberately twisted the facts. Even the persons with superior recall—and there are not many in the group—are not totally reliable—as we will discover later with regard to the stockbroker. However, the other jurors' excessive faith in the accuracy of the judicial process would have them believe that human error somehow becomes nonexistent once a person enters a court of law. The question of what motivates a witness' testimony will be explored again in Witness for the Prosecution and most extensively (and realistically) in Anatomy of a Murder .

Apparently Fonda's efforts have not gone unrewarded, for the next vote finds the count 8 guilty to 4 not-guilty, as opposed to the original 11 to 1; the watchmaker has now changed his mind. It is at this point that Juror 3, who has been castigating those who have sided with Fonda ("You bunch of bleedin' hearts … what is this—Love Your Under-privileged Brother Week or something?") allows all his latent hostility with regard to his runaway son to surface:

Juror 3: You're letting him slip through our fingers! Fonda: Slid through our fingers?! Who are you, his executioner? Juror 3 (clenching his fist): I'm one of 'em. Fonda: Perhaps you'd like to pull the switch. Juror 3: For this kid, you bet I would. Fonda (contemptuously): I feel sorry for you. What it must feel like to want to pull the switch. Ever since you came in here you've been acting like a self-appointed public avenger…. You're a sadist.

During this exchange all the other jurors have gathered around Fonda and have been staring, astonished, at Juror 3; he has been singled out, just as Fonda was the first time we saw him. These two are clearly the most diametrically opposed individuals in the room. Juror 3 lunges at Fonda, declaring, "I'll kill him." Fonda, defiantly: "You don't really mean you'll kill me, do you?" And Juror 3 realizes that Fonda is right. From this point on, Juror 3 appears more introspective—he speaks out less often—but still retains his angry facade. His outburst has also caused the other jurors who voted guilty to ask themselves whether they have similar prejudices which are preventing them from changing their perspectives. They are again given pause to reflect after the watchmaker's aweinspired speech about the merits of the American jury process: "We have nothing to gain or lose by our verdict. We don't know the boy" (even though Juror 10 would contend, "They're all the same"). The next vote is a tie: 6-6.

At about this time the frustrated and exhausted men are given relief by a downpour. The rain acts to reduce the tension: it cools the intense emotional atmosphere of the room as well as the men themselves. By the next vote, Fonda has secured a majority: 9 not-guilty to 3 guilty. The three dissenters are the bully, the stockbroker, and the bigot. Fonda demands that they state their reasons for holding onto their conviction. The stockbroker's smug attitude is finally broken down by Fonda and the old man. The rationalist had refused to believe that the boy couldn't remember the names of the films he allegedly saw the night his father was murdered. However, when Fonda confronts the stockbroker with a similar question, the latter finds his usually infallible memory failing him; he cannot name all the stars in the double-feature he saw three nights ago. Fonda: "And you're not under emotional stress [as the boy was], are you?" The old man notices the stockbroker rubbing the marks on the sides of his nose and remembers that the woman who testified against the boy had been doing the same thing: in both cases the marks were caused by glasses (and nothing else, as the stockbroker himself admits), but the woman on the stand, in an effort to look younger, was not wearing hers. It is also deduced by the stockbroker that she would not have been wearing them to bed on the night she heard screams in the boy's apartment. Therefore, in the split second she said it took her to jump out of bed and look out the window through the cars of a passing L-train (at which point she said she saw the boy knife his father) it is highly unlikely that she took time to put on her glasses (her neglecting to wear them to court confirms that she is not in the habit of using them). Fonda concludes that she couldn't have been certain about what she saw under those circumstances. Finally, the stockbroker admits that there is room for reasonable doubt and changes his vote to not-guilty.

Next, the bigot, who is absolutely fed up with the "soft hearts" of the other jurors, launches his longest tirade against minorities. Everyone demonstrates how intolerant they have grown of his attitudes when they get up from the table and turn their backs to him, leaving him babbling in vain in the middle of the room. Evidently without others to fuel the fire of his racism, it soon dies out. When the stockbroker tells him, "Sit down and don't open your mouth again," he obsequiously complies. For the remaining period, he sits quietly by himself in a corner of the room, most likely contemplating for the first time the ludicrousness of his prejudiced views.

Finally the vote is reversed: 11 not-guilty to 1 guilty. Now the Angry Man stands alone. He tries desperately to get others to support him, but it is clear that his personal problems are the only things keeping him from going along with them. "You're trying to turn this into a contest," says the stockbroker. Reginald Rose drops his final comment on the unreliability of witness testimony when Juror 3, having resorted to bringing up the presumably settled issue of the vain woman who testified against the boy, shouts, "You can talk all you want, but you can't prove she wasn't wearing glasses. This woman testified in court ." After all of Fonda's efforts over the past hour and a half to illustrate the fact that human weakness is present everywhere—even, perhaps especially in court—and that things are not always what they seem, the words "testified in court" have virtually lost all their meaning. Realizing that he is getting nowhere, Juror 3 pulls out his wallet to show the others some "facts" that he has presumably scribbled down—and out flies a picture of him and his son together. He stares at it for a moment, then uses all his pent up rage to tear it to shreds. Having finally come to grips with his conscience, he sobs, "Not guilty."

The final moments show Fonda exiting the courthouse. The old man stops him and asks him what his name is. "Davis," he replies. "Well, so long," says the old man. Here is another of Rose's subtle points: these men have been sitting in a courtroom for ninety minutes without knowing much personal data about the others in the group outside of their emotional temperaments and intellectual capacities (they've all accepted each other as "normal"—all of them being white males), but they have judged the boy as though they understood him completely, when in fact they know less about him than they do about each other. The racist assumed he was untrustworthy because he was "one of them ," and the bully envisioned him as having the same characteristics as his rebellious son. Unfortunately, oftentimes people are more inclined to let their emotions govern their decisions than to use unbiased logical reasoning.

We realize that the final exchange between Fonda and the old man is a meaningless formality: they will probably never see each other again. Looking back, we see that in the beginning this group of diverse individuals was prepared (with the exception of Fonda) to send a boy to the chair and then go home and forget all about it. It is frightening to consider just how close they came to doing so. It must be stated, however, that the jury's final verdict of not-guilty does not prove conclusively that the boy did not murder his father; rather, the script shows that the case against the boy is not as strong as the case for him—the presence of reasonable doubt is Rose's concern. What if there had been no Juror 8? Rose may be praised for his convincing account of how a liberal man who is devoted to his cause is able to sway the ignorant and prejudiced minds of his peers. However, at the same time it may be said that the script relies too heavily upon the chance presence of such a man; if he had not been there to point out evidence that no one else had been able to produce, the boy would presumably have been sent to the chair. It is also questionable whether such a man, even if he happened to be present, would have the stamina to enable him to ignore the incessant badgering of his colleagues—as one character in the film remarks, "It isn't easy to stand up to the ridicule of others." Indeed, because the story "is based on the dramatically convenient but otherwise simplistic assumption that people's prejudices can be traced to specific occurrences in their past and can thereby be accounted for and removed … the Fonda character had to come on as a combination Sherlock Holmes and Perry Mason, as well as double as confessor, catalyst, and instant psychiatrist to a number of the jurors." Also, due to the great reliance upon Fonda's presence, details are exposed and clarified much too smoothly. It is only Fonda who employs logical reasoning most of the time, and even when someone else brings up a point it usually comes as the result of Fonda's questioning. It may also be stated that, as Adam Garbicz and Jacek Klinowski remark in their article on the film in Cinema: The Magic Vehicle , "the actors are hardly a team, but rather a group of diverse individuals against whom Henry Fonda shines with all the more brightness." The subordination of details to suit a single star role would also mar the effectiveness of another courtroom drama of the 50s, Robert Wise's I Want to Live! (1958), as we shall see in Chanter 3.

In addition to the issue of the omniscience of the Fonda character, the script eschews realism for dramatic convenience in other respects also. Juror 3's sudden emotional breakdown, for example, remains largely unconvincing because it is triggered by the chance appearance of a photo of him and his son when he throws the wallet down on the table. Since all the others have sided with Fonda, Rose is left with no alternative but to find a quick and easy method for getting Juror 3 to do the same.

Nevertheless, Rose does manage to point out ironic truths abouth the judicial system on a reasonably frequent basis. There is, for example, the bigot's complaint that the old man is "twisting the facts" when he says that the elderly gentleman on the stand gave testimony mainly to look distinguished. Since the jurors are not the people on the stand, they cannot know what the witnesses are thinking; hence, the truth is often never revealed. The best the jury can do is try to read between the lines and make intelligent guesses; however, we have seen that initially no one except Fonda even considered the possibility of testimony being inaccurate.

There is also the fact that the presence of certain individuals in the jury room can alter the course of events. No one except Juror 5, who was once a slum kid, knows how a switchblade is handled. He demonstrates how awkward it would have been for the boy, who was much shorter than his father, to stab upward into the chest. The old man, preoccupied with studying people his own age, deduces from his observations of the vain woman in the witness box that she wasn't wearing her glasses.

Rose leaves it up to the viewer whether the experience of being a jury member has changed the characters of the men who have been shown their true selves as a result. It appears as though the bigot and the bully have confronted deep-seated personal conflicts for the first time in their lives. One wonders, however, whether the lessons they learned in court will have a long-term effect on their perceptions of the world.

Although Rose's script has its shortcomings, there is no denying that it is brilliantly tight, that it makes for exhilarating drama, and that it is food for thought. However, it is director Lumet who deserves credit for bringing Rose's words to life. For his success in overcoming the otherwise inevitable static quality of such an enclosed situation enough cannot be said. His camera probes those four walls relentlessly; of the 375 shots of the film, almost all were taken from a different angle. Throughout, he heightens dramatic tension and creates suspense by using extreme (and often grotesque) close-ups and by illuminating subtle nuances of character. For instance, after Juror 3 finishes telling the others about his runaway son the first time, the camera continues to keep him in the right foreground, alone and in silent meditation, as the proceedings continue. The stockbroker early on tells Juror 5 that he never sweats; yet, after listening to the old man's revealing speech about the woman's glasses, we see him quickly take out a handkerchief and wipe his brow.

Lumet and his cinematographer, Boris Kaufman, constantly emphasize the claustrophobic atmosphere of the drab, cramped, stuffy jury room. The sound of someone coughing or sneezing often blocks out another's dialogue. The uncomfortable physical environment matches the emotional tensions generated by the discussion. Kaufman, by the way, was by this time well-accustomed to shooting in real locations ( 12 Angry Men was shot in an actual jury room): he had photographed Elia Kazan's On the Waterfront (1954) on the docks of Hoboken and Baby Doll (1956) in the decaying Southern atmosphere of Benoit, Mississippi. Kaufman would later assist Lumet on That Kind of Woman (1959), The Fugitive Kind (1960), Long Day's Journey into Night (1962), The Pawnbroker (1965), The Group (1966) and Bye Bye Braverman (1968).

Finally, there are the performances. The whole ensemble is expert and thoroughly credible (indeed, this could be said for most of the films of Lumet's early career, characterized as it was by group situations), but the more prominent players must be singled out. Lee J. Cobb brought his muscular Johnny Friendly presence from On the Waterfront to his portrayal of the vengeful bully and again seemed singularly suited for his role. Ed Begley made a thoroughly repellent racist. Henry Fonda once again proved himself to be the epitome of the decent, honest, soft-spoken liberal. Lumet would return Fonda's favor by using him in two subsequent features, Stage Struck (1958) and Fail-Safe (1964).

In terms of cinematic execution, 12 Angry Men was clearly a film of its time. It is probable that if it were made today under the same conditions (with a TV crew and at TV speed), audiences who have since come to accept motion pictures and television as two unique forms of entertainment—with much higher standards for films—would dismiss it as a laughable "gimmick" film despite the gravity of its messages.

Nevertheless, after nearly thirty years 12 Angry Men remains one of the most absorbing exposés of the workings of the judicial process. This is due mainly to Rose's penetrating indictment of the reliability of the jury system. Lumet's contribution was pretty much technical (although his direction of the actors was superlative); indeed, what with the challenge of having to complete the shooting in a mere twenty days, he could hardly have been expected to develop any sort of personal philosophy. Although the film ends on a happy note, the viewer (as mentioned before) is inescapably reminded of the more serious implications of the previous ninety minutes: the extent to which personal biases can taint a juror's perceptions of the real issues and as a result endanger the lives of the (presumably innocent) parties on trial. Even though Rose, like Cayette in Justice est Faite , does not offer alternatives to the present system of trial by jury, his screenplay is, on the whole, a more fervent and angered denunciation of the American public's idealistic approach to the reliability of the system. His message, that "the law is no better than the people who enforce it, and that the people who enforce it are all too human," is just as pertinent today as it was in 1957.

Source: Thomas J. Harris, " 12 Angry Men ," in Courtroom's Finest Hour in American Cinema , Scarecrow Press, 1987, pp. 1-21.

"Twelve Angry Men - Thomas J. Harris." Drama for Students, Vol. 23. Gale Cengage, 30 Aug. 2024 <https://www.enotes.com/topics/twelve-angry-men/critical-essays#critical-essays-criticism-twelve-angry-men-criticism-harris>

Hollis Alpert

In the following review of the original movie version of Twelve Angry Men, Alpert asserts that the story "pins too much faith on the presence … of the open-minded man," but calls it "a tight, absorbing drama," nonetheless .

Henry Fonda has a most reassuring face. Something about the set of the jaw, the leanness of the cheeks, the moodiness of the eyes, inspires respect and confidence. The parts he has played in films and on the stage have made him close to an American symbol of the unbiased, uncorrupted man, and he is just about perfect for the role of Juror #8 in Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men . Fonda, in this study of a jury's intimate deliberations, must stand alone, at first, against eleven men who are convinced that a tough boy of the slums has killed his father. They're ready, all except Juror #8, to wrap up the case, send the boy to the chair, and then go home and forget about it. Out of this situation Reginald Rose makes a tight, absorbing drama.

One of the jurors is anxious to get it over with and get on to the ballgame; another remembers a boy of his own, who at just about the same age escaped his authority; a third is a crowd-pleaser—he wants to be part of the majority; and a fourth is a man of reason who has added up all the evidence in his own mind and has found no reasonable doubt of the boy's guilt. If Twelve Angry Men does nothing else, it reminds us, like a catechism, of the function and responsibility of the people of the jury. It is also a primer in the definition of those important words, "a reasonable doubt." The entire action is concerned with establishing it.

With so single a notion, the story is bound to be limited. Sidney Lumet, however, has given it some sharp, restless direction—what might be called a maximum of movement in a minimum of space. Since practically all the action takes place in the small jury room, there's not much chance for vistas and scenery. Thus, the emphasis was placed on the actors; their faces and movements provide the mobility and, surprisingly, it is enough. This is because they're all—those who play the twelve jury men—exceedingly capable and playing at peak ability. From E. G. Marshall's calculating but reasonable businessman to Lee J. Cobb's study of a neurotic sadist they are remarkable performances. It's unfair to single any of them out; Ed Begley is fine as an elderly man shot through with prejudice, so is Jack Warden as the guy in a hurry to get out to the ballpark. And there's Fonda's own sensitive work.

The French picture, Justice Is Done , explored some of the same ground, and left the audience seeing an almost visible question mark on the screen at the end. It probed more, it was perhaps more vital. And perhaps the thesis of Twelve Angry Men pins too much faith on the presence in a jury of the open-minded man, the one who looks at all the evidence and even comes up with evidence that neither the lawyers nor the judge suspected existed during the course of the trial. If this man had not been on the jury, if he hadn't deduced facts that no one else during the course of the trial, nor in the jury room, had been able to deduce, then, presumably, the boy would have been sent to his death. It is this stacking of the story that gives it its weakness.

Beyond that, Twelve Angry Men is remarkably successful at establishing its atmosphere, from the sultriness of the room on a hot summer day to the tension created by the clash of overheated minds. Reginald Rose's screenplay is considerably improved and developed over its original version seen a few seasons ago on TV; Sidney Lumet's direction (his first in the movie medium) is expert enough to qualify him as an important new talent; and it looks as though Henry Fonda, in his first time out as a producer, has come up with a winner.

Source: Hollis Alpert, "Gentlemen of the Jury," in Saturday Review , April 20, 1957, pp. 29-30.

"Twelve Angry Men - Hollis Alpert." Drama for Students, Vol. 23. Gale Cengage, 30 Aug. 2024 <https://www.enotes.com/topics/twelve-angry-men/critical-essays#critical-essays-criticism-twelve-angry-men-criticism-alpert>

See eNotes Ad-Free

Start your 48-hour free trial to get access to more than 30,000 additional guides and more than 350,000 Homework Help questions answered by our experts.

Already a member? Log in here.

Critical Overview

• Ask LitCharts AI
• Discussion Question Generator
• Essay Prompt Generator
• Quiz Question Generator

• Literature Guides
• Poetry Guides
• Shakespeare Translations
• Literary Terms

Twelve Angry Men

Reginald rose.

Ask LitCharts AI: The answer to your questions

Welcome to the LitCharts study guide on Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men . Created by the original team behind SparkNotes, LitCharts are the world's best literature guides.

Twelve Angry Men: Introduction

Twelve angry men: plot summary, twelve angry men: detailed summary & analysis, twelve angry men: themes, twelve angry men: quotes, twelve angry men: characters, twelve angry men: symbols, twelve angry men: theme wheel, brief biography of reginald rose.

Historical Context of Twelve Angry Men

Other books related to twelve angry men.

• Full Title: Twelve Angry Men
• When Written: 1954 (teleplay); 1955 (theatrical play)
• Where Written: New York City
• When Published: 1955
• Literary Period: Late Modernism
• Genre: Drama
• Setting: A jury room, the present
• Climax: Juror Eight persuades all the other jurors except Three to vote “not guilty.” Three confronts Eight with a knife in a silent power play. The climax is resolved as Three surrenders and votes “not guilty.”
• Antagonist: Prejudice and bias exhibited primarily in the characters Three and Ten

Extra Credit for Twelve Angry Men

Twelve Angry Jurors. Contemporary productions of Reginald Rose’s play often change the title to “Twelve Angry Jurors” to allow for gender-neutral casting. The original play does not address prejudices and biases related to sexism, but the play intentionally strives for timelessness by instructing that the jurors be dressed and cast to belong in “the present.”

Adaptations for the big screen. The teleplay was revised by Rose for a 1957 movie that received three Academy Award nominations. A 1997 movie version was also released, demonstrating the story’s timelessness.

• Quizzes, saving guides, requests, plus so much more.

Twelve Angry Men

53 pages • 1 hour read

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more. For select classroom titles, we also provide Teaching Guides with discussion and quiz questions to prompt student engagement.

Act Summaries & Analyses

Character Analysis

Symbols & Motifs

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Discussion Questions

Twelve Angry Men is set in the summer of 1957 and heavily implies that the accused is a part of the African American community in Harlem. Consider the role of segregation and racial attitudes more broadly in the United States during this time. How does this historical context shape the trial and various jurors’ attitudes toward it?

Tension between fathers and sons is one of the key themes in the play. How does the 3rd Juror’s relationship with his estranged son reflect the relationship between the accused and his own father? What do these two relationships tell us about problematic family dynamics within the play, and how do they relate to the play’s wider themes?

The 5th Juror appears to be the only juror with direct, lived experience of the Harlem community and the poverty within it. What role does the 5th Juror play throughout the jury’s deliberations, and what insight does he give readers into the social world of the accused?

Featured Collections

Books on Justice & Injustice

View Collection

Dramatic Plays

True Crime & Legal

12 Angry Men Essay

12 Angry Men

Olivia Erickson Psych 3203 “12 Angry Men” The film “Twelve Angry Men” does an excellent job exemplifying many psychological processes. This compelling film featured twelve men that must decide weather or not a certain slum kid was considered guilty or innocent on behalf of a murder trial. To begin the votes, all but one decided the man was guilty. Throughout the film, heated discussions sway the minds of the men to vote not guilty. During the time spent in the jury room, conformity was something

The classic movie 12 Angry Men opens with clips of a courthouse, ultimately panning to a specific court room where an 18-year-old boy is on trial for killing his father. Despite the case being the central point which the story revolves around, the movie isn’t about the boy or even his father. The movie is about the 12 jurors who are in charge of the boy’s fate. If they decide he is guilty, he is sentenced to the death penalty, which meant death by the electric chair. The men gathered together with

12 Angry Men revolves around opinions, perceptions/perspectives, and the logic and reason of the 12 jury members. This movie highlights the importance of critical thinking as well as its components. In order to think critically, one must examine one’s thinking process and the thinking process of others. We can evaluate posing arguments by focusing our attention on various thinking approaches and strategies. We actually have to think for ourselves, exemplified by Henry Fonda’s character, to explore

The movie, Twelve Angry Men, was filled with multiple organizational behaviors which were have been discussed in class and in out text. All characters provided strong arguments, which was supported by strong evidence. After intense debate, it was obvious that some of the juror’s opinions were regulated by their own past experiences, beliefs, and bias. After watching the movie, the two most important factors I noticed were path goal theory, charismatic leadership, and power and politics. Path-goal

Film Synopsis For this project I decided to watch 12 Angry Men, a story that focuses on a New York City jury's deliberations in an intense murder case. The movie is set in the 1950’s where a jury of twelve men is sent to deliberate in the first-degree murder trial of an eighteen-year-old from a bad area of town and it is hinted that his ethnicity is not white. If the jury were to decide a guilty verdict, it would mean an automatic death sentence for a child. When the jury begins discussing the trial

12 Angry Men : A Film Review : 12 Angry Men

INTRODUCTION: 12 Angry Men is a 1957 American courtroom drama film adapted from a teleplay of the same name by Reginald Rose. Written and co-produced by Rose himself and directed by Sidney Lumet, this trial film tells the story of a jury made up of 12 men as they deliberate the guilt or acquittal of a defendant on the basis of reasonable doubt, forcing the jurors to question their morals and values. In the United States, a verdict in most criminal trials by jury must be unanimous. The film is notable

12 Angry Men - Analysis

Introduction 12 Angry Men (1957) is one of the most acclaimed feature films of all time. It was produced at a time when the United States was just twelve years out of World War II and “Leave It To Beaver” and “Father Knows Best” broadcast across television airwaves the perfection, conformity and affluence of American life that had been generated by the Great War. Additionally, this film was listed on the university syllabus as one of three films to see in regard to this course, Management 610 – Contexts

Within the Henry Fonda film "Twelve Angry Men", there were many occasions where the behavior and actions of the jurors were affected by numerous causes or variables. A few of these causes consist of: schemas and heuristics, memory, stereotypes or norms, and conformity. These causes or variables are able to be attributed to the sociocultural and cognitive level of analysis in psychology. Within the movie, there are twelve jurors - whose names are not given till the end – who are debating and deciding

12 Angry Men Prejudice

One common theme in 12 Angry Men is prejudice affecting a jury. In the play, a boy is arrested and placed on trial for the murder of his father. Due to prejudice, most of the jurors immediately think he is guilty because of his race and where he is from. 12 Angry Men truly exhibits what the 1950s justice system looked like. Through the storyline, prejudice is seen as a way of using stereotypes to explain how people behave. Reginald Rose shows how prejudice can affect the way people think

Prejudice In 12 Angry Men

is characterized in the book 12 angry men by reginald rose. Twelve angry men is the story about twelve men who are randomly selected to be on jury of a mysterious murder case. The case starts out with juror number 8 voting guilty. Conversely, the unanimous verdict at the end of the story is not guilty. Within the story, there are some jurors whose judgement are clouded with their own personal flaws, one of them being juror number 10. In Reginald Rose’s Twelve angry men, juror number 10’s sense of

Popular Topics

• 16th Century Essay
• 18th Century Essay
• 1920's Essay
• 1950's Essay
• 1960's Essay
• 20th Century Essay
• Essay About 21st Century
• A Christmas Carol Essay
• A Clean, Well-Lighted Place Essay
• A Clockwork Orange Free Will Essay

12 Angry Men

By reginald rose.

• 12 Angry Men Summary

The play is set in a New York City Court of Law jury room in 1957. The play opens to the empty jury room, and the Judge’s voice is heard, giving a set of final instructions to the jurors. We learn that this is a murder case and that, if found guilty, the mandatory sentence for the accused is the death penalty. After these instructions, the jurors enter.

The men file in and decide to take a short break before deliberating. They complain that the room is hot and without air-conditioning; even the fan doesn’t work. All the jurors presume the obvious guilt of the defendant, whom we learn has been accused of killing his father. Eventually, the twelve sit down and a vote is taken. All of the jurors vote “guilty,” except for the 8th Juror , who votes “not guilty,” which, due to the requirement of a unanimous jury, forces them to discuss the case.

The jurors react violently against this dissenting vote. Ultimately, they decide to go around the table, explaining why they believe the boy to be guilty, in hopes of convincing 8th Juror.

Through this discussion we learn the following facts about the case: an old man living beneath the boy and his father testified that he heard upstairs a fight, the boy shouting, “I’m gonna kill you,” a body hitting the ground, and then he saw the boy running down the stairs. The boy claimed he had been at the movies while his father was murdered, but couldn’t remember the name of the movies or who was in them. A woman living across the street testified that she saw the boy kill his father through the windows of a passing elevated train. The boy had, that night, had an argument with his father, which resulted in the boy’s father hitting him twice. Finally, the boy has an extensive list of prior offenses, including trying to slash another teenager with a knife.

There is a strong rallying against the defendant. 3rd Juror compares him to his own son, with whom he was estranged, and 10th Juror reveals strong racist tendencies against the defendant.

When a discussion about the murder weapon, which was identified as the knife purchased by the defendant, a “one-of-a-kind” knife, begins, 8th Juror surprises the others by presenting an identical knife he had purchased in a pawn shop two blocks from where the boy lived a few nights prior, shattering the claim that the knife was so unique and identifiable.

8th Juror makes a proposition that the other eleven of them could vote, and if all of them voted “not guilty,” he would not stand alone and would go along with their guilty verdict. They agree to this and vote by secret ballot. The vote is 10 “guilty” votes and 1 “not guilty” vote, and so the deliberation continues.

Immediately, the jurors turn on 5th Juror , accusing him of having changed his vote out of sympathy for the boy. 9th Juror stands and admits to having changed his vote because he’d like to hear the arguments out.

8th Juror calls into question the validity of the testimony of the old man living downstairs. 9th Juror provides the possibility that the old man was only testifying to feel important. 8th Juror concludes by saying that even if he did hear him say, “I’m gonna kill you,” that very well could be taken out of context as just a figure of speech. With this 5th Juror changes his vote to “not guilty,” and the vote is 9-3 in favor of guilty.

After another heated discussion which raises the question of why the boy would have returned home, after killing his father, they take another vote. This time, 5th, 8th, 9th, and 11th vote “not guilty,” and the deliberation continues.

After a brief argument, 8th Juror brings into question whether or not the downstairs neighbor, an old man who had suffered a stroke and could only walk slowly, could have gotten to the door to see the boy run down the stairs in fifteen seconds, as he had testified. 8th Juror recreates the floor plan of the apartment, while 2nd Juror times him, and they conclude that he would not have been able to reach his door in fifteen seconds.

3rd Juror reacts violently to this and ends up attacking 8th Juror, shouting, “God damn it! I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him.” 8th Juror asks, “You don’t really mean you’ll kill me, do you?” proving his earlier point about how people say, “I’ll kill you,” when they don’t really mean it.

Act II resumes in the same moment we left off with in Act I. After everything calms down, the jurors resume deliberations. Another vote is taken, and the jury is now six to six. They take a break. During this break, it begins to rain outside. Also, they are able to turn the fan on, cooling off the room.

When deliberations resume, 8th Juror attempts to break apart the testimony of the arresting police officer that the defendant was unable to name the movies that he had claimed to have seen that evening. He asserts that possibly the defendant just forgot the names of the films and who was in them “under great emotional distress.”

Upon further discussion about the switchblade, it becomes questionable whether or not the defendant would have made the stab wound, “down and in,” which would be contrary to his knowledge and experience with how to use such a knife.

The jurors take another vote, and it is now nine to three, all but 3rd, 4th, and 10th Juror are in favor of ‘not guilty.’ This launches 10th Juror in a massive bigoted rant, which ends with 4th Juror scolding him back into his seat.

9th Juror calls into question the eyewitness testimony of the woman living across the street, as she wore glasses but chose not to wear them in court, calling into question whether or not she would have been wearing them in bed, when she saw the murder through her window.

Now, the vote is 11 to 1, and 3rd Juror stands alone. At first, he stands firm, saying that he will be the holdout to make this a hung jury. He launches himself into a final massive rant against the boy that descends into nonsense. 8th and 4th Jurors make a short final plea, and 3rd Juror finally concedes, saying “All right. Not guilty.” The Foreman informs the Guard that they have reached a verdict, and the Jurors leave the courtroom.

12 Angry Men Questions and Answers

The Question and Answer section for 12 Angry Men is a great resource to ask questions, find answers, and discuss the novel.

Did the jurors believe that they were doing their job responsibly?

I think some of them did, like Juror #8, but some of them just wanted it to be over and go home. Juror #7 just wants to make it to his ball game.

In the play 12 Angry Men, how do things change when the evidence (knife) is brought into the jury room for examination?

This question sounds similar to your last one:

When a discussion about the murder weapon, which was identified as the knife purchased by the defendant, a “one-of-a-kind” knife, begins, 8th Juror surprises the others by...

The River and the source

What is the title and author of the book you are referring to?

Study Guide for 12 Angry Men

12 Angry Men study guide contains a biography of Reginald Rose, literature essays, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full summary and analysis.

• About 12 Angry Men
• 12 Angry Men Video
• Character List

Essays for 12 Angry Men

12 Angry Men essays are academic essays for citation. These papers were written primarily by students and provide critical analysis of 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose.

• Critical Elements of Twelve Angry Men
• Two Angry Social Classes
• The Importance Of Justice In Relations To Past Experiences
• Twelve Angry Men as an Allegory
• An Objective Perspective: Logos, Ethos, and Juror Four

Lesson Plan for 12 Angry Men

• About the Author
• Study Objectives
• Common Core Standards
• Introduction to 12 Angry Men
• Relationship to Other Books
• Bringing in Technology
• Notes to the Teacher
• Related Links
• 12 Angry Men Bibliography

Wikipedia Entries for 12 Angry Men

• Introduction

“12 Angry Men”: Comparison of the Play and the 1997 Movie Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Similarities between the play and the movie, differences between the play and the movie.

The genre choice predetermines the selection of means and methods of transferring meaning and emotion to the audience. Literature and cinematography are two distinctive fields that use text or film to convey a story. However, since both are created in order to be performed by actors, they share similarities. These similarities and differences might be illustrated when comparing Reginald Rose’s play under the title 12 Angry Men and its movie version of 1997 under the same title. This paper is aimed at illustrating that genre particularities predetermine the necessity for transforming the original play to fit the cinematic setting.

The core of the story covered in the play is preserved in the movie, which validates the abundance of differences. The plot is delivered in the same manner so that the 1997 film’s order of events is the same as in the play. In both the play and the movie, the protagonist is Juror 8 and the antagonist is Juror 3. Their characteristics and the mode of communicating their arguments are the same in both works. Indeed, as Rose (n. d.) intended in his play, Juror 3 is a “forceful, extremely opinionated man,” while Juror 8 is “a quiet, thoughtful gentleman” (pp. 4-5). The similarity in the plot development is also evident, which is manifested through the dialogues. They display the change in opinions of all the jurors with the ultimate statement of the accused to be not guilty admitted by Juror 3.

There are minor differences between the play and the movie, which are justified by the distinction in the media, namely the stage and the film set. In particular, while the beginning of both works contains the judge’s explanation of the need for a unanimous verdict, the play holds that the judge’s voice is heard from behind the stage (Rose, n. d.). However, in the film, the opening scene shows the judge in the courtroom. Thus, the film’s settings include two rooms, the courtroom and the jury room, while the play is set solely in the jury room (Friedkin, 1997). Another difference is the arrangement of the properties, which is directed at the audience in the play but altered and shown from different angles in the movie.

Apart from setting and staging, some elements of the plot and character performance also have some differences in the two interpretations. Indeed, the final scene is indicative of the distinction between the movie, in which the final monologue preceding Juror 3’s change of opinion was very detailed and long, and the play, where it was displayed in a shorter, less vocal manner (Friedkin, 1997; Rose, n. d.). In the film, the verdict becomes a pivotal element of Juror 3’s identification, which points the focus of the plot on him, while in the play, the focus of the final scene is rather on Juror 8. In the play, Juror 8 says that the accused is not guilty personally to Juror 3 when all the rest of the jurors have left the room; this is the final scene (Rose, n. d.). However, in the movie, the verdict of Juror 3 is presented as the closing of his long monologue and is presented to all the jurors; moreover, this scene is not the closing one.

In summation, the comparison of the play and the movie has revealed that the two interpretations of the same work have more similarities than differences. The core of the plot is the same, as well as the characters and their performance. However, the setting and some staging solutions were altered in the 1997 movie. Such differences were influenced by the opportunities for diversified scene management and the particularities of the cinematographic genre in comparison to the play.

Friedkin, W. (1997). 12 angry men [Film]. MGM Television.

Rose, R. (n. d.). 12 angry men . The Dramatic Publishing Company. Web.

• Actions of Protagonists in “Remember the Titans”
• Academy Awards: Central Aspects & Representation in the Media
• Jurors 1 and 5 in “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald
• Discussion of the Film “Twelve Angry Men”
• Controversies Surrounding Professional Jurors
• The Bechdel Test and Its Role in Cinema
• The Role of Women in Postwar Italian Films
• The "Shattered Glass" Film's Analysis
• The Mise-en-Scene in The Conversation Film
• Cinematography of The Third Man and The Conversation
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, March 15). "12 Angry Men": Comparison of the Play and the 1997 Movie. https://ivypanda.com/essays/12-angry-men-comparison-of-the-play-and-the-1997-movie/

""12 Angry Men": Comparison of the Play and the 1997 Movie." IvyPanda , 15 Mar. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/12-angry-men-comparison-of-the-play-and-the-1997-movie/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '"12 Angry Men": Comparison of the Play and the 1997 Movie'. 15 March.

IvyPanda . 2023. ""12 Angry Men": Comparison of the Play and the 1997 Movie." March 15, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/12-angry-men-comparison-of-the-play-and-the-1997-movie/.

1. IvyPanda . ""12 Angry Men": Comparison of the Play and the 1997 Movie." March 15, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/12-angry-men-comparison-of-the-play-and-the-1997-movie/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . ""12 Angry Men": Comparison of the Play and the 1997 Movie." March 15, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/12-angry-men-comparison-of-the-play-and-the-1997-movie/.

Home — Essay Samples — Entertainment — 12 Angry Men — 12 Angry Men Discussion Questions

12 Angry Men Discussion Questions

• Categories: 12 Angry Men

About this sample

Words: 698 |

Published: Aug 1, 2024

Words: 698 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Entertainment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 631 words

1 pages / 513 words

6 pages / 2647 words

2.5 pages / 1228 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on 12 Angry Men

In the riveting drama "12 Angry Men," Juror 3 emerges as a central figure whose stubbornness and personal biases threaten to derail the deliberations of the jury. As the main antagonist, Juror 3's intense and aggressive demeanor [...]

Prejudice is a pervasive and detrimental societal issue that has the potential to influence decision-making processes in various contexts, including the criminal justice system. In the classic film "12 Angry Men," the character [...]

In "Twelve Angry Men," Juror Nine emerges as a powerful figure who embodies the transformative power of empathy. His ability to challenge preconceived notions, unveil the power of perspective, and foster a more inclusive [...]

12 Angry Men, a 1957 film directed by Sidney Lumet, is a powerful depiction of the American legal system and the dynamics of a jury deliberation. The film focuses on twelve jurors who are tasked with reaching a unanimous [...]

The play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose presents twelve different jurors who come from various backgrounds in a jury room. Their job is to “separate the facts from the fancy” and to determine if there is “reasonable doubt to [...]

"Insufficient facts always invite danger" declared Spock to Captain Kirk as the U.S.S. Enterprise was on deep alert after discovering a sleeper cell in space with seventy-two unconscious super-humans inside (Coon, 1967). His [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free