12 Angry Men Movie Analysis: the Consensus Decision of the Jurors to Convict a Young Boy
(3) ‘12 angry men’ movie review:
The movie portrays the
After the jurors go to the meeting room to discuss and arrive at consensus whether the young boy is guilty or not, we get to see different personalities combined to form a group to resolve the issue. Initially 11 out of 12 jurors voted in favour of boy being guilty. Therefore, first prominent thing I noticed was that there was lack of conviction about the criticality of the issue. People had already formed their judgement before they stepped into the meeting room. They believed the testimonies of several eyewitnesses and the arguments of the prosecutor leading to the conclusion that the boy was guilty. In the beginning, 11 out of 12 jurors were not sensitive about the seriousness of the decision they were going to make and the impact it was going to have on the young boy’s life. They were not ready to waste any time over discussing that issue because they had already perceived the young boy guilty based on his background and crimes he committed before as well as the jurors’ previous experiences in life.
When the protagonist in the movie showed opposition to agree the boy’s guilt, then the rest of the people became frustrated since they had to come to consensus to give a judgement. This showed the conviction and thoughtfulness of the protagonist to the criticality of their objective as jurors. It was also evident that being a minority does not mean you have to go majority’s way under the influence or pressure of majority against your wish.
After listening to the protagonist, juror started changing their original guilty decision one by one. This showed their willingness to change their stance having been convinced by the protagonist’s logic. Protagonist stuck to the practicality of the situation and logic in order to bring the possible flaws in the testimonies of the eye witnesses by reproducing the situations and verifying the possibility of authenticity of the testimony. In doing so, he influenced the
The movie portrays the
After the jurors go to the meeting room to discuss and arrive at consensus whether the young boy is guilty or not, we get to see different personalities combined to form a group to resolve the issue. Initially 11 out of 12 jurors voted in favour of boy being guilty. Therefore, first prominent thing I noticed was that there was lack of conviction about the criticality of the issue. People had already formed their judgement before they stepped into the meeting room. They believed the testimonies of several eyewitnesses and the arguments of the prosecutor leading to the conclusion that the boy was guilty. In the beginning, 11 out of 12 jurors were not sensitive about the seriousness of the decision they were going to make and the impact it was going to have on the young boy’s life. They were not ready to waste any time over discussing that issue because they had already perceived the young boy guilty based on his background and crimes he committed before as well as the jurors’ previous experiences in life.
When the protagonist in the movie showed opposition to agree the boy’s guilt, then the rest of the people became frustrated since they had to come to consensus to give a judgement. This showed the conviction and thoughtfulness of the protagonist to the criticality of their objective as jurors. It was also evident that being a minority does not mean you have to go majority’s way under the influence or pressure of majority against your wish.
After listening to the protagonist, juror started changing their original guilty decision one by one. This showed their willingness to change their stance having been convinced by the protagonist’s logic. Protagonist stuck to the practicality of the situation and logic in order to bring the possible flaws in the testimonies of the eye witnesses by reproducing the situations and verifying the possibility of authenticity of the testimony. In doing so, he influenced the