12 Angry Men Summary And Analysis Of Juror 8
dispositions he hold towards them. Juror 3’s blind hatred towards the teen turned out to be his unresolved emotional conflict with his own son. Another juror 10 depended solely on the logic of the situation and how it makes sense for the boy to be guilty. The emotional expressions of the actors are shot in close-up, focusing on each actor’s faces giving equal importance to all characters, which helps viewers to relate to the back stories each character, holds. Juror 8 appeals to the rational, sensible side of each of these personalities believing that they all men are able to question the social system if it has an alternative reality. What appears to be thwarting the rational thinking is; reluctance to go that extra mile beyond our own selfish
…show more content…
needs and the liberty of the legal system to be careless and irresponsible in valuing human life. It is reflected through juror 4’s attempt to finish the verdict and watch a baseball game, and another juror totally indifferent towards the verdict using non-contextual humour.
TRIGGERING REASONABLE DOUBT
Just like crime could be committed by ordinary people; the justice could also be served by banal, ordinary people. 12 angry men seems to reflect on an unique standpoint Hannah Arendt’s concept of banality. All the members of the jury were not exceptional people; they were regular people with regular lives; bureaucrats, salesman, men with families who operated in accordance with the social system. And it was the legal system consisting of the judge, prosecutor and defence attorney almost sealed the convict’s fate. The deliberation of the jury members was just a formality. So, the banal jury naturally exhibited their deep-seated biases and weaknesses, indifference, hostility, cultural differences, negligence and reluctance to defy the system that clouded their judgement at the beginning.
In that almost certain situation, the story brings in a character who persistently forces the rest to critically review the decision of capital punishment.
Juror 8 is observant in the unwillingness of the rookie public defence lawyer to represent the convict in such a hopeless case without any chance for fame or money. His argument soon starts to attract alliances among the juries as well as sarcastic remarks and hostility. The film brilliantly brings all the jurors with very unique personalities together in a small room, because of which all the characters are remains important till the end rather than only centring around Mr. Davis. Their personality clash was inevitable yet that’s depicted beautifully. At the climax, the most stubborn and volatile juror 3 is persuaded when he realizes that in his anger and grief of losing his son; he is failing to listen to reason and assertion about the chance of the convict not being guilty. This movie keeps the characters anonymous in an attempt to focus on the importance of collective conscience in a democratic society rather than individual mentality. There is lot of drama and tension rising from personality conflict and expressed through steady dialogue delivery and non-verbal behaviour; also emotion and personal ignorance struggle undermine collective
rationality.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Back in the 50’s Hollywood has gifted many memorable movies in versatile directions; from suspense (Vertigo), drama (All about Eve) to light entertainment (Some like it Hot) or musicals (Singing in the rain). Most of these movies were well received and 12 angry men isn’t an exception. The title might imply a hint of patriarchal society back then with the absence of a female juror. The word angry; however may actually stands for 12 men with stubbornness and rigidity. Angry is just a metaphor to depict a difference of opinion among these 12 men with various understanding of law. The title is very straightforward and from it audience can expect the interplay of 12 characters. At the beginning of the movie, there are plenty of personal conflict, attack on ethnicity and racial remarks, which puzzles and further intensifies audience’s curiosity about the story’s ending. But at the end, the rational side of men wins and they all refrain from their personal prejudices and part from each other forming an unlikely bond after discovering some private aspects about each other’s lives.
The movie doesn’t typically address the courtroom legal proceedings or the final verdict of the case. Even though the jury gave the boy benefit of doubt, we don’t get to see if the boy is innocent or guilty. The movie reflects on the subjectivity of truth and how law fails to see past what is obvious, which is one of the weaknesses of law. Law might disregard the alternate possibilities of truth if evidence supports the easiest version. This positivist outlook of legal system limits the idea of justice too narrow and out of reach for ordinary people. Here in the film we have two versions; one presented by the evidences and the legal system and one arrived by the jury. The collective decision of the jury sheds light on an alternate truth and refutability of the existing truth. On one hand, we have a serious crime committed by a provoked, frustrated adolescent and on the other, an innocent boy without support whose death sentence has been signed by law for a crime he didn’t commit. Sidney Lumet brilliantly leaves it to the audience to choose whatever version of truth they like. However, the boy remained ‘innocent until proven guilty’ till the ending; leaving the viewers in a never ending loop. The beauty of the ending is in its subjectivity its attempt to open up the possibilities of an alternate perspective; it will make audience ‘think’ with all the information presented by the plot and speculate it with their various personalities, culture, ideologies etc. in a similar way like those 12 men did.
needs and the liberty of the legal system to be careless and irresponsible in valuing human life. It is reflected through juror 4’s attempt to finish the verdict and watch a baseball game, and another juror totally indifferent towards the verdict using non-contextual humour.
TRIGGERING REASONABLE DOUBT
Just like crime could be committed by ordinary people; the justice could also be served by banal, ordinary people. 12 angry men seems to reflect on an unique standpoint Hannah Arendt’s concept of banality. All the members of the jury were not exceptional people; they were regular people with regular lives; bureaucrats, salesman, men with families who operated in accordance with the social system. And it was the legal system consisting of the judge, prosecutor and defence attorney almost sealed the convict’s fate. The deliberation of the jury members was just a formality. So, the banal jury naturally exhibited their deep-seated biases and weaknesses, indifference, hostility, cultural differences, negligence and reluctance to defy the system that clouded their judgement at the beginning.
In that almost certain situation, the story brings in a character who persistently forces the rest to critically review the decision of capital punishment.
Juror 8 is observant in the unwillingness of the rookie public defence lawyer to represent the convict in such a hopeless case without any chance for fame or money. His argument soon starts to attract alliances among the juries as well as sarcastic remarks and hostility. The film brilliantly brings all the jurors with very unique personalities together in a small room, because of which all the characters are remains important till the end rather than only centring around Mr. Davis. Their personality clash was inevitable yet that’s depicted beautifully. At the climax, the most stubborn and volatile juror 3 is persuaded when he realizes that in his anger and grief of losing his son; he is failing to listen to reason and assertion about the chance of the convict not being guilty. This movie keeps the characters anonymous in an attempt to focus on the importance of collective conscience in a democratic society rather than individual mentality. There is lot of drama and tension rising from personality conflict and expressed through steady dialogue delivery and non-verbal behaviour; also emotion and personal ignorance struggle undermine collective
rationality.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Back in the 50’s Hollywood has gifted many memorable movies in versatile directions; from suspense (Vertigo), drama (All about Eve) to light entertainment (Some like it Hot) or musicals (Singing in the rain). Most of these movies were well received and 12 angry men isn’t an exception. The title might imply a hint of patriarchal society back then with the absence of a female juror. The word angry; however may actually stands for 12 men with stubbornness and rigidity. Angry is just a metaphor to depict a difference of opinion among these 12 men with various understanding of law. The title is very straightforward and from it audience can expect the interplay of 12 characters. At the beginning of the movie, there are plenty of personal conflict, attack on ethnicity and racial remarks, which puzzles and further intensifies audience’s curiosity about the story’s ending. But at the end, the rational side of men wins and they all refrain from their personal prejudices and part from each other forming an unlikely bond after discovering some private aspects about each other’s lives.
The movie doesn’t typically address the courtroom legal proceedings or the final verdict of the case. Even though the jury gave the boy benefit of doubt, we don’t get to see if the boy is innocent or guilty. The movie reflects on the subjectivity of truth and how law fails to see past what is obvious, which is one of the weaknesses of law. Law might disregard the alternate possibilities of truth if evidence supports the easiest version. This positivist outlook of legal system limits the idea of justice too narrow and out of reach for ordinary people. Here in the film we have two versions; one presented by the evidences and the legal system and one arrived by the jury. The collective decision of the jury sheds light on an alternate truth and refutability of the existing truth. On one hand, we have a serious crime committed by a provoked, frustrated adolescent and on the other, an innocent boy without support whose death sentence has been signed by law for a crime he didn’t commit. Sidney Lumet brilliantly leaves it to the audience to choose whatever version of truth they like. However, the boy remained ‘innocent until proven guilty’ till the ending; leaving the viewers in a never ending loop. The beauty of the ending is in its subjectivity its attempt to open up the possibilities of an alternate perspective; it will make audience ‘think’ with all the information presented by the plot and speculate it with their various personalities, culture, ideologies etc. in a similar way like those 12 men did.