Filler 1

Nathan Filler

Dr. Mosser

English 1102

11/15/16

12 Angry Men and the Power of Prejudice

The task of changing someone’s mind on a subject which they hold strong opinions on is

one of the most difficult social challenges. In Sidney Lumet’s masterpiece 12 Angry Men, the

protagonist Juror #8 takes up this daunting challenge as he attempts to convince eleven other

jurors to change their verdicts from “guilty” to “not guilty”. In the film, screenwriter Reginald

Rose uses a diverse cast of characters to explore themes of prejudice, groupthink, logical

argument, and how individual experiences shape opinions.

The film has a relatively simple plot: twelve jurors must deliberate on the guilt or

innocence of a young man who is being tried for the murder of his abusive father. However, the

trial itself is not the focus of the film; the plot begins as the trial is ending. Rose instead chooses

to use the jury’s interpretations of the trial as exposition, immediately signaling to the audience

that it is not the trial itself that is important, rather the opinions of the jurors. There are no

extravagant sets or locations – the entire film takes place in a small room, with nothing to rely on

but dialogue between the characters. It is through this that the film explores its themes; Rose uses

each character to demonstrate the effects of different cultures, occupations, and experiences on

the formation of what should be objective opinions.

The titular jurors remain unnamed throughout the film, removing any sense of

personalization and forcing the audience to focus on the ideas, not the individual. Each juror has
 Filler 2

defining characteristics which are subtly revealed to the audience through dialogue as opposed to

the expositional scenes found in most other films. In other words, just as in real life, Rose has us

learn and form opinions about the characters by listening to them speak in their own words, as

well as by observing their body language. The result is the characters seem like real people, with

their own unique personalities and pasts. This not only expresses the themes of the film by

demonstrating the influences of these individual traits on the formation of opinions, but also

keeps the film grounded in reality, reflecting the presented themes which are very real and can be

observed in average day-to-day life.

As for the individual jurors, the group is quite diverse. In her analysis of the different

members, Kerry Gray describes Juror #1 as “a man that does not have natural leadership

abilities, but plays a role that requires him to maintain control during a highly intense situation.”

(Gray). As the foreman, it is Juror #1’s responsibility to keep the group together and on topic; he

spends most of the film trying to calm everyone else down, demonstrating a lack of leadership

experience as well as a preoccupation with his duties – he isn’t very opinionated on the topic of

the verdict and barely discusses it at all, changing his vote after some group deliberation without

giving a direct reason. Juror #2 starts off as a meek and timid individual, bending to the will of

the more domineering members of the group. Throughout the film, as the argument for

reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt becomes stronger, so too does #2’s resolve; he

eventually learns to stand up for himself and his own opinions. Juror #3 is the antagonist of the

film as the loudest and most passionate advocate of a “guilty” verdict. In his analysis of the film,

Bob Kavanagh labels #3 as the antithesis of Juror #8; where #8 is skeptical, compassionate, and

logical in his approach, #3 is quick to jump to the conclusion that the boy is guilty, stubbornly

advocating his execution with no compassion or doubt in his mind. He is fueled by his emotions,
 Filler 3

equating the boy on trial to the son he drove away with his brutal parenting, projecting his

bitterness with their failed relationship to his duty as an impartial juror. Juror #4 is a shrewd,

cold, analytical stockbroker who bases his arguments entirely on “facts”. #4 is the juror who

clings to the prosecutor’s evidence the tightest, even after #8 proposes that the court appointed

defense lawyer didn’t perform to the most of his ability. #4’s occupation as a stockbroker means

he must rely on facts and statistics to make a living, and a shrewd and calculating demeanor must

bring much success in the business world; this demonstrates the influence his occupation has on

his personality and subsequently his reasoning in delivering his verdict. Juror #5, along with #3,

shows the most personal attachment to the case. Much like the defendant, he himself grew up in

a slum. Because of their common upbringing, #5 identifies with the defendant and is one of the

first jurors to change his verdict to “not guilty”, using his experience to better educate the others

about the defendant’s lifestyle and advocate for his release. Juror #6 is a sort of everyman: he is a

blue collar worker of average intelligence, who is not shown to be strongly opinionated either

way but on the contrary is more open to discussion than other members of the group. Juror #7 is

a selfish, impatient salesman whose primary motivation throughout the film is to finish

deliberating as quickly as possible so he can attend a baseball game. #7 is one of the dastardliest

members of the jury; he is ready to sentence the boy to death simply because the majority of the

jurors voted guilty. He also truly doesn’t care about the facts, only changing his vote to “not

guilty” when it becomes the new majority vote. Juror #9 is a wise and observant old man who is

the first to change his vote and, excluding #8, the biggest advocate of doing so. His observations

throughout the trial prove to be instrumental in convincing other jurors to change their votes,

displaying not only great perception but also great wisdom and knowledge of how people act and

think. Contrastingly, Juror #10 is a massive bigot – using his own prejudices and hatred toward
 Filler 4

people from slums to fuel his vehement “guilty” verdict. Juror #11 is a polite and soft-spoken

foreigner, who acts reasonably throughout the film and is among the first to change his vote. The

final juror is #12, a wisecracking advertising executive. #12 is very indecisive: his opinion is

constantly changed by other characters throughout the film. He serves as an adequate

representation of the influence of the opposite ends of the debate, a metaphorical tug-of-war.

The jury as a whole offers a fantastic demonstration of group dynamics. Initially the only

juror to vote “not guilty” is #8, and the other eleven jurors can be separated into several

subgroups. Jurors #1 and #7 both appear to care less about the actual facts and potential

execution of the defendant, placing more focus on simply coming to a consensus. Thus, it can be

assumed that neither juror truly believed the defendant to be absolutely guilty, instead choosing

to vote “guilty” because most of the others did, possibly even convincing themselves of his guilt.

Jurors #2, #5, and #6 are all implied to be intimidated by the other jurors, allowing other

members of the group to influence them enough to make them initially vote “guilty”, despite

possible (and probable) hesitations. Juror #12 can also be considered a part of this group despite

no real signs of intimidation, as he also allows his opinion to be completely taken over by others.

Jurors #3 and #10 act as bullies in the group, using confrontational methods to convince others to

vote “guilty”. Both jurors are heavily influenced by prior prejudices, allowing raw emotion to

dictate their verdicts instead of logic and reason. Jurors #9 and #11 (also #2 and #5 after they

change their votes) are among the first to be convinced of the existence of reasonable doubt, and

although they initially fell victim to groupthink, they quickly become staunch advocates of

voting “not guilty”, lending their support to #8’s campaign. The only juror that doesn’t fall into

any of these groups is #4, who is entirely unique. Juror #4, while agreeing with #3 and #10 on a

“guilty” verdict, clearly looks down on their confrontational attitudes and makes an effort to
 Filler 5

separate himself. It is likely that his calculating, fact-oriented nature combined with the implied

one-sided trial convinced him of the boy’s guilt due to lack of any evidence otherwise, resulting

in his “guilty” verdict. His stubborn and self-assuring personality is why he takes so long to be

convinced, as opposed to the emotional biases held by #3 and #10.

Rose and Lumet’s insights into group dynamics and the origins of opinions are some of

the most universal themes to be expressed in film. 12 Angry Men was made in 1957, and now

sixty years later its message still applies, as it will for the next sixty years and probably a lot

longer. The film is a great representation of what our legal system has the potential to be, and

inspires its viewers to be more like #8 – to take things slowly, logically, and most importantly

objectively. It also tells the viewer to stick by his or her ideals and never be intimidated or

bullied into submission, which is a lesson that every person on Earth can make use of.