No names are used in the film: the jury members are identified by number until two of them exchange names at the very end; the defendant s referred to as “the boy”, and the witnesses as “the old man” and “the lady across the street”. The film “12 Angry Men” reflects many social psychology theories. This tense, persuasive film features a group of jurors who must decide the guilt or innocence of an accused murder. Initially eleven of the twelve jurors vote guilty. Step by step, through heated discussion, the jurors are converted to a not-guilty decision.
Upon examination, the film highlights social psychology theories in areas of agreement, attitude change and group process. Agreement within the context of the jury room conformity is a dangerous vice. “Twelve Angry Men” exemplifies the power of informational social influence, theories developed. According to informational social influence individuals conform because they believe that other’s explanation of an unclear situation is most important, or valid, than their own.
Social influence is a theory that posits the cause of individual agreement due to the possibility of appearing unexpected. Judging other’s interpretations of an unclear. STORY 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 Judges voice is heard, giving a set of anal 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 assume 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 acquirement of a unanimous jury, forces them to discuss the case. The jurors react violently against this uncooperative 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 goanna 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 loudest 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 boys 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. Juror compares him to his own son, with whom he was separated, and 1 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, shocking the claim that the knife was so unique and identifiTABLE. 8th Juror makes a proposal 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” totes 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 Grandstand 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. The Juror concludes by saying that even if he did hear him say, “I’m goanna 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 guilt)/’ 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 1 lath vote “not guilty,” and the discussion 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. The Juror recreates the floor plan of the apartment, while 2nd Juror times him, and they conclude that he would not have been TABLE 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 left off with in Act l. 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 TABLE 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 unTABLE 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 questionTABLE whether or not the pendant 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 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 ruder 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. CAST OF CHARACTERS Juror # Actor Character Martin Balsam The jury foreman, somewhat preoccupied with his duties and never gives any season for changing his vote; proves to be helpful to others.
An assistant high school football coach. He is the ninth to vote “not guilty” 2 John Fiddler A meek and unpretentious bank worker who is at first dominated by others, but as the climax builds up, so does his courage. He is the fifth to vote “not guilty”. 3 Lee J. Cob A businessman and distraught father, opinionated, disrespectful, and stubborn with a temper. He is the last to vote “not guilty”. 4 Marshall A rational, unflappTABLE, self-assured and analytical stock broker who is concerned only with the facts, and avoids any small talk.
He is the 1 lath to vote ‘hot guilty”. 5 Jack Kludging A man who grew up in a violent slum, a Baltimore Orioles fan. Ambulance crewman He is the third to vote “not guilty”. 6 Edward Bins A house painter, tough but principled and respectful. He is the sixth to vote “not guilty”. 7 Jack Warden A salesman, sports fan, superficial and indifferent to the deliberations. He is the seventh to vote “not guilty”. 8 Henry Found An architect and the first to vote “not guilty”. 9 Joseph Sweeney A wise and observant elderly preacher. He is the second to vote “not guilty”. 0 Deed Begley A garage owner; a pushy and loudmouthed bigot. He is the 10th to vote “not guilty”. 11 George Behooves A European watchmaker and naturalized American citizen. Very polite and makes wordy contributions. He is the 4th to vote “not guilty”. 12 Robert Webber A wisecracking, indecisive advertising executive. He is the 8th to vote “not guilty”. E. G Marshal ” Juror #4 The character given to me for study was of E. G. Marshal. He is a rational, self assured and analytical stock broker who is concerned only with facts, and avoids any kind of small conversation.
He is also slightly arrogant at places here he is interrupted by Juror He considers himself to be to be more intelligent than all the 1 1 other Juror’s. His approach towards the school IS very cool & heartless because at one point in the movie another Juror asks him to think emotionally as the case about the kid is not science as it is a matter of life & death. Even after the dialogue with the Juror he still keeps a very rational perspective towards the kid as well as other Juror. It is also very clearly visible that he does not take his jacket off even though it being an extremely hot day and when fellow Jurors are sweating a lot.
The only point where he is seen sweating is when Juror #8 asks him few memory questions about the movie he saw two days back and he is unTABLE to answer with accuracy and confidence. By extremely powerful performance of E. G. Marshal there is firmness and authority presented by him. He looks well-educated and has great pride in himself. He seems to feel a little bit above rest of the Jurors. He is well dressed with a stern look throughout the movie as he is playing a character of a stock broker. He looks at the case as if only facts in the case matters to eke a decision and the emotions related to fact are not important.
He portrays the character very well at times as he gives excellent speech’s and get into logical arguments with others at many points in the movie. Being a Juror and listening to the trial in court he does not seem to have any biases against the boy. He deals only and only with facts. Juror 4 (E. G. Marshall) states that he doesn’t believe the boy’s alibi, which was being at the movies with a few friends at the time of the murder, because the boy could not remember what movie he had seen three hours later.
Juror 8 explains that being under emotional stress can make you forget certain things, and tests how well Juror 4 can remember the events of previous days. Juror 4 remembers, with some difficulty, the events of the previous five days, and Juror 8 points out that he had not been under emotional stress at that time, thus there was no reason to think the boy could remember the movie that he had seen. Juror #4 is the only one who is not judging the case with his own prejudices nor is he in the hurry’ to quickly discuss and leave the court. He takes ample to analyze the arguments that are made in the Jury Room.