The film 12 angry men is a story that was developed from a television series; the film revolves around the judgment of an eighteen-year-old boy by the jury after he is accused of first-degree murder. He was charged with stabbing and killing his father by using a switch-blade knife following an argument that they had. The story is told from a claustrophobic room on one of the hottest days in New York City. We don't get to see the prosecutor or defendant attorney in action or get to listen to the witnesses, so the evidence was explained from a secondary point of view from the jury room. Most of the members of the jury are prejudiced towards the case and have already formed their perception about the young boy due to his race rather than go through the evidence. The film strives to show the contrast of justice and prejudice and how the truth can triumph over discrimination.
Leadership is taken by juror 12, he assumes the position of foreman and right away he asks his fellow jurors to pass a verdict without even going through the evidence. Eleven of them vote guilty but one, juror 8, proposes not guilty. At the beginning of the film, the judge appears to be in a state of perfunctory and boredom as he explains to the jury that the judgment must be unanimous for the defendant to be sent to the electric chair. After the first ballot is taken the plot of the film comes alive.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The topic of discussion of the film is the innocence or guiltiness of the defendant. It comes across quite early in the movie that most of the jurors are racist as well as prejudiced individuals. Most of them are convinced he is guilty because of something as trivial as his race and is quite evident in juror's three statements when he says that most people like him always have such cases coming for them. The defendant looks like he is from an Indian or Asian descent and when juror 3 makes this statement about the accused he tries to show that people of the defendant's race are prone to be involved in issues of murder.
The most specific and clear incident in the film that causes conflict among the men is prejudice. Most of them pass the verdict of guilty because they have a premeditated opinion on the accused without any reason or facts but base judgment on his race. Some of them want to hurry up the verdict so that they can continue with their day's activities, one juror is rushing to the game and does not want the verdict to take long. This makes the audience doubt whether the jury cares that a young boy of eighteen years is about to be sentenced to death. Why will they not take the time to review the case and the evidence before passing judgment? Should race determine if one is guilty of a crime? The group should have tried to be fair, and this would have helped them to understand the root of the conflict among them, changing the outcome of the verdict early on as opposed to spending so much time trying to justify their preconceived opinions of the case and the boy.
Among the twelve jurors, we have characters that play different roles in the film making it more entertaining and enjoyable. Juror 8 plays the protagonist; he is the voice of reason and justice among the men, he fights for the freedom of the boy as he is convinced he is innocent. Juror 3, on the other hand, plays the role of antagonist in the film, he is blinded by prejudice and rage that it prevents him to have any desire to know the truth and vindicate the young man. He bases his verdict on the personal issues that he has with his son; he hasn't seen him in two years. Juror 12 acts as the foreman; he takes leadership in the room and is seen playing the peacemaker as he demonstrates a need to hear every member's point of view.
A leader in any form of group setting is known to be a person who brings peace among members when there is conflict and is someone who will provide directions and guidance. A great leader would have ensured that every member respects everyone's opinion even though they might differ from their own, but this is not demonstrated in the film. Juror 12 assumes figurehead leadership and juror 3 is overheard saying "there is always that one, that one." This remark was about juror 8 who had voted not guilty undermining juror's 8 verdicts. When juror 12 defends juror 8, juror 3 snaps and says to him "stop being a kid." An effective leader would have ensured that the group goes through the evidence before casting their votes; this would have ensured that every member would have voted according to the available evidence and the witnesses' statements rather than on race and prejudice. Both of these specific examples of leadership would have influenced the outcome of the film.
The group went through different stages as the film progressed, during the first stage eleven jurors vote that the defendant is guilty and one voted not guilty. Juror 8 who had voted not guilty gives his reasons for the verdict and takes a risk by asking the fellow members of the group to vote in a secret ballot, and if everyone still proposes guilty, he will have no option but to agree with their verdict. The votes are cast and counted, ten say the boy is guilty, but juror changes his mind to not guilty. As their conversations progress the ballots for the innocent rise to four and the guilty fall to eight. It reaches a stage in the film when the numbers of guilty and guilty are almost similar; the not guilty verdicts rise from four to nine to ten and finally eleven. At the end of the film, juror 3 changes his verdict to not guilty when he realizes that he is passing judgment on the defendant based on his broken relationship with his son. He had a sense of guilt over his broken relationship with his son, and in some ways, it influenced his train of thought about the whole case.
In the beginning, the lone juror's opinion differs from the rest he is ridiculed by the other members of the group leading to a string of insults. Arrogance is also prevalent among the jurors one of them is overheard saying "let us convince him that he is wrong and we are right," and juror 3 says "boy oh boy, there is always that one." They don't respect his opinion and do not care to hear his reasons. Nonetheless, juror 8 steps up to the plate and defends his verdict giving legitimate reasons. In the end, he is able to sway all the eleven men to see that the defendant is not guilty, he demonstrates perseverance and determination.
There are several steps of problem-solving that could have been initiated into the situation, and they include; identification of the problem, understanding every group members point of view, providing solutions to their problems, coming up with alternative options, choosing an option and coming to an agreement. If they had applied these steps, then there wouldn't have been any unwanted banter and back and forth among them.
In conclusion, the film is very captivating and educative; it successfully challenges the notion that a defendant or accused is innocent until proven guilty. It shows the effects of prejudice which leads to rage and restlessness. The film teaches the audience that justice can overcome and triumph over prejudice. It also tries to show the audience that they should never judge a book by its cover as it in the instance of the defendant. This is evident during the first ballot when every juror except one vote guilty based on the accused race due to prejudice.
