12 Angry Men Character Traits

574 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Group behavior in 12 angry men

Twelve Angry Men is a play that not only emphasizes the importance of the court system, but it also emphasizes the influence of individuality and characteristics that can affect the plot. Twelve Angry Men has a total of 12 different characters that all have their own unique traits and characteristics that change the flow of the story. Juror Five is one of the jurors that is often overlooked because of his quietness and timidness. As the story progresses, he overcomes the timidness and he gives his own personal remarks on the court case and he gives his own personal experiences. He is a static character because he never changes personality or traits during the skit. These traits are also represented in his representation in our script. In our script, the jurors are presented a …show more content…

He does speak once in the skit when he is encouraged by the other jurors which is inspired from how he was inspired to join the “not guilty” side. For example, when he is invited to a coffee shop with the other jurors, he first declines, but after he states,”I guess if he’s going then I’m in too.” This quote shows us that he wouldn’t go unless juror eight went. This represents how he is a nervous character who feels weak without any support from others. Because he talks about how he wouldn’t go unless juror eight went as well, this proves to us that he is a apprehensive character. In another scene, he is about to make his point when he is interrupted by juror three. This further strengthens the point that he is a timid character. Another thing that is shown in our script is how juror five lived in the slums. This is represented by the quote,”That’s possible, growing up, I’ve heard about many people close to me be wrongly accused.” This quote shows us that five grew up in the slums and he relates with the poor which is also presented in “Twelve Angry

Show More
Related

  • Compare and Contrast Play and Movie Versions of 12 Angry Men

    1039 Words  | 3 Pages

    Not able to remember much about this particular part of the movie, I believe this introductory scene's purpose was to either enhance the realism of the setting by emphasizing the court building's efficient, business like manner or to provide a timeslot in which to roll the credits for producer, director, stars, etc. The settings aren't only built upon through the use of scenery and extras in the movie. Invisible and distant in the play, we see in the movie the judge, bailiff, those witnessing the trial and most importantly of all- the defendant. This is an important change because in the case, we are free to come up with our own unbiased conclusions as to the nature and identity of the defendant, whom we only know to be a 19 year boy from the slums. Seeing his haggard and worn face in the movie changes all of that, yet for better or worse, it engages the audience deeper into the trial as they surely will sympathize with him and can gain some insight into why, later, Juror 8 does so as well.

    Read More

  • Ignorance in 12 Angry Men

    709 Words  | 2 Pages

    Juror number eight is the main protagonist, he also a reserved with his thoughts, yet very strategic with them. He is the defender of the down trodden victim. He has a calm rational approach to everything and he reveals the gaps in the testimonies placed against the defendant. These examples would be; that the old man couldn’t have seen the boy run out of the house, as the old man had a limp and therefore could not make it to the door in time. The old lady across the road could have never saw the boy stab his father, due to she wasn’t wearing her glasses and it was pitch black. Number eight is a man that s...

    Read More

  • Stereotypes In The Play '12 Angry Men' By Reginald Rose

    911 Words  | 2 Pages

    Prejudices cause peoples’ perceptions to be altered. The jurors are presented quite a bit about the boy’s background, and his records. Juror Ten struggles to see past the stereotypes and judges the boy based on his past actions. Juror Ten claims,” He’s a common ignorant slob. He don’t even speak good English,” (326). What is so ironic about this statement is that Ten claims the boy is dense and bases this claim on the fact that he can’t speak English well. However as corrected by Eleven, it is “doesn’t” not “does”. Perhaps the boy learned from his mistakes and sought to change. That is what life is all about. We fall down and hopefully learn from our mistakes so that we can create a better future for ourselves. Juror Ten is firmly set on the idea that the court covered everything by repeatedly saying, “They proved it,’’ on page 317. Unlike Eight he is not open-minded. As a juror it is important to be skeptics because the in court, lawyers may have presented information in such a way that information is perceived differently. Also crucial information may have not have been analyzed carefully. It’s important not to dwell on the past; its also keep prejudices from exposing you to

    Read More

  • Uncertainty In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men

    980 Words  | 2 Pages

    Even before the jury sits to take an initial vote, the third man has found something to complain about. Describing “the way these lawyers can talk, and talk and talk, even when the case is as obvious as this” one was. Then, without discussing any of the facts presented in court, three immediately voiced his opinion that the boy is guilty. It is like this with juror number three quite often, jumping to conclusions without any kind of proof. When the idea that the murder weapon, a unique switchblade knife, is not the only one of its kind, three expresses “[that] it’s not possible!” Juror eight, on the other hand, is a man who takes a much more patient approach to the task of dictating which path the defendant's life takes. The actions of juror three are antagonistic to juror eight as he tries people to take time and look at the evidence. During any discussion, juror number three sided with those who shared his opinion and was put off by anyone who sided with “this golden-voiced little preacher over here,” juror eight. His superior attitude was an influence on his ability to admit when the jury’s argument was weak. Even when a fellow juror had provided a reasonable doubt for evidence to implicate the young defendant, three was the last one to let the argument go. Ironically, the play ends with a 180 turn from where it began; with juror three

    Read More

  • Analysis of the Jurors in 12 Angry Men

    617 Words  | 2 Pages

    Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.

    Read More

  • Prejudice in 12 Angry Men

    1000 Words  | 2 Pages

    ... I've lived among them all my life. You can't believe a word they say. You know that. I mean, they're born liars.” In this statement you can clearly tell his prejudice against the kid, just because of where he was raised. Juror # 10 and juror # 3 has prejudice against the kid. Juror # 3 has personal experience with a kid like the accused. “Reminded of his own family's personal crisis, Juror # 3 tells the jurors of his own disrespectful, teen aged boy who hit him on the jaw when he was 16. Now 22 years old, the boy hasn't been seen for two years, and the juror is embittered: "Kids! Ya work your heart out."” This is a direct example of juror # 3’s prejudice against the accused. When prejudice was in effect in the movie, it clouded the judgments of the jurors that were prejudice against the boy just because he was raised in the slums.

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men Essay

    595 Words  | 2 Pages

    He believes that a kid from a place like that isn’t any good. The next character is Edward James Olmos (#11) for the first half of the movie he was very quiet and walked around, but once he changed his vote to not guilty he became very kind and helpful. Something he said when he was standing up for the kid was, “ to say one is capable of committing murder

    Read More

  • Intolerance And Prejudice In The Play Twelve Angry Men

    1285 Words  | 3 Pages

    The first vote ended with eleven men voting guilty and one man not guilty. We soon learn that several of the men voted guilty since the boy had a rough background not because of the facts they were presented with. Although numerous jurors did make racist or prejudice comments, juror ten and juror three seemed to be especially judgmental of certain types of people. Juror three happened to be intolerant of young men and stereotyped them due to an incident that happened to his son. In addition, the third juror began to become somewhat emotional talking about his son, showing his past experience may cloud his judgment. Juror ten who considered all people from the slums “those people” was clearly prejudiced against people from a different social background. Also, Juror ten stated in the beginning of the play “You 're not going to tell us that we 're supposed to believe that kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I 've lived among 'em all my life. You can 't believe a word they say. I mean, they 're born liars.” Juror ten did not respect people from the slums and believed them to all act the same. As a result, Juror ten believed that listening to the facts of the case were pointless. For this reason, the tenth juror already knew how “those people” acted and knew for sure the boy was not innocent. Even juror four mentioned just how the slums are a “breeding ground

    Read More

  • Prejudice In Tkam

    870 Words  | 2 Pages

    This event in his personal life was dramatically influencing his decision in the jury room, but he was able to overcome his personal prejudice from the efforts of juror 8 “it’s hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this, and no matter where you run into it, prejudice obscures the truth” This quote shows juror 8’s understanding towards juror 3 in particular, and in turn allows him to overcome his personal prejudice. The young boy’s social status and childhood upbringing also influenced many of the juror’s perspective on him. The men came with pre conceived ideas about boy, just because he grew up in a slum, and allowed this reason and possibly their own personal reason to obscure their view on the

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay On 12 Angry Men

    603 Words  | 2 Pages

    Juror 11 says: ‘Facts may be coloured by the personalities of the people who present them’. Is he right?

    Read More

  • Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose

    709 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...s vote to not guilty. When juror number seven, Jack Walden decided to change his vote from guilty to not guilty because that was the popular vote, and as such he wanted the proceedings to end so that he could go watch sports, George questioned his integrity. Juror number seven (George) reminded him of the privilege he has in serving as a jury over such an important case. George asked Jack, “Are you voting not guilty because everybody is voting not guilty or you are voting not guilty because you feel it is the right thing to do.” I definitely want him on my legal team because of his uncompromising attitude.

    Read More

  • Analysis of the Jurors in 12 Angry Men

    714 Words  | 2 Pages

    As time goes on he becomes more and more passionate and seems to be somehow personally involved with the case. At one point, he tells the other jurors about an argument between him and his son. Juror 3 and his son had an argument which made his son run away. When his son returned to apologize, Juror 3 hit him for leaving the first time thus leading him to run away once more. He has not seen his son in two years and this has left him somewhat bitter inside. His anger toward his supposed ungrateful son is projected toward the young man on trial. Juror 3 has no concern for the life of the defendant. He makes it clear that he would have been an executioner and would have pulled the switch on the boy himself. His personal troubles have imposed on his ability to come to a verdict.

    Read More

  • The Problem of Groupthink in 12 Angry Men

    947 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...a unanimous vote of not guilty. The final scene takes place signifying the "adjourning stage". Two of the jurors, eight and three exchange the only character names mentioned during the film. The entire process of groupthink occurs in multiple ways that display its symptoms on individual behavior, emotions, and personal filters. These symptoms adversity affected the productivity throughout the juror's debate. In all, all twelve men came to an agreement but displayed group social psychological aspects.

    Read More

  • Comparing and Contrasting Juror 3 and Juror 8 from Twelve Angry Men

    1056 Words  | 3 Pages

    These two jurors are almost the plain opposite of each other. Juror 3 appears to be a very intolerant man accustomed of forcing his wishes and views upon others. On the other hand, Juror 8 is an honest man who keeps an open mind for both evidence and reasonable doubt. Since these two people are indeed very different, they both have singular thoughts relating to the murder case. Juror 8 is a man who is loyal to justice. In the beginning of the play, he was the only one to vote ‘not guilty’ the first time the twelve men called a vote. Although his personality is reflected on being a quiet, thoughtful, gentle man, he is still a very persistent person who will fight for justice to be done. Juror 8 is a convincing man who presents his arguments well, but can also be seen as manipulative. An example would be when he kept provoking Juror 3 until he finally said “I’m going to kill you" to Juror 8. He did this because he wanted to prove that saying "I’ll kill you" doesn’t necessarily mean that Juror 3 was actually going to kill him. Juror 3 is a totally different character. He is a stubborn man who can be detected with a streak of sad...

    Read More

  • The Role Of Justice In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men

    1441 Words  | 3 Pages

    Juror ten is perceived throughout the play as a nuisance. The reason he causes a plethora of conflict is that of his prejudiced views on the

    Read More

More about 12 Angry Men Character Traits

Open Document