Film Analysis: 12 Angry Men

In the film 12 angry men, 12 jurors are put in a room to discuss a first degree murder case. Each one has a very different characteristic than the next, but each contribute to the stories plot line equally. Each juror can be classified as the average “every day” person; the silent but analytical, the loud and stubborn or the mediator. The one juror that is more like myself is Juror #11. I find myself to be most like him because he is unbiased, empathetic and is analytic.

Juror #11 seems to be an excellent juror because he is unbiased, about both the other juror’s opinions and the case. He is also concerned about finding the truth to the whole case and not just leaving as soon as possible to go home. An example of this is when he questions the other jurors about the evidence and testimony told by witnesses. He is then questioned by another juror to why he wrote “guilty” but is questioning that the boy is not guilty. This is where he states “I don't believe I have to be loyal to one side or the other. I'm simply asking questions”. This shows the audience that he is not taking sides until he is convinced the man is guilty or innocent and that he just wants to finish his job in a respectable and proper manner. Juror #11 argues to Juror #7 “Who tells you that you have the right like this to play with a man's life?” His quote proves the point that he wants to do the job right and to deliver justice, not to side on one side because of a hunch or 1 piece of evidence. I find myself to have the same characteristic because in situations where I would have to pick sides, I try to be unbiased and not side with one party until I am sure that they are correct or enough evidence is displayed that I can be satisfied to assume the party is correct,...

... middle of paper ...

...with. Another piece of evidence was the elderly woman across the el train platform who saw the murder and swears it was the boy but, it is not easy to identify faces, especially through 2 cars of the train where she would be a far distance from the actual murder apartment. Finally is the point that Juror #11 stated, that the boy would not return 3 hours after the murder, he would most likely try to escape somewhere far to avoid being charged, not walking right back to the crime scene. It can also be said that he was lying about going to the movies since he did not remember the film he saw but, when faced with fear, stress or anger, their mind can go blank. An example of this is in war when soldiers train for months and months but when finally see the bloodshed, they forget everything they learned in basic training. From this, I say the 18 year old boy is not guilty.