Twelve Angry Men: Movie Review: Twelve Angry Men

“Twelve Angry Men” is a movie about a young boy that is falsely accused of stabbing his father to death. A jury of twelve men are to deliberate the fate of a nineteen year old, Puerto Rican boy. The defendant has been in trouble with the law in the past and there is a huge amount circumstantial evidence against him. The penalty for committing such a crime is an automatic death sentence. As the twelve jury men depart from the court room they are told to keep in mind that their decision has to be made based on innocent until proven guilty.
The jurors’ room is not a very large room and to make matters worse they are in the middle of a heat wave. The condition of the building is in poor working order there is no air conditioner and the only fan available is broken. As the jury members try to deal with the unbearable heat it does not take long before the restless jury men take a vote. Eleven out twelve jurors find the boy guilty as charged; however Juror #8 refuses to convict this young boy because he believes there is reasonable drought. It is up to Juror #8 Henry Fonda, to convince the other members of the jury to go back through and revisit the evidence. As the group begins to sort through the facts their attitudes and viewpoints begin to produce enormous conflict. Juror #8 Fonda, refuses to back down he knows all too well that the fate of the young boy lies in their hands.
As the deliberation continues it becomes obvious that the members of the jury are basing their findings on their past experiences. Juror #1 Martin Balsam, #2 John Fiedler, and #9 Joseph Sweeney, do not like to deal with confrontation so these laid back slackers just go with the flow. E.G. Marshall, Juror #4 is a stock broker that only knows how to rationaliz...

... middle of paper ...

... rest of the jury to follow. Personal issues should never be brought into the workplace; it proves to be distracting and unproductive. In this case there would have been two tragic deaths in one family.
When Henry made the decision not to convict if there was reasonable doubt he stayed focused and made things happen. During deliberation he reminded the jurors that it was their duty to not convict unless it was beyond a reasonable doubt. During the trial Fonda was successful at directing the juror’s attention and criticism away from himself. As Henry deflected this kind of behaviors it encouraged others to open up and express their thoughts. Fonda challenged the jurors to think and rethink, he was not going to give up until he seen the process to through. Lessons to be learned here is to be a good listener, learn from past experiences, and then lead by example.