Other jurors, most notable Juror 1, confirm that they saw the same thing. Jurors 12, 10 and 4 then change their vote to "not guilty", leaving only Juror 3. He is the fifth to vote "not guilty"; played by John Fiedler.
Ultimately, he is the eighth to settle on voting "not guilty"; played by Robert Webber.
The experiment proves the possibility but Juror 5 then steps up and demonstrates the correct way to hold and use a switchblade; revealing that anyone skilled with a switchblade, as the boy would be, would always stab underhanded at an upwards angle against an opponent who was taller than them, as the grip of stabbing downwards would be too awkward and the act of changing hands too time consuming.
Jurors 12 and 1 then change their votes, leaving only three dissenters: In a preliminary vote, all jurors vote "guilty" except Juror 8, who argues that the boy deserves some deliberation.
Juror 11 also changes his vote, believing the boy would not likely have tried to retrieve the murder weapon from the scene if it had been cleaned of fingerprints. He is the seventh to vote "not guilty". An angry Juror 3 accuses Juror 5, who grew up in a slum, of changing his vote out of sympathy towards slum children.
At the beginning of the film, the cameras are positioned above eye level and mounted with wide-angle lensesto give the appearance of greater depth between subjects, but as the film progresses the focal length of the lenses is gradually increased.
A meek and unpretentious bank worker who is at first dominated by others, but as the climax builds, so does his courage. If there is any reasonable doubt they are to return a verdict of not guilty.
Juror 3 gives a long and increasingly tortured string of arguments, building on earlier remarks that his relationship with his own son is deeply strained, which is ultimately why he wants the boy to be guilty. Increasingly impatient, Juror 7 changes his vote to hasten the deliberation, which earns him the ire of other jurors especially 11 for voting frivolously; after being pressed by Juror 11, Juror 7 insists, unconvincingly, that he actually thinks the boy is not guilty.
He is the sixth to vote "not guilty"; played by Edward Binns. He is the fourth to vote "not guilty"; played by George Voskovec.
Outside, Jurors 8 Davis and 9 McCardle exchange names, and all of the jurors descend the courthouse steps to return to their individual lives. All jurors except 7 and 4 turn their backs to him. A rational, unflappable, self-assured and analytical stock broker who is concerned only with the facts, and is appalled by the bigotry of Juror After Juror 10 sits in a corner by himself, Juror 8 quietly speaks of the evils of prejudice as the others return to their seats.
An angry Juror 3 shouts that they are losing their chance to "burn" the boy. Juror 9, seeing Juror 4 rub his nose which is being irritated by his glassesrealizes that the woman who allegedly saw the murder had impressions she frequently rubbed in the sides of her nose, indicating that she wore glasses, but did not wear them in court out of vanity.
At the end of the film, he reveals to Juror 8 that his name is McArdle, one of only two jurors to reveal his name; played by Joseph Sweeney. Sidney Lumetwhose prior directorial credits included dramas for television productions such as The Alcoa Hour and Studio Onewas recruited by Henry Fonda and Rose to direct.
Juror 3 lunges at Juror 8, threatening to kill him, but is restrained by Jurors 1 and 5. Plot[ edit ] In a New York City courthouse a jury commences deliberating the case of an year-old Hispanic boy  from a slum, on trial for allegedly stabbing his father to death.
Cast[ edit ] The twelve jurors are referred to — and seated — in the order below: By the end of the film, nearly everyone is shown in closeup, using telephoto lenses from a lower angle, which decreases or "shortens" depth of field.
He is the tenth to vote "not guilty"; played by Ed Begley. He is the second to vote "not guilty". A wisecracking, indecisive advertising executive. As the jury foreman, he is somewhat preoccupied with his duties, although helpful to accommodate others.
Weiler of The New York Times wrote, "It makes for taut, absorbing, and compelling drama that reaches far beyond the close confines of its jury room setting.
The ballot is held and a new "not guilty" vote appears. Juror 5 then changes his vote. He is polite and makes a point of speaking with proper English grammar.
Fonda later stated that he would never again produce a film. An architect and the first to vote "not guilty".
Shortly after, a thunderstorm begins, threatening to cancel the ballgame Juror 7 has tickets to.12 Angry Men Movie Analysis Essay. Twelve Angry Men Analysis BA Reaching a unanimous vote, beyond a reasonable doubt, was a difficult task for the jurors represented in the film, 12 Angry Men. Juror Four is solely interested in the facts of the case.
Although he is a skeptic, he abides by the rules of his position. At times he can make offensive generalizations without recognizing the emotions of others. Reginald Rose’s ’12 Angry Men’ brings 12 jurors together in a room to decide whether a young foreign boy is guilty of killing his father.
The play is interwoven with dynamic characterisation, striking symbolism and intense moments of drama. Mr. Archibald, Juror 4, was quite essential to the plot. He contributed in helping the plot move along. Edgar was the juror who felt the accused was guilty because of hard edvidence, unlike the others who only went along with what everyone else said.
“12 Angry Men” Essay The movie "12 Angry Men" focuses on a jury's decision on a capital murder case. A man jury is sent to begin decisions on the first-degree murder trial of an year-old Latino accused of stabbing his father to death, where a guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence.
Juror 12's small role in 12 Angry Men can be important to many people. He may seem to be the peacemaker, yet all too frequently he seems to just not care about the life that they could be setting.Download