12 Angry Men Summary And Analysis Of Juror 8

dispositions he hold towards them. Juror 3’s blind hatred towards the teen turned out to be his unresolved emotional conflict with his own son. Another juror 10 depended solely on the logic of the situation and how it makes sense for the boy to be guilty. The emotional expressions of the actors are shot in close-up, focusing on each actor’s faces giving equal importance to all characters, which helps viewers to relate to the back stories each character, holds. Juror 8 appeals to the rational, sensible side of each of these personalities believing that they all men are able to question the social system if it has an alternative reality. What appears to be thwarting the rational thinking is; reluctance to go that extra mile beyond our own selfish
Juror 8 is observant in the unwillingness of the rookie public defence lawyer to represent the convict in such a hopeless case without any chance for fame or money. His argument soon starts to attract alliances among the juries as well as sarcastic remarks and hostility. The film brilliantly brings all the jurors with very unique personalities together in a small room, because of which all the characters are remains important till the end rather than only centring around Mr. Davis. Their personality clash was inevitable yet that’s depicted beautifully. At the climax, the most stubborn and volatile juror 3 is persuaded when he realizes that in his anger and grief of losing his son; he is failing to listen to reason and assertion about the chance of the convict not being guilty. This movie keeps the characters anonymous in an attempt to focus on the importance of collective conscience in a democratic society rather than individual mentality. There is lot of drama and tension rising from personality conflict and expressed through steady dialogue delivery and non-verbal behaviour; also emotion and personal ignorance struggle undermine collective