This film is about a murder trial. A boy that could be looked on as guilty for sure is put up to the jury to decide his destiny. The boy has a background of violence and crime and has been brought up in a slum. The jury is confident of the boy’s guilt. The whole jury votes guilty but one, Henry Fonda, or juror eight, and so the jury is forced to talk it out and make a decision. The other eleven jurors aren’t caring enough to sit out and talk it out, Henry Fonda tries to get as much evidence as he can to persuade the jurors that there is a possibility that the boy is guilty. Slowing he convinces them, one by one.
While we are unsure whether he is right or wrong, 8th Juror is one of the only jurors who is unaffected by any kind of negative bigotries. He respects the system and the value of life, causing him to want to consider the case more carefully than others. Juror number eight only tries to convince the other jurors to talk it out and think about the possibility that the boy might be not guilty. He is motivated simply by the idea of persisting justice and no other personal gain or affirmation comes into play.
One of the first things the jurors commented on is the jury room’s temperature, which was oppressively hot. Its purpose was to emphasize the heated discussions going on inside the room and to increase the tension and pressure. Also, these men were driven to madness rapidly by the heat. The heat was one of the key elements the director used. It showed how strong the tension was in there and how hard it was for juror number eight having to persuade the other jurors, even when they only wanted to leave.
Personal prejudice was found numerous times in this film. The tenth juror is the most obvious example. Immediately against the defendant just because he was "one of them." He hated the criminal defendant because he was raised in a slum. Similarly, the third juror is biased against the criminal defendant because he reminds him of his own son, which...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document