12 Angry Men

12 Angry Menis a 1957 Americandrama filmwith elements offilm noir, adapted from ateleplay of the same namebyReginald Rose.[4][5]Written and co-produced by Rose himself and directed bySidney Lumet, thistrial filmtells the story of ajurymade up of 12 men as they deliberate the guilt or acquittal of a defendant on the basis ofreasonable doubt. In the United States, a verdict in most criminal trials by jury must be unanimous. The film is notable for its almost exclusive use of one set: with the exception of the film's opening, which begins outside on the steps of thecourthousefollowed by the judge's final instructions to the jury before retiring, a brief final scene on the courthouse steps, and two short scenes in an adjoining washroom, the entire movie takes place in the jury room. The total time spent outside the jury room is three minutes out of the full 96minutes of the movie.12 Angry Menexplores many techniques ofconsensus-building, and the difficulties encountered in the process, among a group of men whose range of personalities adds intensity and conflict. No names are used in the film: the jury members are identified by number until two of them exchange names at the very end, the defendant is referred to as "the boy", and the witnesses as "the old man" and "the lady across the street".In 1997 aremakeof the filmunder the same titlewas released byMGM.In 2007,12 Angry Menwas selected for preservation in the United StatesNational Film Registryby theLibrary of Congressas being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".[6]Contents[hide] 1Story 2Cast 3Production 4Reception 4.1Critical response 4.2Legacy 4.3Awards 5Cultural influences 6See also 7References 8Further reading 9External linksStory[edit]The story begins in aNew York Citycourthouse, where an eighteen-year-old boy from a slum is on trial for allegedly stabbing his father to death. Final closing arguments having been presented, a visibly tired judge instructs the jury to decide whether the boy is guilty of murder. The judge further informs them that a guilty verdict will be accompanied by a mandatory death sentence.[7]The jury retires to a private room, where the jurors spend a short while getting acquainted before they begin deliberating. It is immediately apparent that the jurors have already decided that the boy is guilty, and that they plan to return their verdict without taking time for discussionwith the sole exception of Juror 8 (Henry Fonda), who is the only "not guilty" vote in a preliminary tally. He explains that there is too much at stake for him to go along with the verdict without at least talking about it first. His vote annoys the other jurors, especially Juror 7 (Jack Warden), who has tickets to a baseball game that evening; and Juror 10 (Ed Begley), who believes that people from slum backgrounds are liars and are wild and dangerous.[7]The rest of the film's focus is the jury's difficulty in reaching a unanimous verdict. While several of the jurors harbor personal prejudices, Juror 8 maintains that the evidence presented in the case is circumstantial, and that the boy deserves a fair deliberation. He calls into question the accuracy and reliability of the only two witnesses to the murder, the "rarity" of the murder weapon (a commonswitchblade, of which he has an identical copy), and the overall questionable circumstances. He further argues that he cannot in good conscience vote "guilty" when he feels there isreasonable doubtof the boy's guilt.Having argued several points and gotten no favorable response from the others, Juror 8 reluctantly agrees that he has only succeeded inhanging the jury. Instead, he requests another vote, this time by secret ballot. He proposes that he will abstain from voting, and if the other 11 jurors are still unanimous in a guilty vote, then he will acquiesce to their decision. The secret ballot is held, and a new "not guilty" vote appears. This earns intense criticism from Juror 3 (Lee J. Cobb), who blatantly accuses Juror 5 (Jack Klugman) who had grown up in a slum of switching out of sympathy toward slum children. However, Juror 9 (Joseph Sweeney) reveals that he himself changed his vote, feeling that Juror 8's points deserve further discussion.Juror 8 presents a convincing argument that one of the witnesses, an elderly man who claimed to have heard the boy yell "I'm going to kill you" shortly before the murder took place, could not have heard the voices as clearly as he had testified due to an elevated train passing by at the time; as well as stating that "I'm going to kill you," is often said by people who do not literally mean it. Juror 5 changes his vote to "not guilty". Soon afterward, Juror 11 (George Voskovec) questions whether the defendant would have reasonably fled the scene before cleaning the knife of fingerprints, then come back three hours later to retrieve the knife (which had been left in his father's chest). Juror 11 then changes his vote.Juror 8 then mentions the man's second claim: upon hearing the father's body hit the floor, he had run to the door of his apartment and seen the defendant running out of the building from his front door in 15 seconds. Jurors 5, 6 and 8 question whether this is true, as the witness in question had had astroke, limiting his ability to walk. Upon the end of an experiment, the jury finds that the witness would not have made it to the door in enough time to actually see the killer running out. Juror 8 concludes that, judging from what he claims to have heard earlier, the witness must have merely assumed it was the defendant running. Juror 3, growing more irritated throughout the process, explodes in a rant: "He'sgotto burn! He's slipping through our fingers!" Juror 8 takes him to task, calling him a "self-appointed public avenger" and asadist, saying he wants the defendant to die because of personal desire rather than the facts. Juror 3 shouts "I'll kill him!" and starts lunging at Juror 8, but is restrained by Jurors 5 and 7. Juror 8 calmly retorts, "You don't really mean you'll kill me, do you?", proving his previous point.[6]Jurors 2 (John Fiedler) and 6 (Edward Binns) also decide to vote "not guilty", tying the vote at 66. Soon after, a rainstorm hits the city, threatening to cancel the baseball game for which Juror 7 has tickets.Juror 4 (E. G. Marshall) states that he does not believe the boy's alibi, which was being at the movies with a few friends at the time of the murder, because the boy could not remember what movie he had seen when questioned by police shortly after the murder. Juror 8 explains that being under emotional stress can make you forget certain things, and tests how well Juror 4 can remember the events of previous days. Juror 4 remembers, with some difficulty, the events of the previous five days, and Juror 8 points out that he had not been under emotional stress at that time, thus there was no reason to think the boy could remember the movie that he had seen.[8]Juror 2 calls into question the prosecution's claim that the accused, who was 5'7" tall, was able to inflict the downward stab wound found on his father, who was 6'2". Jurors 3 and 8 conduct an experiment to see if it's possible for a shorter person to stab downward into a taller person. The experiment proves the possibility, but Juror 5 then explains that he had grown up amidst knife fights in his neighborhood, and shows, through demonstrating the correct use of a switchblade, that no one so much shorter than his opponent would have held a switchblade in such a way as to stab downward, as the grip would have been too awkward and the act of changing hands too time-consuming. Rather, someone that much shorter than his opponent would stab underhanded at an upwards angle. This revelation augments the certainty of several of the jurors in their belief that the defendant is not guilty.Increasingly impatient, Juror 7 changes his vote just so that the deliberation may end, which earns him the ire of Jurors 3 and 11, both on opposite sides of the discussion. Juror 11, an immigrant who has repeatedly displayed strong patriotic pride, presses Juror 7 hard about using his vote frivolously, and eventually Juror 7 claims that he now truly believes the defendant is not guilty.[9]The next jurors to change their votes are Jurors 12 (Robert Webber) and 1 (Martin Balsam), making the vote 93 and leaving only three dissenters: Jurors 3, 4 and 10. Outraged at how the proceedings have gone, Juror 10 goes into a rage on why people from the slums cannot be trusted, of how they are little better than animals who gleefully kill each other off for fun. His speech offends Juror 5, who turns his back to him, and one by one the rest of the jurors start turning away from him. Confused and disturbed by this reaction to his diatribe, Juror 10 continues in a steadily fading voice and manner, slowing to a stop with "Listen to me. Listen..." Juror 4, the only man still facing him, tersely responds, "I have. Now sit down and don't open your mouth again." As Juror 10 moves to sit in a corner by himself, Juror 8 speaks quietly about the evils of prejudice, and the other jurors slowly resume their seats.When those remaining in favor of a guilty vote are pressed as to why they still maintain that there is no reasonable doubt, Juror 4 states his belief that despite all the other evidence that has been called into question, the fact remains that the woman who saw the murder from her bedroom window across the street (through the passing train) still stands as solid evidence. After he points this out, Juror 12 changes his vote back to "guilty", making the vote 84.Then Juror 9, after seeing Juror 4 rub his nose (which is being irritated by his glasses), realizes that, like Juror 4, the woman who allegedly saw the murder had impressions in the sides of her nose which she rubbed, indicating that she wore glasses, but did not wear them to court out of vanity. Juror 8 cannily asks Juror 4 if he wears his eyeglasses to sleep, and Juror 4 admits that he does not wear them nobody does.[10]Juror 8 explains that there was thus no logical reason to expect that the witness happened to be wearing her glasses while trying to sleep, and he points out that the attack happened so swiftly that she would not have had time to put them on. After he points this out, Jurors 12, 10 and 4 all change their vote to "not guilty".At this point, the only remaining juror with a guilty vote is Juror 3. Juror 3 gives a long and increasingly tortured string of arguments, ending with, "Rotten kids, youworkyourlifeout!" This builds on a more emotionally ambivalent earlier revelation that his relationship with his own son is deeply strained, and his anger over this fact is the main reason that he wants the defendant to be guilty. Juror 3 finally loses his temper and tears up a photo of himself and his son, then suddenly breaks down crying and changes his vote to "not guilty", making the vote unanimous.As the jurors leave the room, Juror 8 helps the distraught Juror 3 with his coat in a show of compassion. The film ends when the friendly Jurors 8 (Davis) and 9 (McCardle) exchange names, and all of the jurors descend the courthouse steps to return to their individual lives.[11]Cast[edit]The twelve jurors in the order in which they are referred to. They are seated in this order in the movie.1. Martin Balsamas the jury foreman, somewhat preoccupied with his duties and never gives any reason for changing his vote; proves to be helpful to others. An assistant high school American football coach. He is the ninth to vote "not guilty".2. John Fiedleras a meek and unpretentious bank worker who is at first dominated by others, but as the climax builds up, so does his courage. He is the fifth to vote "not guilty".3. Lee J. Cobbas a businessman and distraught father, opinionated, disrespectful, and stubborn with a temper. He is the last to vote "not guilty".4. E. G. Marshallas a rational, unflappable, self-assured and analytical stock broker who is concerned only with the facts, and avoids any small talk. He is the eleventh to vote "not guilty".5. Jack Klugmanas a man who grew up in a violent slum, aBaltimore Oriolesfan. An ambulance crewman. He is the third to vote "not guilty".6. Edward Binnsas a house painter, tough but principled and respectful. He is the sixth to vote "not guilty".7. Jack Wardenas a salesman, sports fan, superficial and indifferent to the deliberations. He is the seventh to vote "not guilty".8. Henry Fondaas an architect and the first to vote "not guilty".9. Joseph Sweeneyas a wise and observant retiree. He is the second to vote "not guilty".10. Ed Begleyas a garage owner; a pushy and loudmouthed bigot. He is the tenth to vote "not guilty".11. George Voskovecas a European watchmaker and naturalized American citizen. Very polite and makes wordy contributions. He is the fourth to vote "not guilty".12. Robert Webberas a wisecracking, indecisive advertising executive. He is the eighth to vote "not guilty".Uncredited Rudy Bondas the judge James Kelly as the guard Billy Nelsonas the court clerk John Savoca as the accusedProduction[edit]Reginald Rose's screenplay for12 Angry Menwas initially produced for television (starringRobert Cummingsas Juror 8), and was broadcast live on theCBSprogramStudio Onein September 1954. A completekinescopeof that performance, which had been missing for years and was feared lost, was discovered in 2003. It was staged atChelsea Studiosin New York City.[12]The success of the television production resulted in a film adaptation.Sidney Lumet, whose prior directorial credits included dramas for television productions such asThe Alcoa HourandStudio One, was recruited by Henry Fonda and Rose to direct.12 Angry Menwas Lumet's first feature film, and for Fonda and Rose, who co-produced the film, it was their first and only role as film producers. Fonda later stated that he would never again produce a film.The filming was completed after a short but rigorous rehearsal schedule in less than three weeks on a tight budget of $340,000 (equivalent to $2,855,000 in 2015).At the beginning of the film, the cameras are positioned above eye level and mounted withwide-angle lensesto give the appearance of greater depth between subjects, but as the film progresses thefocal lengthof the lenses is gradually increased. By the end of the film, nearly everyone is shown in closeup usingtelephoto lensesfrom a lower angle, which decreases or "shortens"depth of field. Lumet, who began his career as a director of photography, stated that his intention in using these techniques with cinematographerBoris Kaufmanwas to create a nearly palpableclaustrophobia.[13]Reception[edit]Critical response[edit]On its first release,12 Angry Menreceived critical acclaim. A. H. Weiler ofThe New York Timeswrote "It makes for taut, absorbing, and compelling drama that reaches far beyond the close confines of its jury room setting." His observation of the twelve men was that "their dramas are powerful and provocative enough to keep a viewer spellbound."[14]However, the film was abox office disappointment.[15][16]The advent of color and widescreen productions resulted in a disappointing box office performance.[15]It was not until its first airing on television that the movie finally found its audience.[17]Legacy[edit]The film is today viewed as a classic, highly regarded from both a critical and popular viewpoint:Roger Ebertlisted it as one of his "Great Movies".[18]TheAmerican Film Institutenamed Juror 8, played byHenry Fonda, 28thin a list of the 50 greatest movie heroes of the 20th century.AFIalso named12 Angry Menthe 42ndmost inspiring film, the 88thmost heart-pounding filmand the 87th best film of the pasthundred years. The film was also nominated for the100 movies list in 1998.[19]As of January 2015, the film holds a100% approval ratingon the review aggregate websiteRotten Tomatoes.[20]In 2011, the film was the second most screened film in secondary schools in the United Kingdom.[21]American Film Institutelists: AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies Nominated AFI's 100 Years...100 Thrills No. 88 AFI's 100 Years...100 Heroes & Villains: Juror No. 8 No. 28 Hero AFI's 100 Years...100 Cheers No. 42 AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies (10th Anniversary Edition) No. 87 AFI's 10 Top 10 No. 2 Courtroom DramaAwards[edit]The film was nominated forAcademy Awardsin the categories ofBest Director,Best Picture, andBest Writing of Adapted Screenplay. It lost to the movieThe Bridge on the River Kwaiin all three categories. At the7th Berlin International Film Festival, the film won theGolden BearAward.[22]Cultural influences[edit]Speaking at a screening of the film during the 2010Fordham University Law SchoolFilm festival,Supreme Court JusticeSonia Sotomayorstated that seeing12 Angry Menwhile she was in college influenced her decision to pursue a career in law. She was particularly inspired by immigrant Juror 11's monologue on his reverence for the American justice system. She also told the audience of law students that, as a lower-court judge, she would sometimes instruct juries to not follow the film's example, because most of the jurors' conclusions are based on speculation, not fact.[23]Sotomayor noted that events such as Juror 8 entering a similar knife into the proceeding, doing outside research into the case matter in the first place, and ultimately the jury as a whole making broad, wide ranging assumptions far beyond the scope of reasonable doubt (such as the inferences regarding the "Old Woman" wearing glasses) would never be allowed to occur in a real life jury situation, and would in fact have yielded amistrial[24](assuming, of course, that applicable law permitted the content of jury deliberations to be revealed).The movie has had a number of adaptations. A 1991 homage byKki Mitani,12 Nin no Yasashii Nihonjin: 12 Gentle Japanese, posits a Japan with a jury system and features a group of "normal" Japanese people grappling with their responsibility in the face of Japanese cultural norms. The 1987 Indian filmEk Ruka Hua Faisla(A Pending Decision) is a remake of the film, with an almost identical storyline. Russian directorNikita Mikhalkovalso made a 2007 adaptation,12. A 2015 Chinese adaptation, 12 Citizens, follows the plot of the original 1957 American movie while including characters reflecting contemporary Beijing society, including a cab driver, guard, businessman, policeman, a retiree persecuted in a 1950s political movement, and others.[25]The film has also been subject to parody. In 2015, theComedy CentralTV seriesInside Amy Schumeraired a half-hour parody of the film titled "12 Angry Men Inside Amy Schumer." The sketch revolves around the twelve jurors' deliberations over whether comedian and actressAmy Schumeris attractive enough to be on television.John Hawkesstars as Juror No. 8,Jeff Goldblumas Juror No. 1,Paul Giamattias Juror No. 10,Vincent Kartheiseras Juror No. 4 andDennis Quaidas the weary judge. The episode received widespread praise for its humor, dissection of cultural standards of beauty, and emulation of the visual style and tone of the original.[26][27]BBC Radio comedyHancock's Half Hour, starringTony HancockandSid James, written by Ray Galton and Alan Simpson, broadcast a half-hour parody on 16 October 1959, also known asTwelve Angry Men.The FlintstonesstoryDisorder in the CourtandThe SimpsonsstoryThe Boy Who Knew Too Muchsimilarly feature the respective patriarchs of both families playing holdout jurors.

12 Angry Men SummaryThe play is set in a New York City Court of Law jury room in 1957. The play opens to the empty jury room, and the Judges voice is heard, giving a set of final instructions to the jurors. We learn that this is a murder case and that, if found guilty, the mandatory sentence for the accused is the death penalty. After these instructions, the jurors enter.The men file in and decide to take a short break before deliberating. They complain that the room is hot and without air-conditioning; even the fan doesnt work. All the jurors presume the obvious guilt of the defendant, whom we learn has been accused of killing his father. Eventually, the twelve sit down and a vote is taken. All of the jurors vote guilty, except for the8th Juror, who votes not guilty, which, due to the requirement of a unanimous jury, forces them to discuss the case.The jurors react violently against this dissenting vote. Ultimately, they decide to go around the table, explaining why they believe the boy to be guilty, in hopes of convincing 8th Juror.Through this discussion we learn the following facts about the case: an old man living beneath the boy and his father testified that he heard upstairs a fight, the boy shouting, Im gonna kill you, a body hitting the ground, and then he saw the boy running down the stairs. The boy claimed he had been at the movies while his father was murdered, but couldnt remember the name of the movies or who was in them. A woman living across the street testified that she saw the boy kill his father through the windows of a passing elevated train. The boy had, that night, had an argument with his father, which resulted in the boys father hitting him twice. Finally, the boy has an extensive list of prior offenses, including trying to slash another teenager with a knife.There is a strong rallying against the defendant.3rd Jurorcompares him to his own son, with whom he was estranged, and10th Jurorreveals strong racist tendencies against the defendant.When a discussion about the murder weapon, which was identified as the knife purchased by the defendant, a one-of-a-kind knife, begins, 8th Juror surprises the others by presenting an identical knife he had purchased in a pawn shop two blocks from where the boy lived a few nights prior, shattering the claim that the knife was so unique and identifiable.8th Juror makes a proposition that the other eleven of them could vote, and if all of them voted not guilty, he would not stand alone and would go along with their guilty verdict. They agree to this and vote by secret ballot. The vote is 10 guilty votes and 1 not guilty vote, and so the deliberation continues.Immediately, the jurors turn on5th Juror, accusing him of having changed his vote out of sympathy for the boy.9th Jurorstands and admits to having changed his vote because hed like to hear the arguments out.8th Juror calls into question the validity of the testimony of the old man living downstairs. 9th Juror provides the possibility that the old man was only testifying to feel important. 8th Juror concludes by saying that even if he did hear him say, Im gonna kill you, that very well could be taken out of context as just a figure of speech. With this 5th Juror changes his vote to not guilty, and the vote is 9-3 in favor of guilty.After another heated discussion which raises the question of why the boy would have returned home, after killing his father, they take another vote. This time, 5th, 8th, 9th, and 11th vote not guilty, and the deliberation continues.After a brief argument, 8th Juror brings into question whether or not the downstairs neighbor, an old man who had suffered a stroke and could only walk slowly, could have gotten to the door to see the boy run down the stairs in fifteen seconds, as he had testified. 8th Juror recreates the floor plan of the apartment, while2nd Jurortimes him, and they conclude that he would not have been able to reach his door in fifteen seconds.3rd Juror reacts violently to this and ends up attacking 8th Juror, shouting, God damn it! Ill kill him! Ill kill him. 8th Juror asks, You dont really mean youll kill me, do you? proving his earlier point about how people say, Ill kill you, when they dont really mean it.Act II resumes in the same moment we left off with in Act I. After everything calms down, the jurors resume deliberations. Another vote is taken, and the jury is now six to six. They take a break. During this break, it begins to rain outside. Also, they are able to turn the fan on, cooling off the room.When deliberations resume, 8th Juror attempts to break apart the testimony of the arresting police officer that the defendant was unable to name the movies that he had claimed to have seen that evening. He asserts that possibly the defendant just forgot the names of the films and who was in them under great emotional distress.Upon further discussion about the switchblade, it becomes questionable whether or not the defendant would have made the stab wound, down and in, which would be contrary to his knowledge and experience with how to use such a knife.The jurors take another vote, and it is now nine to three, all but 3rd, 4th, and 10th Juror are in favor of not guilty. This launches 10th Juror in a massive bigoted rant, which ends with4th Jurorscolding him back into his seat.9th Juror calls into question the eyewitness testimony of the woman living across the street, as she wore glasses but chose not to wear them in court, calling into question whether or not she would have been wearing them in bed, when she saw the murder through her window.Now, the vote is 11 to 1, and 3rd Juror stands alone. At first, he stands firm, saying that he will be the holdout to make this a hung jury. He launches himself into a final massive rant against the boy that descends into nonsense. 8th and 4th Jurors make a short final plea, and 3rd Juror finally concedes, saying All right. Not guilty. TheForemaninforms the Guard that they have reached a verdict, and the Jurors leave the courtroom.

The movie Twelve Angry Men begins with an eighteen year old boy from the ghetto who is on trial for the murder of his abusivefather. A jury of twelve men is locked in the deliberation room to decide the fate of the young boy. All evidence is against the boy and a guilty verdict would send him to die in the electric chair. The judge informs the jurors that they are faced with a grave decision and that the court would not entertain any acts of mercy for the boy if found guilty.Even before the deliberation talks begin it is apparent most of the men are certain the boy is guilty. However, when the initial poll is taken Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) registers a shocking not guilty vote; Immediately the room is in uproar. The rest of the jury resents the inconvenience of his decision. After questioning his sanity they hastily decide to humor the juror #8 (Henry Fonda) by agreeing to discuss the trial for one hour. Eventually, as the talks proceed juror #8 slowly undermines their confidence by saying that the murder weapon is widely available to anyone, and that the testimony of the key witness is suspect. Gradually they are won over by his arguments and even the most narrow minded of his fellow jurors hesitantly agrees with him. Their verdict is now a solid not guilty.Arriving at a unanimous not guilty verdict does not come easily. The jury encounters many difficulties in learning to communicate and deal with each other. What seems to be a decisive guilty verdict as deliberations begin slowly becomes a questionable not sure. Although the movie deals with issues relating to the process of effective communication this paper will focus of two reasons why they encounter difficulties and how they overcome them. First, we will apply the Johari grid theory and see how it applies to their situation. Then, we will see how each individuals frame of reference and prejudices effect their perception which cause difficulties in the communication process.If we analyze the Johari grid of each juror we see a large hidden area in the case of all of the men. Take into consideration, referred to by juror numbers only they do not even have the benefit of knowing their names. These men have never talked before. Each of them come from different situations with individual and unique experiences. The public area consists solely of the shared information provided during the trial. Their hidden area is immense resulting in an equally large blind area. The public, hidden and blind areas are relatively the same for each juror before beginning the deliberation. It is the size of the unconscious area that will differ more among the men. We will see how the contents of the unconscious area will largely effect the decision making process of some of the jurors. Because the information contained in the unconscious area is unrecognized it is often the most difficult to overcome.Henry Fondas (Juror #8) interpersonal style would be classified as open-receptive. He levels with the others by openly admittingthat he does not know if the boy killed his father and solicits feedback in order to make an accurate decision. He says I just dont think we should send a boy off to die without at least talking about it first. The example he set encourages the others to level and be open to receive feedback. The movie illustrates the process of leveling and soliciting feedback which can make all the difference.The character with the largest hidden window is the boy on trial. Realizing this, Henry Fonda (Juror #8) tries to put himself in the boys shoes to gain a better understanding of his situation. The poor boy has been beaten on the head once a day every day since he was five years old! and I think if I were the boy Id get myself a better lawyer He didnt stand a chance in there. In this case one can only speculate as to the contents of the boys hidden area. The important factor is his desire to comprehend the boys feelings.One man in particular, Juror #3 (Lee J. Cobb) has a sizable unconscious area. He has a troubled relationship with his own son that preoccupies his thoughts. This is alluded to in a conversation between juror #7 (Jack Warden)and himself. Looking at a picture of him and his son he says havent seen him in two years, kids, you work your heart out then he abruptly stops. The broken relationship with his son preoccupies his thoughts as several times throughout the movie he is found staring at the picture. His interpersonal style would be classified as a blabbermouth. He is neither open or receptive. He has his opinion and loves to share it. The net result is a large blind area. He is unwilling or unable to level with the others and is also unreceptive to any feedback. Most likely the extent of these feelings and the effect it has on his perceptions is unconscious to him. Eventually, he finds himself the only one maintaining a vote of guilty. He feels his sense of reality is in question and it threatens him. This puts him on the defensive. He bursts, accusing the others of being crazy. This emotional eruption changes from bitter anger to sad understanding. His defenses start to crumble as his unconscious emotions become visible to him. By recognizing his unconscious emotions, essentially what he has done is level with himself. Once he did this he realized the anger and frustration with regards to his son has been misdirected toward the accused. With a new understanding of himself he is able to change his vote to not guilty.Another issue dealt with in the movie is prejudice. Prejudice is defined as premature judgment or bias. In a trial situation Jurors are asked to only consider the evidence presented to them. Individual biases are not expected to effect the decision making process. Unfortunately, leaving our prejudices outside the court room door is near impossible. As the movie demonstrates prejudice can distort our views and greatly effects our ability to make accurate assessments.Strong prejudice is displayed by Juror #10 (Ed Begley) as he bursts into a rage while referring to people from the ghetto, Look you know these people lie, its born in themthey dont need any real reason to kill someonethey get drunk all the time, all of them, and bang! someones lying in the gutternobodys blaming them, for thats their nature, violent he even goes on by saying their no good, not a one of thems anygood. It is doubtful Ed Begley could see past his prejudice in order to hear the evidence in the trial. His guilty vote is cast as soon as he learns about the boys disadvantaged life in the slums. While most of the men are aware of the stigma attached to people from the ghetto they are willing to try to put the stereotype aside. His outburst has caused quite a disturbance in the room. This disturbance serves two purposes. First, it provides the not guilty defenders with an understanding that his prejudice is the reason for his opposition. It is always easier to overcome an objection if you know what it is. Having this knowledge allows for a more productive communication, thereby convincing him that he should change his vote. Secondly, it allows him to vent hisfrustrations. In doing so, he realizes the power of his emotions which forces him to step back and take a look at what he really feels. The look on his face shows he has a realization. For the first time he understands his prejudices have effected his perceptions. This new understanding of himself enables him to think more clearly and objectively.It is interesting that the most damning evidence is the testimony provided by an eyewitness to the murder who is also a member of the boys slum community. Yet the boy, a product of the same community is an assumed liar. Henry Fonda (Juror #8) points out the double standard to the others when he says shes on of them too? Juror #5 (Jack Klugman) responds to the negative comments by informing them that he too is from the ghetto. Listen he says Ive lived in a slum all my life, Ive played in back yards that were filled with garbage, maybe you can still smell it on me. Another gentlemen tells him lets not be so sensitive, he didnt mean you. Pointing out these double standards undermine the confidence of the jurors whos votes stemmed from pre judging.Every man has the right to a fair trial, most would love the right to this jury. As the movie closes the not guilty verdict is handed down. It is not known if the boy is guilty or innocent, that will forever remain in his hidden area. Henry Fonda (Juror #8) entered the trial with an open mind, he managed to convince the others to do the same. The movie illustrates that everything is not what it appears to be. Being aware of this is the first step to better understanding.