We know from earlier in the movie that this guy has it in for the defendant because he 3 has issues with kids not respecting their fathers. 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.
At this point, a few of the last remaining Guilty jurors give up and change their verdicts. He is the fifth to vote "not guilty"; played by John Fiedler.
Cobbwho blatantly accuses Juror 5 Jack Klugman who had grown up in a slum of switching out of sympathy toward slum children. All evidence is against the boy and a guilty verdict would send him to die in the electric chair. By recognizing his unconscious emotions, essentially what he has done is level with himself.
The ballot is held and a new "not guilty" vote appears. The main antagonist and most passionate advocate of a guilty verdict throughout the film, due to having a poor relationship with his own son.
We will see how the contents of the unconscious area will largely affect the decision making process of some of the jurors. Juror 12 then reverts his vote, making the vote 8—4. Other jurors, most notable Juror 1, confirm that they saw the same thing.
Cast[ edit ] The twelve jurors are referred to — and seated — in the order below: 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. Secondly, it allows him to vent his frustrations.
It is not known if the boy is guilty or innocent, that will forever remain in his hidden area. It is the size of the unconscious area that will differ more among the men.
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 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.
This is alluded to in a conversation between juror 7 Jack Warden and himself. With a new understanding of himself he is able to change his vote to not guilty. 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.
If there is any reasonable doubt of his guilt they are to return a verdict of not guilty. Juror 8 concludes that, judging from what he claims to have heard earlier, the witness must have merely assumed it was the defendant running.
But one holds out for a Not Guilty verdict. If found guilty, the boy will receive a death sentence. Juror 8 tests how well Juror 4 remembers previous days, which he does, with difficulty.
Their verdict is now a solid not guilty. A European watchmaker and naturalized American citizen who demonstrates strong patriotism.
Synopsis In a New York City courthouse, an eighteen-year-old boy from a slum is on trial for allegedly stabbing his father to death. 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.
After he points this out, Juror 12 changes his vote back to "guilty", making the vote You know what I mean? 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 on her own evidence the attack happened so swiftly that she would not have had time to put them on.
He is neither open or receptive. His vote annoys the other jurors, especially Juror 7 Jack Wardenwho has tickets to a baseball game that evening; and Juror 10 Ed Begley Sr. And that someone is the kid on trial.
Rather, someone that much shorter than his opponent would stab underhanded at an upwards angle. The broken relationship with his son preoccupies his thoughts at several times throughout the movie; he is found staring at the picture.
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. 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.
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. He has his opinion and loves to share it.AFI also named 12 Angry Men the 42nd most inspiring film, the 88th most heart-pounding film and the 87th best film of the past hundred years.
The film was also nominated for the movies list in In depth analysis compared with research on actual jury behaviour. Analysis of The film 12 Angry Men Jason Lovett MBA Richard Devos School of Business Management Northwood University Executive Summary The Movie "Twelve Angry Men" is the ultimate example of a group of people forced to interact in order to reach a single, defined goal.
12 Angry Men Questions and Answers. The Question and Answer section for 12 Angry Men is a great resource to ask questions, find answers, and discuss the novel. Complete plot summary of 12 Angry Men, written by specialists and reviewed by film experts. Skip to navigation; Skip to content Movies / 12 Angry Men / Brief Summary ; We enter a courthouse and see twelve men sitting in a jury box.
The judge gives them instructions to reach a ruling on a trial for first-degree murder. 12 Angry Men Film Analysis 25 October Film Analysis The film, 12 Angry Men (), is a drama about a jury that was to decide the fate of a teenaged boy who was facing the electric chair for supposedly killing his father with a switchblade knife.
12 Angry Men Analysis 12 Angry Men is a movie, directed by Sidney Lumet, about twelve jurors who are deliberating a murder trial. An 18 year old has been accused of murdering his father and the jury has retired to determine his fate.Download