12 Angry Men was something I vaguely read about in High School so I was excited when I learned of the opportunity to watch this film. The film itself is well made and the differences between modern films and this film are stark and eye opening.

One interesting thing the film did was to refer to each juror as “Juror 1” or “Juror 2” or “Juror 3” and so forth. The lack of names evokes the idea that each juror is a fair and unbiased individual that is there simply to uphold the ideals and precedents set forth by the judicial system. However, we quickly realize that this is far from the truth. Instead of being compelled by the need for the truth and a verdict based on evidence, each juror is urged by his own prejudices and preconceived notions. In the court of law, this is a recipe for disaster. If this were the case, many previous rulings would yield different verdicts which could have led to a far different future.

Though it is important for juries to be as unbiased as possible, given the human psyche, I think it is impossible for a jury to only focus on the objective truth and nothing else. The film explores an extreme of this case and makes the viewing an enjoyable and thought provoking experience.