There was a logical loophole and method bias in the persuasion process of juror number 8. Asking someone what they had for dinner the day before yesterday or last week, about 99% may get the answer “can’t remember”. However, if you look up the name of the movie the day before yesterday or last week, there may be 99% of the possible answers. Well, between forgetting a dinner and the name of the movie, obviously they cannot be equivalent, and it can prove that the boy forgetting movie’s name is normal. In persuading the last person, juror number 8 found out the “psychological motives” of the father and son’s bad relationship, and pointed out that “you are the last person”, providing both the reason for persuasion and the other party. Mental stress was exerted. Is this way of persuasion correct? Why use one person to convince another person? Is it to seek objective truth, but also just to prove his point of view?

Finally, judging from the order in which all the people were turned, the first thing that was reversed was the grassroots, followed by middle class, and finally the rich. This arrangement was meaningful and I think the writer intended it. In the one-person-one-vote rule, the differences in the class were eliminated, and people who rarely had the right to speak had a veto power. Everyone who chooses to “do something I can do” often chooses to exercise power. Does this power bring about the desire and temptation to show power and thus influence their own objective judgment? In fairness, the evidence chain of the case is not complete and it is taken for granted. However, the decision of the people is actually not related to the truth. This is why everyone is looking dazed out of the court. Because everyone understands that they may not have made the right choice, whether or not the teenager has killed anyone. However, everyone who had originally voted for guilt turned from a careless and reckless mindset to a solemn one. He thought hard about making a judgment of “truth,” quarreled intensely, and tangled his heart, at least he thought there was “reasonable doubt”.

Even in the United States, where the independence of the judiciary is concerned, the rules of law alone cannot guarantee that the truth must have appeared, but it gives people equal rights and opportunities for “reasonable suspicion.” I think that the main meaning of this movie is not to tell a story of justice, nor is it a hymn to the American judicial system, but to convey to everyone the spirit of “should take seriously their own power”. Everyone carries heavy weight with the decisions they made – and people need to remember that.

Before watching the 12 Angry Men, I have watched lawyer drama such as Suits, but it was entirely different. My exposure to the film was actually on a plane back from China to New York in 2016 with the Chinese remake of the movie called 12 Citizen.

At first I was very impressed with the plot and the pacing of the Chinese film as it tackles a very nuanced and interesting topic for me. In hindsight, even though the two films are very similar, I would like to compare the two together as they are the same plot but portrayed in different cultures in different time periods.

The Chinese film greatly incorporates scenes and social structure that is rooted in Chinese culture. From peasant character to the scholar character that are from old Chinese operas and TV troupes. Much like the person from the “hood” that knows how to use a knife in the American version, both movies are depicted in their cultures which helps them to better relate to the viewers as well as giving it some much needed flare. In addition, the premise of the 12 Citizen is of a college law student class trial rather than an actual trial, which made me feel like there is much less at risk. There never truly felt like an urgency of a real boy will perhaps be executed, which was a rather big let down for me in the Chinese movie.

Lastly, the Chinese film gave visual representations of the “old man” and the “woman across the street” which did give a more clear picture of the overall context. As I was younger when I watched 12 Citizen, in retrospect it was nice. However, the pure oral context which all 12 of these angry men were arguing over, truly gives a jury meeting feeling and made me pay attention to every single word.  The mental image is very vivid from each character’s physical and oral actions. I really enjoyed watching the film, and it was nice to finally see the original classic.

Last weekend I saw 12 Angry Men screened in Rose House. I was not expecting the movie to be in black and white, and was initially surprised by its age. (I suppose I should have read the flyer more closely.) Nevertheless, I genuinely enjoyed the film. It isn’t often that we see movies anymore that are filmed almost entirely in one room, and the lack of scenery changes really allows the viewer to hone in on the characters themselves without focusing on extrenuous details. I think that this element of the film in particular highlighted the ways in which it functioned as an examination of humanity itself. It’s almost as if we are watching these men in some kind of social experiment, that’s the feeling that the movie gives. It adds a really interesting dimension to the viewership.

Additionally, the film examines the biases and external factors which impact the outcome of court decisions. I specifically liked how the film did not show any of the case in question, and we are forced to determine what happened and form our own opinions on the basis of what the jurors themselves convey, just as we must often do when consuming media, etc. today. One of the most interesting elements of this is that the defendant is never explicitly said to be a person of color, yet it is known by viewers that he is. The bias that exists is so potent, and that is very interesting to witness in this film when it is so specifically divorced from the target of that prejudice. Thinking about modern legal issues, this kind of bias clearly persists today. Overall, the film itself was quite entertaining and remains strikingly relevant despite its age.

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.

Last Saturday, I had the opportunity to watch 12 Angry Men, a film that I hadn’t seen before. The film was fantastic. It may not have included the fascinating characters and enticing special effects that (to some) equate to entertainment in the modern day, but rather depicted an interesting plot interwove with powerful themes. The general plot of the film follows this notion: an assortment of jurors in a courthouse are deliberating the murder trial of a teenage boy, from the slums, who allegedly killed his father. The bulk of the film surrounds the various deliberations the jurors face in making a final verdict. At first, there is only one juror, Juror 8, who votes “not guilty” while the remaining jurors all vote “guilty”. This initial vote of not guilty is enough to start a cascade of thought provoking discussions and arguments. Amongst these deliberations, I found fascinating the social and cultural themes that were alluded to in the film. For many of the initial jurors who voted “not guilty”, we can see inherent biases that are presented in the ways they present their arguments. We see one juror repeatedly stereotype of a teen from the “slums” —  as individuals who are violent and vile and comprise a lower echelon of society — to support the notion that he must’ve been guilty of the crime. Juror 8, the initial juror who had voted not guilty, points out several instances in which the other jurors depicted inherent bias and ignorance, often in their refusal to acknowledge alternative possibilities and theories as to what actually happened. Interestingly, some critics of the film believe the courtroom drama to be too infused with social and cultural ideals — to some extent, they believe the film is an inaccurate representation of what a real-life jury proceeds like, especially when referring to situations such as Juror 8 bringing outside research into the case deliberation (which is prohibited), and to the many wide assumptions & inferences the jury makes beyond the scope of reasonable doubt (such as the nose depressions on the women wearing glasses).

I remember vaguely reading Twelve Angry Men as an eighth grader. Despite not fully enjoying my teacher at the time, as I think back, I realize that I actually really enjoyed and appreciate what we read that year, like Macbeth and To Kill a Mockingbird, and much more so than any of my high school English classes. I can’t remember exactly how we read Twelve Angry Men. It could have been out loud or maybe just at home, but I do remember liking the story. I couldn’t tell you off the top of my head exactly what happened, but I did remember the story had to do with a room of jurors eventually changing their mind and I remembered something about how a knife was held.

After not thinking about this for the past several years, I was curious to see if the story I vaguely remembered enjoying would hold up in film form. I think it definitely did. While it would have been helpful in a couple of parts to have subtitles, I think one of the best things about how it’s written is the fact that it’s a simple story that makes sense. While it does jump around a little bit in the description of what happened and how things are presented, but the explanation of the case is laid out for the audience, and a more detailed picture is built over the hour-and-a-half-long film.

One thing I noticed during the film was that no one was ever given a name. We didn’t know the name of the victim, the boy, either witness, or any of the jurors. But the story still works. Another thing I thought was curious during the film was that there was also a women’s bathroom in the jury deliberation room. There’s little setup to the plot, so we don’t know why this jury happens to be all men, but it did make me think. If the only juror who initially voted not guilty was a female in that room of headstrong men, would the same result have been reached? Would she feel as confident as to stand her ground and not be dismissed for being female? Does this happen in modern day cases?

The last time I was in a courthouse, I think it was again in eighth grade, on a civics field trip. We briefly heard a bit of a medical malpractice case, but I think that’s my only in-person experience of a trial. I’ve seen my fair share of TV lawyers and TV judges, but haven’t really been part of the process. That’s not to say I’m not interested. As long as it’s not terribly timed, I think I would really enjoy the experience of serving on a jury.

That being said, after the film ended, there was a little bit of a discussion about jury duty. I’ve never been summoned myself, I believe my dad has been, a couple of times now. I’m not sure if he was ever chosen to actually serve on a jury, but I do think it’s interesting that you could be dismissed for any number of reasons. I like the idea of trial by a jury of your peers, but I also think it can be really flawed. In this story, in particular, if the one juror who had a little bit of doubt was not in the room, an eighteen year-old would have been placed on death row. If the same juror had failed to convince anyone else to agree with him, the eighteen year-old would have been placed on death row. If the public defender had been a little more diligent in creating a case to help his client, regardless of whether he thought he was guilty or not, maybe there would be a different outcome. This story clearly points out some of the issues in the court system, but without a better alternative, at least the system tries to be just.

Last week, when I was watching 12 Angry Men, I felt that I really resonated with the theme of the film. The theme of the movie was how effective communication leads a juror to convince an entire jury that a boy was innocent although he was clearly guilty. The movie aimed to portray no matter how strict certain people seem in their beliefs, with solid communication skills and understanding, people can effectively convince other people of the opposite side to sway from their opinions. This got me thinking the degree to which perhaps jurors wrongfully commit innocent people due to effective communication which can lead to very negative consequences. This makes me question the degree of power we give to jurors and whether they should be moderators to evaluate the arguments being made inside the jury room.

Further, I believe that the way the juror dealt with conflicting opinions relates to a concept I learned in my dialogue class called LARA which stands for listening, affirming, responding, and adding extra information. The juror remained calm and made sure that he was actively listening to other people, and affirmed their beliefs which was important before he jumped in and responded and added extra information with his own content as it allowed him to establish his credibility and authority with the rest of the jury members before he gave his own beliefs. I believed that his ability to listen to other people, and receive input based on what he was saying was important as it allowed other people’s opinions to feel validated and often what happens when many people are conveying their opinions is that there is peace lost, and it becomes a matter of who can show they have more knowledge than the other. However, the discussion among the juror seemed to represent that of more of a dialogue rather than a debate in that there was the type of “equality” maintained in the conversation where although diverse beliefs were discussed, there was no sense of anyone trying to intentionally overpower each other.

I thought that having dialogues are more challenging than having discussions as it requires people to really actively listen and engage in understanding their perspectives before respond. Too often in debates, one person finishes talking and then the next person says their point without even acknowledging what the other person said because in debates it feels that everybody is just trying to get their point across without taking into consideration other people’s opinion. I believe on a broader level if we want to invoke change, it is important to work together with both sides to find solutions which are more often done in dialogues than in debates since people in dialogues really focus on understanding the person they are speaking with and then responding appropriately. I feel that many times it can be challenging to go from dialogue to debate especially since many times when we feel we have important content to say, we want to get it out instead of missing the opportunity to express our belief, but I value dialogues more because they focus on the end goal which is educating everybody involved about an issue and promote corresponding action.

This past Saturday I saw the film 12 Angry Men, for the Flora Rose House movie night. The film has a somewhat legendary status, being mentioned on countless greatest movie lists of all time. The movie follows a very simple premise, it is just twelve men in the deliberation room discussing the murder case they have been given. Juror number eight is the main character and opens the case up to serious discussion as everyone was ready to vote guilty on a whim except for him. The movie ends with juror number eight being able to convince everyone that there is reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case, and led the jury to vote not guilty. The movie was quite entertaining, which was surprising to me as I normally don’t like older movies such as this one. The movie does have some inconsistencies though.

Normally I would not be so inclined to notice and criticize certain dialog of a movie, but in a film that holds itself in such a morally upright position I believe it must be picked at. One of the main messages of the film is that profiling people is never good practice. This message is consistent in the film, but only when it fits juror number eight’s narrative. His entire argument is based upon that fact that the defendant is being profiled, and may not be the killer and is being prosecuted simply because it is the easy thing to do. Juror eight and others in the not guilty camp also employ this idea when attacking juror number two, who is biased against the defendant because of how his son has treated him in the past. These points are consistent with the message except they seem to lose this moral high ground when picking the witnesses’ lives apart. The most glaring issue is when juror number nine “picks apart” the witness who was an old man. He seems to know exactly who this old man is based on his appearance and how he walks, which is even more petty when compared to the things that were attacked above. They throw out this entire witness’s testimony based on this, believing he only said what he said to feel important for once in his life.

They also speculate as to why the defense lawyer didn’t perform a more rigorous cross examination of the witnesses, and just assumed he did want to be there and was not fully invested in the case. Maybe the defense lawyer knew the options were limited knowing his client did in fact kill his father. This led to the side of juror number eight bringing so much speculation into the deliberation when looking at the witness and defendant testimonials as a way of giving the kid a “fair” trial, feeling as if he had to do the defendant’s lawyer’s job. The message is only consistent when it fits juror number eight’s narrative, and with this being such a morally upright movie, left me disappointed and weakened the film’s message.

12 Angry Men was indeed a great film: both thought provoking and entertaining, it was not merely the mindless, explosion-packed thriller so common in Hollywood today.

That the whole movie took place virtually in a single room, without a change in setting, did not detract from the film, but further let me appreciate the skill of the acting and story, since the whole of the movie rested on that. The story arc did not focus inconsequential matters, but on the fairness and morality of the jury system, a fascinating topic to say the least.

As a member of the University Hearing and Review Boards here at Cornell, it was rather interesting to examine a movie such as this that deals almost directly with my duties on the Board. We are tasked with deliberating each case with an objective and fair eye, taking into account not just the whole picture but all the details and circumstances when reaching a decision. This movie reflected that very well: the arc of change from merely following the collective through groupthink to critically examining the evidence and arguments presented provided for some excellent materials to digest, and even influence my own rationale when reviewing cases.

This is an excellent movie. I would recommend it.

With pleasure on a Saturday afternoon, I watched movie “12 Angry Man”, “tells the story of a Jury made up of 12 men as they deliberate the guilt or acquittal of a defendant on the basis of reasonable doubt, forcing the jurors to question their morals and values. 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: out of 96 minutes of run time, only three minutes take place outside of the jury room.”(wikipedia:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Angry_Men_(1957_film))

I was moved by this movie, because it show me how people pursue the justice and truth through their endeavor. It encourages me bravely standing back minority people. I wanted to be a lawyer when I was in high school. Because In China, not every people have a clear understanding about their legal right, so a lawyer can help poor people gain the right they deserved. This movie rekindled my dream. I will try my best to realize my dream and help more people.

Last weekend, I got to watch 12 Angry Men for the first time! A black and white movie about 12 members of a jury in a single room for the full duration of the film discussing the outcome of a case might seem boring, but it definitely was not. Within that one room were 12 very well scripted characters with various personalities, all consistent throughout. The arguments, debates, and banter made between the jurors was extremely entertaining and at times, even if unintended, comedic which I thoroughly enjoyed. At one and a half hours long, the movie length was also perfect. It made for a very enjoyable time.

The points made about the case were logical and well thought out. It was also great that they highlighted the potential fallacies of eyewitness accounts as well as various other factors which could easily go unchecked. It really made me wonder how many outcomes of cases are falsely judged based on insufficient consideration. Often it is impossible to judge a case with one hundred percent confidence when there are so many facets to consider. In the end, the final decision is really just a guess based on the evidence given. This kind of uncertainty is frightening considering the possible outcomes at stake, such as a life sentence or death penalty. Overall, the film was excellent and I would highly recommend watching it! Since it’s an older film, it also easy to find on YouTube.

Last Saturday I attended Rose House’s showing of Twelve Angry Men. I am not a movie buff—so much so that it wouldn’t be entirely unfair to call me uncultured because of it. There are plenty of classic movies that I haven’t seen (Lord of the Rings, The Godfather, The Breakfast Club… the list goes on and on). I tend to be fidgety and impatient, and unless there’s someone else pushing me I don’t have any drive to sit down and watch a film on my own. I’ve made an effort this semester to attend the majority of Flora’s Friday Films for this very reason. Even so, Twelve Angry Men was a film I initially had zero desire to see. I mean, it was a black and white film made over sixty years ago—how “important” could it really be?

The only appropriate answer to that rhetorical question is “very.” Even despite its age, it still feels like an incredibly fresh take on the courtroom drama genre. The whole film takes place inside a single room. The viewers get none of the context of the trial, and are only revealed information in small pieces through the characters’ dialogue. This, in a sense, makes the viewer part of the jury; you are discovering different perspectives of the case along with the other jurors. This focus on storytelling through dialogue genuinely plays to the films strengths, and is what I believe makes it such a timeless film. This movie is not about grandiose special effects, or impressive cinematography. It’s about the story of a young man on trial for the murder of his father, and that’s what is most important.

Because of this, almost nothing about the film lost to time. Unlike other films, such as Blade Runner or IT, a remake of this movie with modern day technology would add almost nothing. This fact in and of itself is fascinating to me. With Hollywood’s current focus on larger-than-life action/superhero movies, I can’t help but wonder which films will stand out above the rest in sixty years time the same Twelve Angry Men does today.

One thing I found really fascinating in this proposed scenario on film was how easily most people in the room fell into a mob-mentality state when placed in a room with the others. While the outcome of the story resulted from one man who was persistent enough to cast doubt on the judgement of 11 other jurors, the prevailing attitude for at least the first half of the film was: if everyone else thinks so too, he must be guilty! Until the older man decided to support the not-guilty verdict and lend an ear to the reasons someone was unconvinced about a guilty verdict, the arguments for why this sole voice in opposition to the majority should change his vote were practically nonexistent. It’s possible that they all individually reached the same conclusion (after all, there were only two choices to vote for), yet to me,  this film was an interesting example of scenarios in which this phenomenon manifests itself. Maybe it’s a flaw in the system, or judicial process, for a verdict to be decided in this way. I don’t think it’s realistic to expect that if someone on a jury has an opposing decision, to the prevailing judgment of the others, they will be patient and outspoken enough to try and persuade an entire room of people against what they believe. Is it necessary to isolate the 12 men who decide a person’s fate from outside influence? Could allowing outside influence from the external environment (political or otherwise) provide more context or even offer differing perspectives to what should be considered? Is mob-mentality the reason juries are able to reach a unanimous decision instead of declaring that they are hung on the verdict? I think these are important factors to consider, especially if capital punishment is a potential consequence.

Maybe I’ll get some answers to these questions, or gain a better understanding, when (or if) I experience serving on a jury, first hand.

Previously seeing this movie in middle school, I initially thought that I had a pretty good grasping on the movie’s analysis, however, I was pleasantly surprised finding myself looking at the movie in a new way. One interesting aspect of the film is the setting. By having limited changes in scenery, one could easily hone in on each of the juror’s personalities, and by using their personalities, the audience is left to figure out the crime in question and whether or not the accused is truly guilty.

Finally, the idea that all it takes is one opinion to change others is explicit in this film. Initially, only one juror, Juror 8, votes “not guilty” while the remaining jurors all vote “guilty”. This initial vote of not guilty is enough to start a cascade of thought-provoking arguments that eventually lead to all jurors agreeing that the accused is “not guilty.”

This weekend I watched 12 Angry Men as a Rose event. I thought it was a good film about people’s prejudices while dealing with America’s justice system.  After the film, through our discussion, I learned that the actual process of choosing jurors is meant to weed out people who might have prejudices like the man in the film who was bent on putting the boy in jail due to his slum background. However, it is doubtful how much this process is successful. I think that in law it is almost impossible to make fully unbiased decisions in a case. While America tries to make it seem as if every case is held to the “without a reasonable doubt” mantra, I think it fails time and time again. For instance, the Trayvon Martin case to me seemed to come to a unsatisfying conclusion. I feel as if everyone doubted whether he was truly innocent. Just like in the film, there was a race factor in the court case.

I also think that the movie portrays how everyone wants to simply do what everyone else is doing, even if they truly don’t agree. Everyone was on the guilty side until it was no longer popular to be on that side. When more people were switching sides, then the guy who just wanted to go watch baseball decided to switch sides. It made me doubt whether they truly agreed with the innocent side or just were swayed by Davis’s charismatic explanation of the events of the case. I also thought the guy who turned everything into a joke demonstrated how not everyone takes these court cases seriously until it directly impacts their lives. I think this shows how Americans should not be obligated to serve jury duty. Not only does it disrupt people’s live, it makes people come to decisions that they have not fully thought out simply because they have not interest.

On Saturday, I watched 12 Angry Men, a 1957 courtroom drama film which depicts twelve men deliberating over whether they believe beyond a reasonable doubt that a boy murdered his father.  After a preliminary vote, one juror, Juror 8, who voted “not guilty,” stands in opposition against the eleven other jurors who voted “guilty.” The eleven were adamant that the case was an open-and-shut one: the boy clearly did it according to them.  Juror 8’s single opposing vote forces the other jurors to discuss the facts of the case, much to their chagrin.

Over the course of the film, the opinions of the other jurors slowly change as Juror 8 entertains the possibility that all the facts are not as clear-cut as they thought.  As the heated discussion ensues, the prejudices of some jurors are revealed. Since the defendant lives in the slums, they believe more strongly that he was guilty because of crime statistics and their preconceived notions about “those” children.  As some jurors were denigrating these children, Juror 5, who grew up in the slums, stands up for them and calls out the jurors’ prejudices.

When the jury first started deliberating, all except Juror 8 kept saying that the boy obviously was unequivocally guilty.  However, as the movie progresses, each testimony and exhibit is reexamined. For example, an elderly man claims to have heard the boy screaming when the alleged murder took place, while a woman’s testimony indicates that a loud elevated train sped by the apartment building as the murder was taking place.  The jury eventually realizes that it would be nearly impossible to distinguish a person’s voice over the sound of a train moving adjacent to the building’s windows.

Near the end of the movie, just one juror, Juror 3, stands in opposition to eleven others believing that the boy is innocent – the opposite of how the movie began.  He finally breaks down as he tears up a photo of his son with whom he has had a bad relationship. Juror 3 realizes that he was projecting his feelings about his son onto the defendant and changes his vote to “not guilty.”  

Overall, I enjoyed this movie, especially how it does not depict the trial, but instead the jury deliberation afterwards, where the viewer slowly learns the facts of the trial.  12 Angry Men shows the real possibility of wrongful convictions if there are no stalwart jurors like Juror 8 to challenge the other jurors.  The movie encourages all of us to examine the prevalence of prejudice in our society which leads to bias, while challenging us to rise above it.  

I can’t believe I had never seen this film before! It was quite the experience. You learn just about everything that goes on in a courtroom and how much the jury has a say in the verdict. One of the themes in the film that I thought was really interesting and still prevalent in our society, is racism. The facts that we as a society are so biased when it comes to skin color, says a lot about us. Even before we see the details of any particular case, one already assumes the type of crime that person may or may not have done. This film really got me thinking about how we as a community can become less biased because it will help us make campus much more welcoming.

I was so excited to watch 12 Angry Men in Rose House, as I have heard it was a classic. Throughout the movie, I was so surprised at the turn of events that led to the jury to all go from guilty to nonguilty through heated discussions.

As I discussed the film with the rest of the Rose Scholars we talked about the reason jurors exist, to have a wide array of beliefs and prejudices that could overall lead to an unbiased decision. I was glad that it was not only the decision of the juror who was clearly racist and wanted the boy to go to jail because of his background. This movie reminded me of the TV show series that followed the OJ Simpson case as they focused on the jurors and how they came up with the decision that Simson was not guilty. That show, as well as Angry Men, displayed the complexity of having so many cultures and beliefs in one case decision. I wonder if those jurors in both cases truly believed in the outcome of the case or were going with the popularity decision. I would not blame the jurors as it is easier to go along with what everyone thinks than be firm in a decision that can impact someone’s entire life. It is better to divide the guilt in the decision, that way the fate of the boy is not only on one juror to decide.

The movie was a fantastic show but it really made me think about if the “right” outcome is always chosen.

Earlier today I watched 12 Angry Men, and I now know why it’s such a highly rated movie. There’s way too much in the movie to write about in general, so I’d like to mention in specific the personalities of the characters.

I think this movie does an amazing job of displaying how people make and are invested in decisions. If psychology has taught us anything, its that people have a hard time deciding things based on “objective” facts: people are very attached to ideologies. In fact, proving someone wrong may make them dig in their heels (https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/12/vaccine-myth-busting-can-backfire/383700/

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds).

So it was particularly fascinating to watch the jurors slowly be convinced that the defendant was innocent. At least two of them were clearly prejudiced from prior experiences (one of them had a traumatic experience with his own son, and the other was just prejudiced against poor kids in general). Another seemed initially to be the most invested in his view, but quickly changed his mind when he saw the tide turning, more concerned about attending a baseball game than deliberating over a mans life. I saw facets of people I knew from high school, family members, old friends inside each one of these men. The brilliance of the film is that it could have been about anything: the fact that it was about a trial was almost irrelevant. What mattered was how people decided on their views, and how they handled being proven wrong.

The lesson I took away from this is to be constantly vigilant in talking with people and forming opinions. The amount of our beliefs that come from anything that could be called “objective” or a “fact” is much smaller than we would like to think. The stakes are rarely so high, but the phenomena arise just the same.

I want to preface this by saying that I found 12 Angry Men to be an excellent film. The rise and fall of the juror’s opinions was extremely carefully planned – each juror’s change of opinion was very carefully written and filmed. Each close shot perfectly set up the changes of opinion, and at no point did I find any of the decisions unbelievable. I was, halfway through, even expecting to find certain turns unbelievable, so that the turns felt so natural seems even more remarkable since I was looking for them to be otherwise. The movie is worth being regarded as one of the greats in my view. And, before I go on, because I think it’s relevant – I think the boy was not guilty.

This, however, leads me into what I found most interesting in the film – the character of Juror number 8. I am reminded of the standard Randian archetype in a hero – Strong willed, morally stalwart, calm, intelligent, attractive, male, white. An architect, just like Howard Roark from Fountainhead. Perhaps we can throw onto this list the concept of Ubermensch – “the ideal superior man of the future who could rise above conventional Christian morality to create and impose his own values” according to the Oxford Living Dictionary (Rand’s objectivism is not totally in line with Nietzsche’s nihilism, but I think that the anti-Christian, strong intellectual is a common hero to both). What strikes me here is the concept of the individual. Juror number 8 has his moral conviction (arguably justified) and sticks to it. We are meant to critique the other jurors for their stubbornness – look at how they rage at the calm, unwavering juror number 8. See them shout! Surely they are irrational, low-lives. They don’t have the stalwart sureness of juror number 8, and his dedication to the notion that the boy must be found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” or else found innocent. This is a principle I agree with – and I certainly think the writers intend for juror number 8 to be convicted of it to. But to my eye juror number 8, despite his claims to the contrary, strikes me as entirely convicted of the innocence, or at least entirely convicted of his own principles leading to the innocence (principles I do agree with). In this sense that the writers clearly want me to admire Juror number 8 is what turns me against him – each man in that room is equal in my view, except maybe the prejudiced man, but that’s for another time. I do not see Juror number 8 as somehow more clear headed – he leads his own personal crusade based on his own principles as much as any of the other stubborn jurors.

Juror number 8 parades onward, carefully, perhaps even (falsely?) humbly. He provides genuinely good evidence, though it’s hard for me to empathize since I find the other jurors far more sympathetic. There are very reasonable arguments for the guilt of the boy, and it’s perfectly understandable why the jurors believe he’s guilty. It’s convincing and satisfying testimony to his guilt – the details that provide substantial doubt to his innocence are subtle, and I fully sympathize for the other jurors for not noticing it. Particularly Juror number 3, the last juror to be turned. We see him as impassioned, rude, even violent, and we are meant to contrast him, I think, with the cool confidence of Juror number 8. Yet at the very end, as he stares at the photograph of his son, I have nothing but sympathy for his cause. I do not think he is right, but I understand his position completely. Cue the moment my distaste for Juror number 8 peaked; Juror number 3 is crying, admitting defeat and humiliation at the hands of Juror number 8. Juror number 8 serenely grabs him his coat, and touches him pitifully on the shoulder. I do not see this move as sympathetic – Juror number 8 surely knows he is the cause of this man’s grief in a lot of ways – if he understood that, truly, he would have just let Juror number 3 in peace. But instead he deepens Juror number 3’s humiliation, offering a “sympathetic” hand while cementing his and the audience’s view of his strength, calmness, and intellectual and moral stalwart-ness. My sympathy for Juror number 8 has left me at this point. I empathize with the other jurors far more, except maybe the prejudiced man, but at least he overcame to some small extent his prejudices. Juror number 3, in admitting defeat, has done something titanically difficult, and I have far more admiration for that than for Juror number 8’s convincing the others of his cause. Juror number 8 remained stalwart – or stubborn – until the end. The other Jurors were the ones who had to overcome true difficulty.

12 Angry Men does a good job of exploring issues in the court system from the 1950s that are still relevant today. From impatient or prejudiced jurors to unmotivated attorneys and false or misleading witness testimonies, there are many potential points of failure in a court case beyond the collection of evidence.

I had not previously considered that jury duty might include investigation and instead thought it was about a more passive absorption of arguments presented in court followed by a vote. While the characters in the film treated it that way at first, the situation quickly evolved into a full and thorough reexamination of all the evidence. I was a little confused before how juries could sometimes takes several hours to come to a decision, but this explains that.

I also noticed some phenomena in the film that remind me of my social psychology class. Throughout the film, the jurors’ judgements are clearly affected by those of others. In the first vote, two or three jurors clearly voted guilty after seeing that everyone else was, and the last holdout for a guilty verdict clearly felt pressure from being alone in that view. The jurors also exhibited confirmation bias when they did not notice the marks indicating that the woman witness wears glasses. Rather than looking for the disconfirming evidence calling her testimony into question, they focused on the presence of apparently confirming evidence that the defendant was guilty.

Overall, I enjoyed the film and I can see why it is so highly rated.