12 Angry Men Movie Critique
The film 12 Angry Men produced by Reginald Rose and Henry Fonda portrays the human characteristics of people in today's society. The twelve jurors were not named in the film but their distinct personalities were demonstrated so well that it made them identifiable throughout the film. The first time I watched the film I got caught up in the main story line as I typically do when watching any movie. I tuned in to the details of the evidence and the case presented and sat on edge waiting to hear the final verdict. The second time I watched it I gained more insight on the characters different personalities that set them apart from the others and I was able to view it through a more social-psychological perspective. I also found myself relating the characters personalities to my own and to my friends and family.
In my opinion, the personalities were as follows: Juror #1 was the dictator type; he was the foreman and wanted to be organized and be the leader. Juror #2 was the shy guy that wanted to be liked by all the others. Juror #3 was the angriest of all the jurors and had personal prejudice against the defendant because he had an argument with his own son. Juror #4 was confident and educated. He was not easily persuaded. Juror #5 was the guy that was offended when the defendant was referred to as "slum". He seemed to let his own insecurities dictate his judgment. Juror #6 was the average guy of the group. Juror #7 was the baseball fanatic and wanted to come to an agreement just so he could catch the game in time. Juror #8 was the optimistic one of the group. Juror #9 was the older gentleman that made his presence known as the senior of the group therefore having a little more wisdom. Juror #10 was also angry throughout the movie and had allergies. Juror #11 was the minority of the group being that he was Puerto Rican or Hispanic. Juror #12 was the intellectual businessman.
In the beginning of the film I observed the twelve jurors...
View Full Essay