Besides being a gripping, triumphant story told in a unique way 12 Angry Men is in many ways a tale of a Devil’s Advocate and how his leadership allows the jury of which he is a member to open themselves to new information, perspectives, and possibilities. Juror 8 is subtly implied to be the “good guy” by his dress; the only pure white suit among a dozen modes of dress, and initial script blocking; going straight to the window, the only initial source of light in the room and almost wistfully gazing out at the sky to the point of distraction. From the outset, he is portrayed almost as an Angel’s Advocate among devils.
He then proceeds to voice the only dissenting opinion and to explore it rigorously enough to allow all the other jurors to …show more content…
Near the end of deliberations, the true extent of his racism, to which there have been subtle allusions throughout, becomes clear. In an impassioned speech, Juror 10 fumes and raves about “these people” who simply haven’t the innate moral capacity to comprehend certain things. But one by one most of the jurors, unable to bear their proximity to his vitriol stand and turn or move away from him in a silent show of disgust. They allow Juror 10 to confront his own prejudice in a corner. This simple group action is one of the best responses to the kind of bigotry shown by Juror 10 that have ever seen. Even so, it is not the most heroic act performed in this …show more content…
When he threatens to hang the jury his emotions finally begin to boil over. Through introspection he finds himself uncomfortably faced with his own emotional trauma over the state of his relationship with his son. Most, even if capable of reaching this point, would likely leave it there but Juror 3 ventures deeper into his own anguish and finds his bias, where again many would simply stop. Instead he is able to look beyond it, see how it has blinded him, put it aside, and vote not guilty. Without this difficult and painful effort the jury would likely have been hung, a retrial called, and the defendant executed. The boys fate lay in the hand of Juror 3 who instead of taking the easy option journeyed to painful places inside himself and saved the boy 's
He then proceeds to voice the only dissenting opinion and to explore it rigorously enough to allow all the other jurors to …show more content…
Near the end of deliberations, the true extent of his racism, to which there have been subtle allusions throughout, becomes clear. In an impassioned speech, Juror 10 fumes and raves about “these people” who simply haven’t the innate moral capacity to comprehend certain things. But one by one most of the jurors, unable to bear their proximity to his vitriol stand and turn or move away from him in a silent show of disgust. They allow Juror 10 to confront his own prejudice in a corner. This simple group action is one of the best responses to the kind of bigotry shown by Juror 10 that have ever seen. Even so, it is not the most heroic act performed in this …show more content…
When he threatens to hang the jury his emotions finally begin to boil over. Through introspection he finds himself uncomfortably faced with his own emotional trauma over the state of his relationship with his son. Most, even if capable of reaching this point, would likely leave it there but Juror 3 ventures deeper into his own anguish and finds his bias, where again many would simply stop. Instead he is able to look beyond it, see how it has blinded him, put it aside, and vote not guilty. Without this difficult and painful effort the jury would likely have been hung, a retrial called, and the defendant executed. The boys fate lay in the hand of Juror 3 who instead of taking the easy option journeyed to painful places inside himself and saved the boy 's