The movie portrays the Twelve men’s desire for justice in the process of trial for murder. Movie concerns are not related to the American criminal justice system or the abstract concept of justice at all however the overall idea of the concept is justice itself. The gestures shown in the jury room suggest that they are not having any hard feelings once they head back into the world. personal issues and conflicts arose soon which eventually derailed the delicate process that was supposed to decide the fate of one boy. Jury three finally loses their temper and bursts into tears after tearing up the picture of his son and himself and changes his vote to not guilty also making his vote unanimous. 11 men at the end were in sync with each other with a similar guilty vote however Juror 8 votes “not guilty” and did not wanted to sentence a boy to death without discussing it. Juror 3 specifically wanted the boy to be guilty as his own son hasn’t spoken to him for almost 3 years as once when his son walked out of the fight of these ‘rotten kids’ he blamed him to be a man. Juror 8 was considered to be the hero as he had enough courage to stand up for the innocent 18-year-old boy and was successful in proving himself right in the end saving the 18-year-old from going to jail. Juror 5 was also convinced that the boy hasn’t stabbed his father because he was an experienced knife fighter and from the angle of the wound it can clearly be said that it wasn’t the boy who stabbed his father. 12 Angry Men follows various techniques of consensus building and the difficulty in deciding the guilty person adds up to the intensity of the movie.
|12 Angry Men