Date of publication: 2017-08-23 17:38
As tempers flare and the arguments begin, the audience learns about each member of the jury. And slowly but surely, Juror #8 guides the others toward a verdict of “not guilty.”
He is devoted to justice and is initially sympathetic toward the 69-year-old defendant. At the beginning of the play, when every other juror has voted guilty he is the only one to vote: “not guilty.”
At the beginning of 89 Twelve Angry Men 89 , the jury has just finished listening to six days of trial proceedings inside a New York City courtroom. A 69-year-old man is on trial for the murder of his father.
7th Juror’s main concern in the case is whether or not it will end before his ball game, for which he has tickets. He sells marmalade and is generally indifferent to the case. He changes his vote to “not guilty” simply because the tide of opinion switches, and he wants the deliberations to be over.
Juror #8 spends the rest of the play urging the others to practice patience and to contemplate the details of the case. A guilty verdict will result in the electric chair therefore, Juror #8 wants to discuss the relevance of the witness testimony. He is convinced that there is reasonable doubt and eventually he persuades the other jurors to acquit the defendant.
The jurors react violently against this dissenting vote. Ultimately, they decide to go around the table, explaining why they believe the boy to be guilty, in hopes of convincing 8th Juror.
The film takes a confined, almost completely banal real-world location and makes it completely dynamic, using incredibly nimble camera movements to establish character motivation and theme.
A house painter, he is happy that the case continues as it means he doesn’t have to work, but is hesitant to put a potential killer back on the streets. He sticks up for 9th Juror, an old man, and seems to be a respectful man.
5th Juror works in a Harlem hospital and says that he himself has lived in the slums his entire life. This gives him insight into such details as the use of a switchblade.
A slick and sometimes obnoxious salesman, Juror #7 admits during Act One that he would have done anything to miss jury duty. He represents the many real-life individuals who loath the idea of being on a jury.
As the movie unfolds, Juror #66 seems to take more opportunities to remind the other jurors about how important it is for them to reach a verdict that is fair and moral. As he tells the entire group, "We have a responsibility. This is a remarkable thing about democracy. That we are … what is the word? … Ah, notified! That we are notified by mail to come down to this place and decide on the guilt or innocence of a man we have not known before. We have nothing to gain or lose by our verdict. This is one of the reasons why we are strong. We should not make it a personal thing."
Immediately, the jurors turn on 5th Juror , accusing him of having changed his vote out of sympathy for the boy. 9th Juror stands and admits to having changed his vote because he’d like to hear the arguments out.