Twelve Angry Men Questions From the Film

Twelve Angry Men

Questions from the Film

The character with the most effective critical thinking skills was Juror #8. Clearly #8 is the most thoughtful and analytical of all the jurors. He may have been the most progressive politically as well. He is hero in the movie and he may have been an open-minded person prior to the trial; that is, he may have come from a home that was not racist (the 1950s were the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement and bigots in the South were attacking demonstrations so race was in the news). Number 8 is a critical thinker because instead of going along with the crowd on the first vote, he deviates from what everyone else has already decided. He has thought these issues over critically (examining witness testimony very carefully) and has decided that there was no hurry to rush to judgment. Number 8 also has a strong enough personality -- and he certainly is blessed with intelligence -- which are the key to being able to think critically. Number 8 notes that the old man (who provided testimony as a witness testified that he saw the defendant running from the building had gone through a stroke; #8 critical questions that testimony and wonders out loud just how could that stroke victim have walked that fast? #8 also mentions that an elevated train was passing through during the time of the murder and there were other questionable circumstances.

TWO: Juror #10 is not only a bigot and a big mouth kind of guy, but also he is not a character who would do any critical thinking about this case. Critical thinking? #10 doesn't do any thinking at all because his mind is made up from the start. At one point #10 goes into a wild raging rant, expressing his racist views (although the audience doesn't really know the ethnicity of the defendant) and insisting that "these people" cannot be trusted. "These people" that he refers to are people who live in slums; #10 calls them animals and insists that they love killing one another for fun. At one point he shouts "Listen to me. Listen…" and juror #4 says in response, "I have. Now sit down and don't open your mouth again."

THREE: There are definite barriers that keep the jurors from thinking critically about this trial and the guilt or innocence of the defendant. For #9, it might be that he is quite old and isn't as alert intellectually as he once was. He is a nice man but quite old and nearing the age when life is getting away from him. Juror #5 is perhaps kept from thinking critically about this case because for one reason he is young and naive. He seems a bit intimidated by the older more mature men in his presence. Juror #2 is a seemingly shallow and weak man who struggles to express any strong opinions of his own. He is a milquetoast; his opinion is likely to be whatever the last person said. Juror #3 is opinioned, loud, and can't stand anyone's opinion but his own. He loses his temper right away. An example of losing his temper is when others disagree with him; it turns out he has a very bad relationship with his son. #4 is a stock broker and plays the role of the rational one (holding on to his view nearly to the end); he doesn't want to think critically because he is sure, in his calm way, the defendant is guilty. Juror #1 is the foreman and he tries to be neutral, which is not how you think critically. #12 just wants to get it over with; he's arrogant and in a hurry to return to his social life. #7 is a bully who didn't want to be there in the first place. #11 is self-conscious about his foreign accent and defers to others rather than thinking critically. #6 is simple and called "an honest but dull-witted man."