Adapted from the play of the same name by Reginald Rose, Sydney Lumets 12

Angry Men is a fascinating study of interplay between characters coming from

diverse backgrounds, the prejudices held and the biases discovered; the
communication gaps created therein and the art, science and skill involved to
overcome them by a persistent, persuasive and dedicated man.
There is one undercurrent to all those voting not guilty based largely on
circumstantial evidence is that they are unwilling to question their assumptions. In
real life, such kind of communication tend to be uninspiring, monotonous and
routine and hence have a short shelf-life and dont leave an impression.
A brief description of the
Juror No
1

Juror No
2

Juror No
3

Juror No
4

Foreman. Though he is methodical and displays some

traits of leadership, he is impatient and is not very
good at resolution of conflicts. He gets aggressive
needlessly while in a confrontation with Juror 10 and
then withdraws from the group for a while. Lacks the
objectivity that should be in a leader.
He is plain dumb and is incapable to forming an
opinion on his own. Either he has no analytical ability
or is not sufficiently articulate. He is like a wallflower
looking for an opportunity to bloom but a bully like
Juror no 3 sitting next to him isnt helping his case at
all. Most of the times he is heard speaking is when he
is talking one on one with another person and is
mostly reticent in the group. His shell is his barriercommunication or otherwise.
Lack of interest in the process of the case as he admits
he fell asleep and makes a prejudiced comment at the
start which should have been a precursor for the rest.
Self-denial as he says he has no personal feelings
about this case. Lack of self-awareness. Meticulous as
he is only one with the written records.
He is generally biased and jumps to conclusions
without sufficient evidence as shown by him accusing
the Juror no 5 of changing the votes. He also behaves
in a smug manner void of respect for others which
might come from the fact that he has been part of
many a juries and probably considers himself a
veteran at it. Is inconsistent with the reasoning at
multiple points which betray the presence of a ulterior
agenda which he is not doing a great job of hiding.
Serious person. Not friendly. Refuses the card of Juror
3. Lacks EQ. He displays a startling lack of empathy.
He is often sarcastic and has tart remarks to make
which may not often go down well. A lot of analytical
people like him have to tendency to have overbearing

Juror No
5

Juror No
6

Juror No
7

Juror No
9

Juror No
10

faith in their own analysis, logic and conclusions that

they become blind and unreceptive to any arguments
beyond that. This juror is probably an example of that.
He is also impatient with the old man when he starts
making an argument about how the lady witness
might be in the habit of wearing prescription glasses.
Eager to make an impression as he walks up to the
Juror no 10 to make small talk. He doesnt give a
reason why he voted not guilty. He probably is letting
his background cloud his judgment prowess. Also
because of his background, he has an inferiority
complex and he is eager to show that he is not letting
his background influence his judgment.
Easy to take sides. Refusal to push outside of his
comfort zone. He doesnt have a middle ground and
will struggle in diplomatic settings. Either he is docile
and going with the flow or he is threatening when the
Juror no 3 insults Juror no 9 in a scene. He also comes
across somewhat patronizing in the way he talks to the
old man and some people can take offence to that.
Interested in superficial things like weather, fan, and
sports tickets. Lack of priority. Also he displays a kind
of herd behavior as in he pulls back one who wants to
differ. Makes plenty of strawman arguments and ad
hominem attacks which will be considered boorish in a
formal setup. Out of context extrapolations.
He is an obvious sports lover and even all his
metaphors come from sports. This can be a major
barrier if the other person is not a sports lover and
thus is not on the same page. It is evident in a scene
between him and Juror no 2 around the beginning of
the film.
Lacks conviction.
He is not very sure of himself to start with. Hesitantly
raises his hand as he sees everyone in front voting for
guilty (jury no 8 sat behind him)
Need a crutch to place his conviction on. As soon he
finds one in the form of Henry Fonda, he is willing to
stand up or lean over.
He probably has problems asserting himself and is
likely to be ridden roughshod by a very aggressive
person.
Impatient and lacks respect for others as is evident
from his outburst against the foreman.
Obviously racist and classist.
He has a tendency to lose temper and start yelling.

Juror No
11

Juror No
12

Juror No
8

He is probably an immigrant and even though he is

better at grammar than some of the guys in the group,
he has a pronounced accent and seems somewhat
foreign in the group. Though it is an unfortunate
situation to be in, it can be often observed in practical
life. He also has a tendency to ramble a bi t which
might make the audience lose focus and interest. A
precise and concise approach will help
Inability to dig deep. Thinks prosecution attorney did a
stellar job. Not focused at the task in hand as he keeps
wandering off to doodle or talk about his ad agency.
Lacks conviction, is not cut out for the job as is evident
from him changing his vote on three separate
occasions.
Thoughtful, contemplative. He is the only one who is
thinking about the job at the hand at the start of the
movie when the attitude of the rest of the group can
only be described as borderline flippant at best.
Is firm but doesnt get into confrontations even when
baited into one but he is quick to jump into action
when he sees people playing some game instead of
discussing the case.
Benefit of doubt.
He has no authority over the others when the film
starts beyond what he seemingly vests in himself via
logical thinking and the presence of a reasonable
doubt. This shows that you dont need a formal title to
assume the mantle of leadership.
Humility He never gets into confrontations.
He hardly indulges in small talk and there is a
stubborn refusal to talk about anything other than the
task at hand i.e the case.
Logical deductions. It is pretty tough to argue against
logic even if you have biases.
He keeps arguing different points but his focus never
wavers away from the central point that he wants to
prove that there is a presence of reasonable doubt.
Demonstration like the diagram of the apartment.
He is able to make precise points which make more of
a dent as compared to some others who tend to drag a
bit.
He is compassionate and shows empathy when he is
the only one staying back after everything is over
offering the Juror 3 his coat.