12 Angry Men
12 Angry men is about a group of men who are appointed as jury’s. They are put in a room until they could come up with a conclusion, on whether the boy who was convicted of murder is guilty or not.
Jury foremen #1 was seated at the head of the table. Portrayed as a good leader, and a thoughtful listener. When there is a quarrel between the men, he was the one who would break if off and advice them to settle down and talk about it like civil men. Was a football coach in his early years, and his team lost the championship game. He is very organized and also when needed to vote he would count the votes.
Juror #2 was a grandpa, and was new the whole jury idea. He never said ...view middle of the document...
But after everyone had voted not guilty, he took to heart and voted not guilty.
Juror#4 it seemed as if he was some kind of professor, very calm held himself very well and was knowledgeable. While the other men sweated a lot, he never sweated. When he talked everyone turned and listened, he was very specific and very detailed on what had happened on the crime scene. After seeing the boys fears and feelings merrier in his life, he was willing to change his vote to not guilty.
Juror#5 he never really said much, but he always had that look when you see someone looking and searching for the past. It seemed as if he knew where the boy had come from, because of his past. Also he was very insightful on how the boy used the knife to stab his father. Though he didn't say it, right from the start he voted that the boy was not guilty. He has an argument with guy number 3 and guy number 10.
Juror#6 was a very un desisted man. First he said the boy was guilty, and then when he hears a good argument he changes his mind. He sweated a lot, talked about willing to look at the whole picture of the case and not skip even the smallest evidence. He was a curious man, and very kind to everyone especially to guy number 9. Very happy to be their rather than his work, he tried to talk to the other men but most of them just ignored him. And brings out that the boy had to have had some motivation for killing his father. Also shows that he has much respect for guy number 9. After changing his mind many times he came around to not guilty.
Juror#7 loves baseball and is always commenting on whatever the others say. He is a very talkative and carefree guy. Gets very inpatient with whole thing, he just wants to go to the baseball game. Has a fight with guy number 11 about why he changed his mind to not guilty, when he has been yelling that the boy was guilty. Makes smart remarks, and he likes gambling. He also gets in an argument with guy number 5 when he changes his vote to not guilty. But after awhile he knew that the boy was not guilty.
Juror#8 was the first guys that spook up and said the boy was not guilty. He was very persuasive, and always gives the others something to think about. He seemed very knowledgeable, and resourceful on the boy’s situation. Defended the boy very well and presented that the boy’s father had been beating him since he was 5 years of age. He took the time to recreate the crime scene, and show the others that the witness might have been wrong. Was very calm through the whole thing, while others yelled and fought. Talked...