Twelve angry men is a 1957 American film directed by Sidney Lumet produced by Henry Fonda and

Reginald Rose, with story and screenplay written originally for TV by Reginald Rose. It’s a courtroom
drama in which a young Puerto Rican boy is on trial for the alleged murder of his father. A 12-man jury
is sent to begin deliberations in the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year-old man accused in the
stabbing death of his father, where a guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence. The case
appears to be an open and shut case; and 11 of the 12 jurors are quick to dismiss any argument in
favour of the boy. There is a collective indifference(biggest barrier) towards the boy carried from the
judge to the jury who see the accused as a non-person without right to their care and concern for his
plight precisely because to see the accused as a human like themselves is too painful to bear. This is until
juror 8 sets the stage for discussion.

Part 1: Identify the barrier with each of the eleven jurors.

Juror 1: the foreman, is a football coach who has a very planned out approach towards everything also
the proceedings of the case. His background, simple straightforward approach, desire to act as a
mediator and prevent heated arguments is highlighted throughout the movie. He subconsciously
believes the case is thoroughly discussed in court and doesn’t question that easily as he is too organised
to do that.

Juror 2: is a mousy character who is a bank teller by profession. He is underconfident, shy and easily
dominated and intimidated by others. His barrier is that he unwilling to side with the minority and have
an opinion of his own.

Juror 3: has the biggest barrier due to his personal life acting as a background in his outlook towards the
case. His anger towards his own son is projected onto the boy accused of murdering his father. Also his
anger towards his own father is displaced onto juror 8 as displayed in the scene in which they recreate
the stabbing scene and his rage towards juror 8 leaves everyone stunned. His unwillingness to accept his
mistakes in his relationship with his son is paralleled by his unwillingness to accept any argument in
favour of the defendant.

Juror 4: is a cool, collected, confident, unflappable stock broker; not even the excessive heat affects him
while everyone else is sweating endlessly. He has already made up his mind; being thorough with the
facts, is extremely analytical and detached from the outcome of the case. He is not easily convinced
unless interrogated with strong logical arguments when he eventually, sways.

Juror 5: has lived his entire life in slum and his barrier is his desire to not be associated with that
background anymore. His exposure to the neighbourhood also aids his belief that such things happen in
that background more often than not. He understands what the boy must have gone through which
initially makes him think he is guilty but eventually his empathy towards him comes out as logic flows in.

Juror 6: is a house painter who also coaches kid’s football. His barrier is simply because of the way the
case was presented in court with the defendant having a weak alibi, possible ownership of murder
weapon and witnesses claiming to have heard or seen glimpses of the murder scene. He has taken a
stand on the basis of that and has no reason to believe otherwise.

Juror 7: is a salesman, who is an ardent baseball fan. His barrier is both the way the case was presented
in court as well as a stark indifference towards the life of the boy. He wants the deliberations to end as
soon as possible to attend the baseball game in the evening.
Juror 9: is an elderly man, he is ridiculed from the beginning for taking time in the bathroom and suffers
prejudice because of his age. Intially although he agrees with the architect still doesn’t voice his opinion
out loud because he feels that no one would care about the outlook of an old fragile man. He begins to
take a stand through casting of votes and continues to display wisdom with the support of juror 8.

Juror 10: is a loudly, openly, and deeply prejudiced individual. His strong prejudice doesn’t allow him to
look at the facts and deep down he believes and laters blurts out that just because the boy belonged to
the slums he must have done everything he is accused of.

Juror 11: is an immigrant watchmaker who understands prejudice well in the jury room simply for
being an immigrant watchmaker who grew up in a poor neighbourhood like the one in which the
accused lived. He has a strong believe in the integrity of the judicial system, that makes him believe on
the basis of court proceedings and his exposure to slums that the defendant killed his father.

Juror 12: is an advertising executive who is indifferent and lacks convictions. His unwillingness to take a
stand acts as his barrier as he switches his vote simply to avoid confrontation.

Part 2: How did Juror 8 help others to overcome barriers?

Initially Juror 8, the architect just wants to talk it out. Unsure about a verdict, he underlines the
burden of responsibility of the collective in taking a man’s life. The other jurors are flippant, but
eventually they start talking. Through their talk we begin to understand the case. He voices his opinion
to give the accused a fair chance. He appeals to the compassion of people first, gaining support of the
old man after voting. Then puts forward genuine, logical doubts about the way the case was conducted.
He understands the psyche of the defendant s lawyer and why he was so less invested in this case. He
presumes the role of the lawyer himself and brings out minute details about various dimensions of the
case. Like how the old man could not have walked across the room so fast to hear what he did , the lady
across the L roads could not have seen what she did. He even brought a knife similar to the weapon to
make his point. He eventually gets the support of the jurors slowly who use there own logic and
experience to understand the dynamics of the actual murder. A juror living near L tracks could bring
points so did the juror from slums about knife. Similarly the old man brought out his wisdom and insight
on the motives of different witnesses. Slowly he recognizes even the most personal barrier like in case of
juror 3 and his son as well as juror 10 and his prejudice and breaks through them softly and steadily.