“Twelve Angry Men” Movie-Based Play Essay

Introduction

Sometimes, to fulfill one’s duty as a person and a citizen, one has to be not only honest and just but also persuasive and resilient. The play Twelve Angry Men is based on the movie filmed in 1957. It revolves around a jury setting, where twelve jurors must decide the fate of a 19-year old boy accused of murdering his father. Although eleven out of twelve jurors are initially set on convicting the young man without as much as five minutes of deliberation, the actions of Juror Eight trigger a chain of investigations that end up in the verdict changed from guilty to not guilty. The story demonstrates how practicing Phronesis – the act of practical wisdom that encourages virtuous and excellence of character in others can mean the difference between life and death, justice, and injustice. The moral of this story is that a person must always exercise Phronesis and do his or her duty as a person and a citizen, even in the face of overwhelming odds and opposition. In this essay, we will examine the setting of the story, the behavior of Juror Eight, and the arguments he used to sway the other jurors to his side.

The Setting

To understand the odds that Juror Eight and his position were facing, let us first examine his person and the setting of the debate. It must be pointed out that the decorum and the mood of the setting were extremely uncomfortable – the jurors were forced to sit in uncomfortable wooden chairs, the fan was not working, and the day was very hot outside. Nobody wanted to stay in this room for long – some of the jurors had plans for that evening and did not want to spend time elaborating on the boy’s fate.

Appearance

The appearance of Juror Eight did not help him in presenting his case. He looked, for the lack of a better word, average. The most striking and impressive in his choice of attire was that of Juror Four – he wore a classy tuxedo with a white shirt and a white handkerchief, in addition to a pair of glasses. In contrast, Juror Eight was a brown jacket and matching pants, which did not help him look any more formidable or convincing. Without the jacket, however, his appearance was slightly improved, as white is considered a more “official” color than brown.

Mannerisms and Non-Verbal Gestures

During the play, Juror Eight displayed three different types of non-verbal expressions. Some of which helped his case and some of them did not. At the beginning of the play, when the juror was not completely convinced about what position he should take, he expressed this by avoiding eye contact, keeping his head low, and shaking it often. This trait repeated itself whenever he was presented with a piece of evidence that could not be easily refuted right off the bat.

The second type of gesture that Juror Eight often used to persuade other jurors to stand with him was asking questions directly while standing in front of the person he was talking to, and looking them in the eyes. This kind of directness worked well on those jurors who were wavering in their conviction, such as Juror Eleven and Juror Five.

Lastly, Juror Eight implemented physical contact whenever he tried to calm someone down. It happened several times with Juror Nine, who often came into bouts with other Jurors over something they strongly believed in. While it did not actively help his case, it gave Juror Eight the image if a “peacekeeper,” which also helped him gain respect in the eyes of others.

Arguments and Rhetoric

Eunoia

Generating goodwill between himself and the audience was paramount for Juror Eight, especially at the beginning, when other jurors were unwilling to listen. He did so by invoking sympathy towards the accused boy as a means of getting attention from some of the mild-hearted jurors. He presents his case with these words: “Look, this boy’s been kicked around all his life. You know, living in a slum, his mother dead since he was nine. That’s not a very good head start” (10:00).

Dubitatio

At the beginning of the debate, Juror Eight acted in dubitatio – he was expressing his doubts and uncertainties about the case and the evidence presented. When asked if he believed the boy’s story, he responded with “I don’t know whether I believe it or not. Maybe I don’t” (8:40). Whenever asked a question about whether or not he believed a certain thing or a certain piece of evidence, Juror Eight always responded with doubts. It helped his case, as the jurors were supposed to declare a person guilty only when it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consessio

Consessio is a rhetoric construction that allows admitting a point in an opponent’s argument without losing ground or momentum, as it is usually followed by a rebuttal. Juror Eight uses this rhetoric often, admitting to the arguments having some weight, as it is in the case of the knife, or the eye-witness, but it is followed by his doubts about how accurate these facts demonstrate the guilt of the accused boy. Using this pattern, he debunked the evidence provided by the elder witness, then the knife, and then the lady who saw the murder from across the street.

Ad Hominem

Juror Eight used argumentum ad hominem on several occasions, although without much effect, and in the heat of the moment. First, it happened when he questioned the credibility of the female witness to Juror Ten on the grounds of her being “one of them” – as in the untrustworthy younger generation (15:07). Other than that, he claimed the court-appointed lawyer was doing a bad job on the grounds of being disingenuous and disinterested (50:30), and that one time he called out Juror Three on being a sadist (1:04:18).

Deduction and Induction

The majority of Juror Eight’s arguments revolved around using deduction and induction to highlight the flaws in the evidence presented by the prosecution. A good example of deduction, which suggests moving from general argument to a specific situation, was demonstrated when he proved that the elder witness was likely unable to hear the voice of the murderer, by stating that nobody would be able to discern a voice coming from an apartment above, with a train passing by (43:45). The rest of the jurors agreed that such circumstantial evidence was put under doubt and therefore had no value in this case.

Induction was demonstrated in the scene where Juror Eight convinced Juror Four that the boy not remembering the title of the movie was not evidence of his guilt. To do so, he used Juror Four as an example and questioned him about when he saw the movie last night. After several rounds of questions, it turned out that Juror Four could not remember the details of the second movie he and his wife watched roughly a week ago (1:15:20). From this specific example, Juror Eight concluded that nobody could be held accountable for not remembering details of a movie they were seen, especially when under severe psychological stress.

Conclusions and Personal Opinion

I found the play to be very entertaining from perceptual and analytical points of view. The role of Juror Eight in this play was to demonstrate the virtue of Phronesis and the necessity to stand for what is right, even if it means against the opinion of the majority. Aside from that, it also demonstrates the power of silence in a debate, as well as the value of presenting a convincing argument in litotes – just at the right moment. Some of the most convincing moments that played for Juror Eight involved him saying nothing while his opponents either said something that backfired or embarrassingly presented their points. The importance of presenting the argument at the right moment is highlighted by Juror Four and his non-involvement in the first half of the debate. This allowed Juror Eight to gain ground, after which it was much harder to persuade other jurors to change their minds. Had he not committed this fallacy and actively worked against Juror Eight from the beginning, the debate could’ve been over much sooner.

Work Cited

“12 Angry Men.” Youtube, uploaded by 13Yootoo, 6 Jun. 2012,