12 Angry Men is a movie with a simple premise, but the ending of its conflict and themes are incredibly complicated. Based on Reginald Rose’s 1954 teleplay, 12 Angry Men shows the deliberations of a jury on a murder case in which a young boy is accused of killing his father and facing the death penalty. At first, the jury is nearly unanimous in finding the boy guilty, but the deliberations continue when Juror 8 (Henry Fonda) dissents. Juror 8 single-handedly manages to convince the other jurors that the case has room for reasonable doubt, eventually leading to a 12-0 “not guilty” verdict.
Going into the ending of 12 Angry Men, Juror 8 has managed to get five of the other jurors on his side, completely splitting the jury. However, a vocal minority led by Juror 3 holds steadfast to the conviction that the boy is guilty. Combined with the stressors of the sweltering heat and peer pressure, tensions rise in the deliberation room as more jurors flip their votes to “not guilty.”
Did The Boy Kill The Father In 12 Angry Men?
12 Angry Men centers around the trial of an adolescent boy accused of murdering his father with a switchblade, but despite all the evidence provided throughout the iconic 1950s movie, it’s unclear if the boy really did do the crime. By the end of the movie, the 12 jurors manage to come to a consensus that they should return a verdict of “not guilty,” as none of them is able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the boy is guilty. However, there is never any conclusive proof of the boy’s innocence in the crime, nor does 12 Angry Men pose an alternative for who killed the boy’s father.
Though 12 Angry Men not completely confirming the boy’s innocence could be seen as an unsatisfying conclusion for the court drama, it’s actually the perfect ending. Ultimately, the iconic Henry Fonda movie isn’t about who committed the murder, but rather, whether it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the boy did or didn’t do it. Therefore, it doesn’t actually matter if the boy killed his father in 12 Angry Men, but rather that he wasn’t put to death as a result of insufficient evidence and the personal prejudices of others.
Why Juror 3 Changed His Vote
Throughout 12 Angry Men, Lee J. Cobb’s Juror 3 remains passionate about the boy being guilty of murdering his father, only changing his vote to “not guilty” at the very end of the movie. Earlier, Juror 3 was part of the vocal majority that believed the boy was guilty, but he ends up being the only one left. Juror 3 gives an impassioned speech about why the boy must be guilty, but after he rips up a picture of his son from his wallet, Juror 3 breaks down and changes his vote. While it’s never stated why Juror 3 switched his vote, 12 Angry Men hinted at his reasoning.
12 Angry Men establishes that Juror 3 has a strained relationship with his son, whom he has not seen in two years. During the trial, Juror 3 had been projecting this relationship onto the crime, which made him wish that the boy was guilty and why he was so eager to believe the prosecution’s evidence. Juror 3 only realizes that he had these biases once he tears up the photograph of his son. Because of Juror 3’s remorse for the situation with his son as well as realizing he let his personal life cloud his judgment, he changes his vote, securing a “not guilty” verdict for the case.
Symbolism Of The Hot Weather During 12 Angry Men’s Deliberation
First and foremost, 12 Angry Men is about Juror 8’s crusade to prove the boy could be innocent, but the movie also places a large focus on the intense weather the men have to suffer through. Throughout the majority of the classic Hollywood movie, the jurors are plagued by the heat, which is made worse by the fact that the fan in the deliberation room is seemingly broken. Besides discussing the case, the heat is what the jurors mention the most, and while it could just be another reason they want to rush through their deliberation, the heat has a deeper meaning in 12 Angry Men.
Rather than just being an arbitrary weather pattern, the heat in 12 Angry Men is one of the movie’s most important symbols. The blistering heat conveys several key aspects of the characters’ experiences, such as the pressure to unite and deliver a verdict, their animosity towards one another, and their discomfort at having their biases about the case and life challenged. Once the jury reaches a vote of 6-6, it begins to rain, noting a turning point for their deliberation as more jury members begin to hear Juror 8’s arguments. Juror 7 is even able to turn on the “broken” fan, allowing cooler heads to prevail.
The Meaning Of 12 Angry Men’s Story
For a movie with such a simple premise, the real meaning of 12 Angry Men’s story is multifaceted, revealing truths about democracy, the American judicial system, and human nature. A pushback against lynch mob mentalities, 12 Angry Men highlights how American democracy and the judicial system should work. Other courtroom dramas tend to focus on proving guilt, but 12 Angry Men reasserts that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. While it doesn’t make for a sensational story, it is just as triumphant to see 12 incredibly different men stop a boy from getting the death penalty as it can be to see a conviction in other media.
12 Angry Men is also a study of human nature, good and bad. It shows how prejudice can cloud a person’s judgment, from Juror 3’s relationship with his son to Juror 10’s racism. This is leveraged with Juror 8’s moral compass, and by coupling compassion with the facts as they are presented, he ensures a fair verdict. Juror 8’s compassion is the heartbeat of the story, exemplified by him helping Juror 3 with his coat after Juror 3’s breakdown. Examining these complex themes in just over 90 minutes is an impressive feat, demonstrating that 12 Angry Men’s reputation as one of the best movies from the 1950s is well-earned.
