2 Angry Men is a 1957 American drama film adapted from

a teleplay of the same name by Reginald Rose.[4][5] Written and coproduced by Rose himself and directed by Sidney Lumet, this trial
film tells the story of a jury made up of 12 men as they deliberate
the guilt or acquittal of a defendant on the basis of reasonable
doubt. In the United States, a verdict in most criminal trials by jury
must be unanimous. The film is notable for its almost exclusive use
of one set: with the exception of the film's opening, which begins
outside on the steps of the courthouse followed by the judge's final
instructions to the jury before retiring, a brief final scene on the
courthouse steps, and two short scenes in an adjoining washroom,
the entire movie takes place in the jury room. The total time spent
outside the jury room is three minutes out of the full 96 minutes of
the movie.
12 Angry Men explores many techniques of consensus-building,
and the difficulties encountered in the process, among a group of
men whose range of personalities adds intensity and conflict. No
names are used in the film: the jury members are identified by
number until two of them exchange names at the very end, the
defendant is referred to as "the boy", and the witnesses as "the old
man" and "the lady across the street".
In 1997 a remake of the film under the same title was released
by MGM.
In 2007, 12 Angry Men was selected for preservation in the United
States National Film Registry by the Library of Congressas being
"culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".[6]
Story[edit]
The story begins in a New York City courthouse, where an 18-year-old
Hispanic boy from a slum is on trial for allegedly stabbing his father to
death. Final closing arguments having been presented, a visibly tired
judge instructs the jury to decide whether the boy is guilty of murder. The
judge further informs them that a guilty verdict will be accompanied by a
mandatory death sentence.[7]
The jury retires to a private room, where the jurors spend a short while
getting acquainted before they begin deliberating. It is immediately

apparent that the jurors have already decided that the boy is guilty, and
that they plan to return their verdict without taking time for discussion
with the sole exception of Juror 8 (Henry Fonda), who is the only "not
guilty" vote in a preliminary tally. He explains that there is too much at
stake for him to go along with the verdict without at least talking about it
first. His vote annoys the other jurors, especially Juror 7 (Jack Warden),
who has tickets to a baseball game that evening; and Juror 10 (Ed Begley),
who believes that most people from slum backgrounds are more likely to
commit crimes.
The rest of the film's focus is the jury's difficulty in reaching a unanimous
verdict. While several of the jurors harbor personal prejudices, Juror 8
maintains that the evidence presented in the case is circumstantial, and
that the boy deserves a fair deliberation. He calls into question the
accuracy and reliability of the only two witnesses to the murder, the
"rarity" of the murder weapon (a common switchblade, of which he has an
identical copy), and the overall questionable circumstances. He further
argues that he cannot in good conscience vote "guilty" when he feels there
is reasonable doubt of the boy's guilt.
Having argued several points and gotten no favorable response from the
others, Juror 8 reluctantly agrees that he has only succeeded in hanging
the jury. Instead, he requests another vote, this time by secret ballot. He
proposes that he will abstain from voting, and if the other 11 jurors are
still unanimous in a guilty vote, then he will acquiesce to their decision.
The secret ballot is held, and a new "not guilty" vote appears. This earns
intense criticism from Juror 3 (Lee J. Cobb), who blatantly accuses Juror 5
(Jack Klugman) who had grown up in a slum of switching out of
sympathy toward slum children. However, Juror 9 (Joseph Sweeney)
reveals that he himself changed his vote, feeling that Juror 8's points
deserve further discussion.
Juror 8 presents a convincing argument that one of the witnesses, an
elderly man, who claimed to have heard the boy yell "I'm going to kill
you" shortly before the murder took place, could not have heard the voices
as clearly as he had testified due to an elevated train passing by at the
time; as well as stating that "I'm going to kill you," is often said by people
who do not literally mean it. Juror 5 changes his vote to "not guilty". Soon
afterward, Juror 11 (George Voskovec) questions whether the defendant
would have reasonably fled the scene before cleaning the knife of

fingerprints, then come back three hours later to retrieve the knife (which
had been left in his father's chest); then changes his vote.
Juror 8 then mentions the man's second claim: upon hearing the father's
body hit the floor, he had gone to the door of his apartment and seen the
defendant running out of the building from his front door in 15 seconds.
Jurors 5, 6 and 8 question whether this is true, as the witness in question
had had a stroke, limiting his ability to walk. Upon the end of an
experiment, the jury finds that the witness would not have made it to the
door in enough time to actually see the killer running out. Juror 8
concludes that, judging from what he claims to have heard earlier, the
witness must have merely assumed it was the defendant running. Juror 3,
growing more irritated throughout the process, explodes in a rant:
"He's got to burn! He's slipping through our fingers!" Juror 8 takes him to
task, calling him a "self-appointed public avenger" and a sadist, saying he
wants the defendant to die only because he personally wants it, not
because of the facts. Juror 3 shouts "I'll kill him!" and starts lunging at
Juror 8, but is restrained by two others. Juror 8 calmly retorts, "You don't
really mean you'll kill me, do you?", proving his previous point.[6]
Jurors 2 (John Fiedler) and 6 (Edward Binns) also decide to vote "not
guilty", tying the vote at 66. Soon after, a rainstorm hits the city,
threatening to cancel the baseball game Juror 7 has tickets to.
Juror 4 (E. G. Marshall) states that he doesn't believe the boy's alibi,
which was being at the movies with a few friends at the time of the
murder, because the boy could not remember what movie he had seen
three hours later. Juror 8 explains that being under emotional stress can
make you forget certain things, and tests how well Juror 4 can remember
the events of previous days. Juror 4 remembers, with some difficulty, the
events of the previous five days, and Juror 8 points out that he had not
been under emotional stress at that time, thus there was no reason to think
the boy could remember the movie that he had seen.[8]
Juror 2 calls into question the prosecution's claim that the accused, nearly
a foot shorter than the victim, was able to inflict the downward stab
wound found on the body. Jurors 3 and 8 conduct an experiment to see if
it's possible for a shorter person to stab downward into a taller person. The
experiment proves the possibility, but Juror 5 then explains that he had
grown up amidst knife fights in his neighborhood, and shows, through

demonstrating the correct use of a switchblade, that no one so much

shorter than his opponent would have held a switchblade in such a way as
to stab downward, as the grip would have been too awkward and the act
of changing hands too time-consuming. Rather, someone that much
shorter than his opponent would stab underhanded at an upwards angle.
This revelation augments the certainty of several of the jurors in their
belief that the defendant is not guilty.
Increasingly impatient, Juror 7 changes his vote just so that the
deliberation may end, which earns him the ire of Jurors 3 and 11, both on
opposite sides of the discussion. Juror 11, an immigrant who has
repeatedly displayed strong patriotic pride, presses Juror 7 hard about
using his vote frivolously, and eventually Juror 7 claims that he now truly
believes the defendant is not guilty.[9]
The next jurors to change their votes are Jurors 12 (Robert Webber) and 1
(Martin Balsam), making the vote 93 and leaving only three dissenters:
Jurors 3, 4 and 10. Outraged at how the proceedings have gone, Juror 10
goes into a rage on why people from the slums cannot be trusted, of how
they are little better than animals who gleefully kill each other off for fun.
His speech offends Juror 5, who turns his back to him, and one by one the
rest of the jurors start turning away from him. Confused and disturbed by
this reaction to his diatribe, Juror 10 continues in a steadily fading voice
and manner, slowing to a stop with "Listen to me. Listen..." Juror 4, the
only man still facing him, tersely responds, "I have. Now sit down and
don't open your mouth again." As Juror 10 moves to sit in a corner by
himself, Juror 8 speaks quietly about the evils of prejudice, and the other
jurors slowly resume their seats.
When those remaining in favor of a guilty vote are pressed as to why they
still maintain that there is no reasonable doubt, Juror 4 states his belief
that despite all the other evidence that has been called into question, the
fact remains that the woman who saw the murder from her bedroom
window across the street (through the passing train) still stands as solid
evidence. After he points this out, Juror 12 changes his vote back to
"guilty", making the vote 84.
Then Juror 9, after seeing Juror 4 rub his nose (which is being irritated by
his glasses), realizes that, like Juror 4, the woman who allegedly saw the
murder had impressions in the sides of her nose which she rubbed,

indicating that she wore glasses, but did not wear them to court out of
vanity. Juror 8 cannily asks Juror 4 if he wears his eyeglasses to sleep, and
Juror 4 admits he doesn't nobody does.[10] Juror 8 explains that there was
thus no logical reason to expect that the witness happened to be wearing
her glasses while trying to sleep, and he points out that the attack
happened so swiftly that she would not have had time to put them on.
After he points this out, Jurors 12, 10 and 4 all change their vote to "not
guilty".
At this point, the only remaining juror with a guilty vote is Juror 3. Juror 3
gives a long and increasingly tortured string of arguments, ending with,
"Rotten kids, you workyour life out!" This builds on a more emotionally
ambivalent earlier revelation that his relationship with his own son is
deeply strained, and his anger over this fact is the main reason that he
wants the defendant to be guilty. Juror 3 finally loses his temper and tears
up a photo of himself and his son, then suddenly breaks down crying and
changes his vote to "not guilty", making the vote unanimous.
As the jurors leave the room, Juror 8 helps the distraught Juror 3 with his
coat in a show of compassion. The film ends when the friendly Jurors 8
(Davis) and 9 (McCardle) exchange names, and all of the jurors descend
the courthouse steps to return to their individual lives.[11]
Cast of characters[edit]
Juror #

Character

Actor

The jury foreman, somewhat preoccupied with

his duties and never gives any reason for
1/Mr.
Martin
changing his vote; proves to be helpful to
Foreman others. An assistant high school football coach. Balsam
He is the ninth to vote "not guilty".

A meek and unpretentious bank worker who is

at first dominated by others, but as the climax John
builds up, so does his courage.
Fiedler
He is the fifth to vote "not guilty".

A businessman and distraught father,

Lee J.

Juror #

Character

Actor

opinionated, disrespectful, and stubborn with a Cobb

temper.
He is the last to vote "not guilty".

A rational, unflappable, self-assured and

analytical stock broker who is concerned only
with the facts, and avoids any small talk.
He is the 11th to vote "not guilty".

E. G.
Marshall

A man who grew up in a violent slum,

a Baltimore Orioles fan. Ambulance crewman
He is the third to vote "not guilty".

Jack
Klugman

A house painter, tough but principled and

respectful.
He is the sixth to vote "not guilty".

Edward
Binns

A salesman, sports fan, superficial and

indifferent to the deliberations.
He is the seventh to vote "not guilty".

Jack
Warden

An architect and the first to vote "not guilty".

Henry
Fonda

A wise and observant elderly preacher.

He is the second to vote "not guilty".

Joseph
Sweeney

10

A garage owner; a pushy and

loudmouthed bigot.
He is the 10th to vote "not guilty".

Ed Begley

Juror #8: Let me ask you this: Do you really think the
boy'd shout out a thing like that so the whole
neighborhood could hear him? I don't think so - he's much
to bright for that.

Juror #10: Bright? He's a common ignorant slob. He

don't even speak good English.
Juror #11: He doesn't even speak good English.
Juror #8: [after Juror #10 explains that he believes the
boy is guilty because of the testimony of the woman
across the street] I'd like to ask you something: you don't
believe the boy's story. How come you believe the
woman's? She's one of "them", too, isn't she?
Juror #10: [the smile vanishes from his face] You're a
pretty smart fella, aren't you?

Juror #11: I beg pardon...

Juror #10: "I beg pardon?" What are you so polite about?
Juror #11: For the same reason you are not: it's the way
I was brought up.

Juror #8: [justifying his reason for voting "not guilty"] I

just think we owe him a few words, that's all.
Juror #10: I don't mind telling you this, mister: we don't
owe him a thing. He got a fair trial, didn't he? What do you
think that trial cost? He's lucky he got it. Know what I
mean? Now, look - we're all grown-ups in here. We heard
the facts, didn't we? You're not gonna tell me that we're
supposed to believe this kid, knowing what he is. Listen,
I've lived among them all my life - you can't believe a
word they say, you know that. I mean they're born liars.

Juror #9: Only an ignorant man can believe that.

Juror #10: Now, listen...
Juror #9: [gets up] Do you think you were born with a
monopoly on the truth?
[turns to Juror #8, indicating #10]
Juror #9: I think certain things should be pointed out to
this man.

Juror #8: [taking a cough drop that Juror #2 offered him]

There's something else I'd like to talk about for a minute.
Thanks. I think we've proved that the old man couldn't
have heard the boy say "I'm gonna kill you", but
supposing he did...
Juror #10: [interrupting] You didn't prove it at all.
What're you talking about?
Juror #8: But supposing he really *did* hear it. This
phrase, how many times have all of us used it? Probably
thousands. "I could kill you for that, darling." "Junior, you
do that once more and I'm gonna kill you." "Get in there,
Rocky, and kill him!"... See, we say it every day. That
doesn't mean we're gonna kill anyone.
Juror #3: Wait a minute, what are you trying to give us
here? The phrase was "I'm gonna kill you"; the kid yelled
it at the top of his lungs... Don't tell me he didn't mean it!
Anybody says a thing like that the way he said it, they
mean it!
Juror #2: Well, gee now, I don't know.
[Everyone looks at #2]

Juror #2: I remember I was arguing with the guy I work

next to at the bank a couple of weeks ago. He called me
an idiot, so I yelled at him.
Juror #3: [pointing at #8] Now listen, this guy's tryin' to
make you believe things that aren't so! The kid said he
was gonna kill him, and he *did* kill him!
Juror #8: Let me ask you this: do you really think the kid
would shout out a thing like that so the whole
neighborhood could hear him? I don't think so; he's much
to bright for that.
Juror #10: Bright? He's a common, ignorant slob. He
don't even speak good English.
Juror #11: [looking up] He *doesn't* even speak good
English.

Juror #8: According to the testimony, the boy looks

guilty... maybe he is. I sat there in court for six days
listening while the evidence built up. Everybody sounded
so positive, you know, I... I began to get a peculiar feeling
about this trial. I mean, nothing is that positive. There're a
lot of questions I'd have liked to ask. I don't know, maybe
they wouldn't have meant anything, but... I began to get
the feeling that the defense counsel wasn't conducting a
thorough enough cross-examination. I mean, he... he let
too many things go by... little things that...
Juror #10: What little things? Listen, when these fellas
don't ask questions it's because they know the answers
already and they figure they'll be hurt.
Juror #8: Maybe. It's also possible for a lawyer to be just
plain stupid, isn't it? I mean it's possible.
Juror #7: You sound like you met my brother-in-law.

Juror #10: [the vote has become 9-3, enraging Juror

#10] I don't understand you people! I mean all these
picky little points you keep bringing up. They don't mean
nothing! You saw this kid just like I did. You're not gonna
tell me you believe that phony story about losing the knife,
and that business about being at the movies. Look, you
know how these people *lie!* It's *born* in them! I mean,
what the heck? I don't have to tell you! They don't know
what the truth *is!* And lemme tell ya: they don't need
any real big reason to kill someone, either! No *sir!*
[#5 slams the paper down, gets up from his seat]
Juror #10: They get drunk! Oh, they're real big drinkers,
all of 'em - you know that - and bang: someone's lyin' in
the gutter! Oh, nobody's blaming them for it. That's the
way they are, by nature! You know what I mean?
*Violent!*
Juror #10: [#9 rises and crosses to the window]
Where're you going? Human life don't mean as much to
them as it does to us!
[#11 gets up and walks to the other window]
Juror #10: Look, they're lushing it up and fighting all the
time and if somebody gets killed, so somebody gets killed!
They don't care! Oh, sure, there are some good things
about 'em, too! Look, I'm the first one to say that!
Juror #10: [#8 gets up and walks to the nearest wall]
I've known a couple who were OK, but that's the
exception, y'know what I mean? Most of 'em, it's like they
have no feelings! They can do anything!
[#2 and #6 get up from the table. Everyone's back is to
#10]
Juror #10: [looking around, starting to decline in volume]
What's goin' on here? I'm trying to tell ya... You're makin'
a big mistake, you people! This kid is a liar! I know it, I

know all about them! Listen to me... They're no good!

There's not a one of 'em who is any good! I mean, what's
happening in here? I'm speaking my piece, and you...
[the Foreman gets up and walks away. So does #12]
Juror #10: Listen to me. We're... This kid on trial here...
his type, well, don't you know about them? There's a,
there's a danger here. These people are dangerous.
They're wild. Listen to me. Listen.
Juror #4: [quietly and firmly] I have. Now sit down and
don't open your mouth again.
[beat]
Juror #10: [the shock of being ignored and silenced
sinking in] I'm jus' tryin'-a... tell ya...

Juror #3: [as Juror 8 sets up an experiment to see if the

old man could reach his front door in 15 seconds] What do
you mean, *you* wanna try it? Why didn't his lawyer bring
it up if it's so important?
Juror #5: Well, maybe he just didn't think about it, huh?
Juror #10: What do you mean didn't think of it? Do you
think the man's an idiot or something? It's an obvious
thing!
Juror #5: Did *you* think of it?
Juror #10: Listen, smart guy, it don't matter whether I
thought of it. He didn't bring it up because he knew it
would hurt his case. What do you think of that?
Juror #8: Maybe he didn't bring it up because it would've
meant bullying and badgering a helpless old man. You
know that doesn't sit very well with a jury; most lawyers
avoid it if they can.
Juror #7: So what kind of a bum is he, then?
Juror #8: That's what I've been asking, buddy.

Juror #8: I just want to talk.

Juror #7: Well, what's there to talk about? Eleven men in
here think he's guilty. No one had to think about it twice
except you.
Juror #10: I want to to ask you something: do you
believe his story?
Juror #8: I don't know whether I believe it or not maybe I don't.
Juror #7: So how come you vote not guilty?
Juror #8: Well, there were eleven votes for guilty. It's not
easy to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without
talking about it first.
Juror #7: Well now, who says it's easy?
Juror #8: No one.
Juror #7: What, just because I voted fast? I honestly
think the guy's guilty. Couldn't change my mind if you
talked for a hundred years.
Juror #8: I'm not trying to change your mind. It's just
that... we're talking about somebody's life here. We can't
decide it in five minutes. Supposing we're wrong?
Juror #7: Supposing we're wrong! Supposing this whole
building should fall down on my head. You can suppose
anything!
Juror #8: That's right.

[after another vote is taken, the count is six to six]

Juror #10: Six to six... I'm telling you, some of you
people in here must be out of your minds. A kid like that...

Juror #9: I don't think the kind of boy he is has anything

to do with it. The facts are supposed to determine the
case.
Juror #10: Don't give me that. I'm sick and tired of facts!
You can twist 'em anyway you like, you know what I
mean?
Juror #9: That's exactly the point this gentleman has
been making.
[indicates Juror #8]

Juror #10: [when a new "not guilty" vote appears in a

secret ballot] All right, who was it? I wanna know.
Juror #11: Excuse me, this was a secret ballot. We all
agreed on that. Now, if the gentleman wants it to remain
secret...
Juror #3: "Secret"? What do you mean, "secret"? There
are no secrets in a jury room, I know who it was.
Juror #3: [to Juror #5] Brother, you really are somethin'.
you sit here vote guilty like the rest of us, then some
golden-voiced preacher starts tearing your poor heart out
about some underprivileged kid, just couldn't help
becoming a murderer, and you change your vote. Well, if
that isn't the most sickening - *why don't you drop a
quarter in his collection box?*
Juror #5: [astonished that #3 was accusing him, gets up]
Oh, now just wait a minute! Listen, you can't talk to me
that! Who do you think you are?

Juror #4: Now calm down, calm down!

Juror #5: No, now who do you think you are?
Juror #4: It doesn't matter. He's very excitable. Just sit
down...
Juror #3: [exploding] "Excitable"? You bet I'm excitable!
We're trying to put a guilty man in the chair where he
belongs, and then someone starts telling us fairy tales and
we're listening!
Juror #1: Heya, c'mon now.
Juror #3: [to Juror #5] What made you change your
vote?
Juror #9: He didn't change his vote - *I* did!
Juror #10: [everyone stares] Ohhh, fine!
Juror #9: Would you like me to tell ya why?
Juror #7: No, I wouldn't like you to tell me why.
Juror #7: Well, I'd like to make it clear anyways, if you
don't mind.
Juror #10: [impatient] Do we *have* to listen to this?
Juror #6: [firmly] The man wants to talk.
Juror #9: [to Juror #6] Thank you.
Juror #9: [motions to Juror #8] This gentleman has been
standing alone against us. Now, he doesn't say that the
boy is *not* guilty; he just isn't *sure*. Well, it's not easy
to stand alone against the ridicule of others, so he
gambled for support... and I gave it to him. I respect his
motives. The boy is probably guilty, but - eh, I want to
hear more. Right now the vote is 10 to 2...
[Juror #7 gets up and heads to the bathroom]
Juror #9: Now I'm talking here! You have no right to
leave this room - !
Juror #8: [calmly stopping him] He can't hear you, and
he never will. Let's sit down.

Juror #10: Oh, listen, I don't see what all this stuff about
the knife has got to do with anything. Somebody saw the
kid stab his father, what more do we need? You guys can
talk the ears right off my head, you know what I mean? I
got three garages of mine going to pot while you're
talking! So let's get down and get out of here!

Ed Begley
Juror 10 (Ed Begley), who believes that most people from slum
backgrounds are more likely to commit crimes.

Juror 10 goes into a rage on why people from the slums cannot be
trusted, of how they are little better than animals who gleefully kill
each other off for fun. His speech offends Juror 5, who turns his
back to him, and one by one the rest of the jurors start turning away
from him. Confused and disturbed by this reaction to his diatribe,
Juror 10 continues in a steadily fading voice and manner, slowing
to a stop with "Listen to me. Listen..." Juror 4, the only man still
facing him, tersely responds, "I have. Now sit down and don't open
your mouth again." As Juror 10 moves to sit in a corner by himself,
Juror 8 speaks quietly about the evils of prejudice, and the other
jurors slowly resume their seats.
Then Juror 9, after seeing Juror 4 rub his nose (which is being
irritated by his glasses), realizes that, like Juror 4, the woman who
allegedly saw the murder had impressions in the sides of her nose
which she rubbed, indicating that she wore glasses, but did not
wear them to court out of vanity. Juror 8 cannily asks Juror 4 if he
wears his eyeglasses to sleep, and Juror 4 admits he doesn't
nobody does.[10] Juror 8 explains that there was thus no logical
reason to expect that the witness happened to be wearing her
glasses while trying to sleep, and he points out that the attack
happened so swiftly that she would not have had time to put them
on. After he points this out, Jurors 12, 10 and 4 all change their
vote to "not guilty".