Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


12 Angry Men Character Analysis: Juror 4

No description

Gwendolyn Sun

on 19 May 2015

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of 12 Angry Men Character Analysis: Juror 4

Juror #4 played a major role as one of the main contributors voting for the guilt of the boy. He had no bias other than slight condescension at times and was one of the few jurors who wanted to reach a honest decision. Wanting a fair verdict like Juror #8, he was always open to new evidence and ideas while staying polite and considerate. Juror #4 was also analytical; he examined the entire case and believed the boy had murdered his father until the very end. Much of the evidence in the trial is recounted by him as well. Overall, Juror #4 largely helped to keep the jury focused and successfully helped resolve several arguments throughout the duration of the deliberation. He also proves to be a crucial debater, as there would be no debate with no disagreement, after all. While Juror #8 notes many missed points that would serve to back up the boy's innocence, Juror #4 does the converse, and together the two allow readers to gather a good amount of information about the case and come to their own conclusions as well. In short, Juror #8 is to acquittal as Juror #4 was to guilt.

In addition, no juror throughout the entire case really had anything against him throughout the entire script. Although there was much arguing, Juror #4 was generally uninvolved and only intervened when needed, being one of the more secretive jurors and preferring to merely mediate. The other jurors most likely never had any feelings towards him, good or bad, due to his reserved nature and his tendency to remain quiet on personal feelings or thoughts. He does, however, show disapproval for prejudice or rudeness.

The readers and viewers most likely saw him as a smart man who was pushing for the guilty verdict. He was not the most memorable character, but he has a unique personality and is definitely a crucial and interesting character throughout the play.
"I don't deny the validity of the points that he has made... but what can you say about the story of the woman? She saw it." pg. 61
"No. I'm convinced now. There is a reasonable doubt." pg. 62
"A man can't be held in double jeopardy. Unless it's a hung jury, they can't try a man twice for the same crime." pg. 12
"If we're going to discuss this case, why, let's discuss the facts." pg. 16
Twelve Angry Men
Character Analysis:

Juror #4
Juror #4 is one of the quieter jurors, tending to stay uninvolved in most arguments and only mediating such disagreements when necessary. Readers, in turn, do not know much about his background as he does not slip too much personal information during deliberation.
As the saying goes, Juror #4 is one of the people who "think before they speak", planning his words and ideas carefully when explaining his opinions. Strategically deciding to use testified facts that seemed irrefutable, he presented his sound argument for why he believed the defendant was guilty, using logical and concrete evidence-or, as one may also say, appealing to logos.
Personality Cont.
He is willing to listen and try to understand the others' points of views and gives their arguments credit where it is due, especially after analyzing the evidence, which had seemed to overwhelmingly prove the boy's guilt at first-Juror #4 changed his vote based on the realization that there indeed was reasonable doubt in this case.
Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose was originally written for television before being adapted to the book and movie version
Only Juror #8 and #9's names are revealed in the film, perhaps so that the audience can distance themselves more from the jurors and treat the case impersonally and more fairly.
Although Juror #4 was convinced the defendant was guilty for the majority of the script, he was not stubbornly doing so, with personal bias or impatience as factors. He was one of the jurors who took care in examining the facts and wanted to come to an honest decision.
Juror #4 is one of the more intelligent jurors on the jury, capable of matching wits with the perceptive Juror #8. He is very sure of his position and is able to articulate his argument clearly, while maintaining his poise throughout the deliberation. He is also courageous enough to intervene in conflict when needed and to voice his opinions.
Although he is firmly loyal to what he believes to be just and truthful, he supports his verdict calmly and with facts. Juror #4 tends to avoid conflict with others as well, and is only involved in keeping the jury focused and resolving quarrels. He demonstrates a great amount of poise and manners, always conducting himself well. Furthermore, unlike some other jurors, he is willing to listen politely to opposing opinions and try to understand as well.
Only Jurors #2, 4 and 12 wear glasses-Juror #9 mentions in the screenplay that he has perfect, or 20/20 vision.
Patrick Song and Grace Tan
Mrs. Milone
Language Arts Honors 8-2
30 April 2015
(Four speaks softly)
"I've had enough. If you open your mouth again I'm going to split your skull." pg. 60
"I'm sorry. I'm convinced. I don't think I'm wrong often, but I guess I was this once." pg. 62
Quotes Cont.
"I don't see why we have to behave like children here," pg. 44
The actors portraying the jurors in the screenplay were actually cooped up in the room for hours and hours reciting their lines just to get a feel of how frustrating the real situation would have been.
In the script, the woman who was called as a witness had her testimony thrown into question when the jurors noted that she wore bifocals that looked strong during the testimony.
However, in the movie adaptation, Juror #9 only points out that the woman had indentations on the sides of her nose, like Juror #4-indentations that could not have "possibly been made by anything besides eyeglasses".
"Quite frankly, I don't see how you can possibly vote for acquittal." pg. 60
[To Juror #11] "Thank you, very much.
#11: Why do you thank me?
#4: We forget. It is good to be reminded." pg. 45

"If there was anything in the kid's favor I'd vote not guilty." pg. 29
Rumage, Josh. E.G. Marshall. Digital image. Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 29 Sept. 2010. Web. 26 Apr. 2015. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._G._Marshall#/media/File:E.G._Marshall.jpg>.
works Cited
12 Angry Men. Dir. Sidney Lumet. Prod. Henry Fonda and Reginald Rose. By Reginald Rose and Kenyon Hopkins. Perf. Henry Fonda, Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, Lee J. Cobb, E. G. Marshall, Jack Klugman, Edward Binns, Jack Warden, Joseph Sweeney, Ed Begley, Jiří Voskovec, and Mark Rodgers. United Artists Corp., 1956.
FunTrivia. "Twelve Angry Men - Fun Facts and Information." Twelve Angry Men - Fun Facts and Information. Funtrivia, n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.
Juror #4. Digital image. 12 Angry Men Casting Suggestions. Committed to Celluloid, 20 Mar. 2011. Web. 24 Apr. 2015. <http://committedtocelluloid.com/2011/03/20/12-angry-men-2-0-casting-suggestions/>.
Rose, Reginald, and Sherman L. Sergel. Twelve Angry Men: A Play in Three Acts. Chicago: Dramatic Pub., 1983. Print.
"I agree with you that the boy is guilty but I think we should try to avoid emotionally colored arguments." pg. 15
"I don't see any need for arguing like this. I think we ought to be able to behave like gentlemen." pg. 16
"I agree with you that the man is guilty, but let's be fair." pg. 27
"It isn't organized, but let's try to be civilized." pg. 28
"When a life is at stake, what is a reasonable doubt? You've got to have law and order; you've got to draw the line somewhere..." pg. 29
[To Juror #9]"I think we all understand now. Thank you." pg. 34
[To Juror #3] "Let's hear him through, anyway." pg. 35
"#4: Am I right so far?
#8: Right.
#3: You bet he's right. Now listen to this man. He knows what he's talking about." pg. 23
[To Juror #8] "While it doesn't change my opinion about the guilt of the kid, I agree with you that the defense counsel was bad." pg. 22
"There are better proofs than some emotion you may have." pg. 13
"I believe I can recount it accurately..." pg. 60
Final Fun Fact (ooh alliteration):
How much time did Patrick and Grace spend on this project?
The answer is between 2 seconds and 5 years.
We really hope you enjoyed the presentation and thank you for being an amazing audience! (an audience that behaved themselves better than some {cough cough #3 cough} jurors)
Full transcript