A Neo-Aristotelian Criticism Of Juror No. 10 S Monologue In 12 Angry Men (1957)

Custom Writing Service
http://StudyHub.vip/A-Neo-Aristotelian-Criticism-Of-Juror-N 👈

1. Katya Derzon
24 February 2014
Neo-Aristotelian/Traditional Approach
1


A Neo-Aristotelian Criticism of Juror No. 10’s Monologue in 12 Angry Men (1957)
I can only imagine the frustration that my father must have felt as he made his case for
that week’s “family-watch-movie night” to his 11-year-old daughter: 96 black-and-white minutes
of men yelling at each other, shot almost-entirely in one stuffy jury room. Had he not won me
over with the promise of ice cream at intermission, I may never have watched what became my
all-time favorite movie. Released in 1957 and directed by Sidney Lumet, the film 12 Angry Men
is a fascinating courtroom drama that provides viewers with a challenging image of the United
States’ jury system. We see the impact of an individual’s doubt, prejudice, commonality, and
flexibility on the deliberations of an accused-murderer’s jury of peers. Despite 12 Angry Men’s
dismal ticket sales at initial release, high critical praise of the film and the enduring power and
relevance of Lumet’s message have ensured its place in American culture: In 2007, 12 Angry
Men was added to the National Film Registry of the United States Library of Congress for being
“culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant”. As a National Film Registry selection,
Lumet’s drama is deemed “[a work] of enduring importance to American culture [that reflects]
who we are as a people and as a nation” (LOC.gov). I have chosen a scene from 12 Angry Men
as my artifact because – for better or for worse – an on-screen depiction of prejudice in a realm
designated for justice is just as important and relevant in 2014 as it was in 1957.
For just over two minutes about one hour and fifteen minutes into 12 Angry Men, Juror
No. 10 (played by Ed Begley) spews a 304-word monologue filled with hatred in response to the
most-recent vote, nine to three in favor of acquittal of the accused. It is in these two minutes that
the director Sidney Lumet crafts a piece of rhetorical beauty with writer Reginald Rose’s script

2. 2

and cinematographer Boris Kaufman’s camerawork, as well as the verbal and nonverbal energy
of twelve carefully-invented character types. He took risks as a director by filming in black-and-
white during a surge in Technicolor productions, as well as by attempting to showcase the
deeply-rooted and unattractive issue of prejudice in the United States. Although his film was
unsuccessful at the time of its release to the immediate popular audience, it has been effective
and successful for six decades as a classic analysis piece for a critical and high-interest historical
audience. I have chosen Lumet as my rhetor because his artistic choices were essential to
elevating Rose’s script to the legendary place in film history now occupied by 12 Angry Men.
Juror No. 10’s monologue in 12 Angry Men showcases the ugliness and impropriety of
prejudice in the American justice system, as well as its negative impact on a representative
cross-section of American society. I argue that Sidney Lumet effectively met the constraints
of audience and occasion by using the rhetorical strategies of invention and delivery.
Rhetorical Situation
In order to assess the effectiveness of 12 Angry Men as a rhetorical artifact, it is important
to describe and analyze several elements of the rhetorical situation in which the film exists. The
rhetorical situation consists of the constraints – which may be limitations or opportunities – of
the rhetor/speaker, audience, occasion, purpose, medium, and background. As an informed critic,
it is my responsibility to evaluate the artifact in the context of its exigency, or the “provoking
urgency that calls persuasion or rhetoric into being” (Derzon). The elements of this film’s
rhetorical situation are intrinsically integrated with one another, so they may be discussed with
and within one another. Though the rhetorical situation surrounding Sidney Lumet for 12 Angry
Men is extensive and complex, this paper places particular emphasis on the constraints associated
with audience and occasion.

3. 3

The occasion is Juror No. 10’s monologue within the film, first delivered to audiences at
the 18 April 1957 opening of 12 Angry Men at the Capitol Theater in New York City (Munyan
144). The film was directed by Sidney Lumet, written and co-produced by Reginald Rose, and
was co-produced and lead-acted by Henry Fonda. Filming took seventeen days, and the
production came in at $340,000, which was $1,000 under-budget
1
(Munyan 53). An Orion-Nova
production, the film was first distributed by United Artists Corporation. On opening day, the film
“barely filled the first four or five rows” of the 4,000-seat theater, and the film stopped showing
after one week (Fonda, qtd. in Munyan 54). There was no second release of 12 Angry Men, and
its poor box office performance coupled with the financial and emotional stress of producing a
movie resulted in Fonda’s decision to never produce again, and he worried that “the failure
would be a reflection on him” (Munyan 54). The film was nominated for three Academy Awards
in 1957: Best Director, Best Picture, and Best Writing of Adapted Screenplay. It lost all three to
The Bridge on the River Kwai, a war film in Technicolor and very-widescreen. Following his
own enlightening experience as a jury member, Rose wrote the original story thinking that “a
play taking place entirely within a jury room might be an exciting and possibly moving
experience for an audience” (Munyan 37). However, at least between 12 Angry Men’s release
and the 1957 Academy Awards, it seems that the popular audience of that time was drawn more
strongly to the sweeping, colorful shots of Sri-Lankan rainforest in The Bridge on the River Kwai
than to the stuffy, sweaty grayscale of a New York City jury room.
It may be assumed that Lumet’s target audience was the American public, especially
cinephiles (who are generally multi-genre connoisseurs – they will buy tickets to any film) and

1
It is unclear whether or not this number has been adjusted for inflation from its 1957 value. Once adjusted for
inflation, the 1957 $340,000 production cost totals $2,840,766.55 in 2014 dollars.

4. 4

social/political activists (who would be drawn to a rhetorical commentary, no matter how
visually-bland it may appear to be). Both of these groups are considered to be parts of a popular
audience. This target audience of cinephiles and activists likely would have been reached more-
effectively (and cheaply) if 12 Angry Men had been released the way that Rose, Lumet, and
Fonda wanted it to be: Fonda said that the three “dreamed of putting it into a small East Side
movie house, the kind that held a few hundred people at the most, and we hoped that word of
mouth would spread” (Munyan 53). “Well, that never happened.” (54). Fonda was contacted by
the head of United Artists and urged to accept an offer from executives at the huge Loew’s
Theaters chain, who wanted to show the film in their flagship theaters nationwide for Easter
Week. “Fonda felt he had no alternative” because United Artists had financed the film
production (54). As a result, 12 Angry Men was offered to a broader popular audience, much of
which had low interest in a film that – at least visually – paled in comparison to the widescreen,
Technicolor wonders of the era.
Much of the popular audience that had high interest and actually bought tickets to see the
film also had high knowledge after seeing the trailer, which advertises “the most explosive
motion picture in years!” with thrilling music and muted clips of the more-active scenes in the
film (Criterion Collection). Also, the promotional poster for the film displayed taglines such as
“Life is in their hands – Death is on their minds!” and “It explodes like 12 sticks of dynamite!”
(IMDb). If the American public in the 1950s was anything like the Law & Order-loving
American public today, they loved crime dramas, and would have been attracted to a film about a
murder trial – especially one starring several well-known and renowned actors. The critical
response at that time was very positive, taking the form of glowing professional reviews and
three Academy Award nominations. However, a visually-outdated film with a set of complex

5. 5

logical (plot) and emotional (character) developments seems to have failed at attracting a large
immediate popular audience.
Today, and especially during the 1950s, 12 Angry Men is and was a liberal commentary
on prejudice and discrimination in the United States. Contempt and fear for multiple outgroups
were rampant throughout the 1950s: The Second Red Scare and the rise of McCarthyism fueled
intense social unraveling as accused Communists and Soviet sympathizers were charged with
treason and similar offences against the U.S. government, and anti-communist propaganda
stimulated the American public’s fear of the “Red Menace”. In the mid-1950s, the U.S. Civil
Rights Movement took off, during which an enlightened white citizenry stood alongside African
Americans in mostly-nonviolent protest to end the institutionalized racial discrimination and
segregation of black people in America. During this time of sociopolitical revolution, the long-
held prejudice of many white Americans against blacks was not only made clear, but was
systematically rejected by an evolving public opinion on issues of race in the United States.
Finally, the most-obvious commentary in the film is on the issue of socioeconomic class
differences. The United States of the 1950s generally enjoyed a period of economic strength and
security, with low unemployment and inflation rates. However, although the poverty rate
declined during the 1950s under President Eisenhower, “one in every five Americans lived in
poverty by the end of the decade” (MillerCenter.org). In addition, although almost half of those
living in poverty lived in the South, poverty in northern cities increased due to an influx of out-
of-work minority farm workers from the South. This decade of churning social norms and
reformations provided Sidney Lumet with an audience – both popular and critical – for whom he
could provide some amount of guidance with 12 Angry Men. A high-interest audience member in
the 1950s may have seen his/her own latent prejudices reflected in Ed Begley’s Juror No. 10;

6. 6

Lumet had the opportunity to use the other jurors as tools to effectively inform the viewer that
the diversified public of the United States will stand in the name of justice against that kind of
bigotry.
Despite its initial flop in United States’ theaters and awards losses to other films of the
year, 12 Angry Men went on to gain international momentum. The film first rose to international
attention when it won the first place Golden Berlin Bear and the Catholic Organization for
Cinema (OCIC) awards at the June 1957 Berlin International Film Festival in Berlin, Germany.
It subsequently won over ten awards worldwide, including Best Foreign Language Film at the
1960 Kinema Junpo Awards and Best Motion Picture at the Edgar Allan Poe Awards in 1958
(IMDb).
Fifty-seven years after its release, the film has a large and very high-interest historical
audience. It is used in secondary and higher education as an analysis piece for several academic
disciplines. It is shown in business, sociology, and communication classes as a study in
leadership, persuasion, group negotiation and communication, rhetoric, and the function of
personal convictions in group settings. This historical and critical audience is usually high-
knowledge at or after the time of viewing; having an understanding of the context (1950s
America) allows for a more comprehensive framework into which the film can be organized and
analyzed. Part of this contextual framework is the history of the film’s development.
12 Angry Men has an interesting background in that it was not the first version of Rose’s
courtroom drama. The story originally took the form of a fifty-minute teleplay on CBS’s Studio
One program. The live television production, titled Twelve Angry Men, was directed by Frank
Schaffner and aired on 20 September 1954. In order to fit the play into the fifty-minute time slot,
Rose had to cut fifteen pages or 20 minutes from his original script (Munyan 37 and 51). Henry

7. 7

Fonda saw the television play in a Hollywood projection room and, with the urgings of United
Artists Corporation, he assumed the role of co-producer in the proposed film adaptation. After
speaking with Reginald Rose, Fonda contacted Lumet and the team began interviewing actors
(Munyan 51).
As the rhetor, director Sidney Lumet provides both limitations and opportunities to the
artifact. Lumet was 32-years-old when he was asked by Fonda and Rose to direct the film
adaptation of Twelve Angry Men. At that time, Lumet had five years’ experience directing
television productions; he had directed thirty-six episodes of ten series’. Because 12 Angry Men
was his first feature film, his inexperience in the medium was both a limitation and an
opportunity.
On his choice of director, Fonda said, “I hired Sidney because he had the reputation of
being wonderful with actors. ... He also had incredible organization and awareness of the
problem of shooting and not wasting time” (Munyan 53). Lumet’s reputation as an actor’s
director was certainly a huge opportunity for him during filming – a director who knows what
makes his actors tick will know how to bring out the best in them on screen. A rhetor who can
strategically create his message is then able to convey within that message his purpose for its
creation.
The story of 12 Angry Men was unique for Rose because it was the only one of his plays
that had “any relation at all to personal experience” (Munyan 36). He had served on a jury in a
manslaughter case, and his time as a jury member opened his eyes to the intricacies and
challenges that jurors are faced with during deliberations. He hoped to project that enlightenment
for a popular audience – many of whom had probably never served on a jury – so that they may
finish watching the play and be left feeling stimulated, intrigued, and entertained. I argue that

8. 8

Lumet’s purpose for directing the film version had two major pieces: Firstly, he was a director,
and his passion was for creating works of cinematic art. Secondly, he was a liberal during a very
politically- and socially-dynamic period in the United States. He chose to present to the public a
powerful, complex, and thought-provoking film so that he may have an effect on his audience.
He hoped to affirm and strengthen the beliefs of those who agreed with his message, and to
challenge and subsequently change the beliefs of those who did not. In essence, 12 Angry Men
was Lumet’s attempt to change the way that people think so that they may work to change the
world.
Textual Analysis
Sidney Lumet uses Juror No. 10’s character as a means to showcase the ugliness and
pervasiveness of race- and/or class-based prejudice in American society, and he uses the
intricacy in the characters of the other eleven jurors to guide viewers towards a specific reaction
to No. 10’s rant. By utilizing rhetorical strategies based on Aristotle’s Five Canons of Rhetoric,
Lumet effectively persuades viewers to react negatively to and turn their backs on Juror No. 10
in this scene, just as his fellow jury members do.
The first of Aristotle’s Five Canons, Invention, is the construction of the content of a
message, using ethos, pathos, and logos (Foss). In the case of my artifact, Lumet’s invention
begins with the development of Juror No. 10 over the course of the movie as an impatient,
belligerent, irrationally-angry garage owner who finds company in Juror No. 4 through their
shared contempt for “the children who come out of slum backgrounds” (Rose 8). At the time of
the deliberations, Juror No. 10 is suffering from a hot-weather cold; he is plagued by a nagging
cough and runny nose, as well as a visible sweat that persists for the entire length of the film.
Actor Ed Begley’s portrayal of this impatient, irritable, disrespectful bigot and the on-screen

9. 9

reactions of the other characters to him provide an opportunity for viewers to receive director
Sidney Lumet’s message in an indirect yet powerful way.
Sidney Lumet’s ethos, the audience’s perception of his intelligence, character, and good
will, is both inartistic and artistic. Any information brought to the artifact by the audience – data
from outside the message – is considered inartistic. Lumet’s reputation (at the time) as an
experienced television director who worked well with actors likely had a positive impact on his
inartistic ethos as perceived by a high-knowledge audience. Fifty-seven years and forty-three
feature films later, Lumet is now widely regarded as a “master of cinema” who won over 30
awards for films that he directed (IMDb). The strongest evidence for Lumet’s inartistic ethos is
exemplified above in the Rhetorical Situation, where Fonda gives his reasons for choosing
Lumet to direct the 1957 film adaptation. He was known as “an actor’s director”
(EmmyTVLegends.org), and his background as a stage actor allowed him to connect with the
actors that he worked with in film in a way that transformed every scene into a brilliant showcase
for cast chemistry. His personal understanding of his role as a director also lends itself towards
building a positive reputation as a rhetor. In an interview on 28 October 1999, he speaks of his
method and approach as a director:
[For me], the approach to all three – whether it’s theater, TV, or movies –
is much the same. You’re starting always with the same basic thing:
[Thematically, not in plot terms,] but thematically, what is it about? ... At
the beginning of work [on a production], when you start something,
everything is possible. Your choices are infinite. My job is to start cutting
the choices down so that every selection that we make is contributing to
the dramatization of what is this piece about. To the exploration, to the

10. 10

illumination of that theme. And it affects every area of production. ... My
job is to literally direct everything into one channel so that we define that
beast to the best of our abilities. (EmmyTVLegends.org).
Although he died in 2011, Lumet’s work as a director is still relevant to a large historical
audience that is often high-knowledge and almost-certainly high-interest. These viewers often
approach 12 Angry Men with some understanding of the film’s (and Lumet’s) reputation and
significance in cinematic history. In this way, Lumet’s inartistic ethos is strong for a high-
knowledge audience, but it is likely that a majority of viewers must develop their perception of
Lumet’s ethos based solely on what he presents to them in the film.
In addition to inartistic ethos brought to the artifact by the audience, the audience’s
psychological response to Lumet’s character, intelligence, and good will is affected by artistic
ethos. Artistic ethos consists of a rhetor’s evidence within the text for those three qualities that
contribute to an audience’s perception of his credibility. In the case of 12 Angry Men, the
rhetor’s artistic ethos comes in large part from his strategic weaving of emotional and logical
appeals into his ethical appeals in the monologue scene. His Juror No. 10 character uses charged,
negative language to describe the defendant and “his type” (Appendix 1, line 16) during his
tirade; this is Lumet’s pathos, or his appeal to the audience’s emotions. For example, he
characterizes the subjects of his anger as “real big drinkers” (App. 1.6), “violent [by nature]”
(1.8), and as born liars (1.4). An audience sympathetic to Lumet’s message would respond
emotionally to No. 10’s statements with feelings of discomfort and disagreement, and would feel
offended by his blanket discrimination. Here, Lumet is asking viewers to associate those feelings
with bigotry, and to emotionally disengage from No. 10 as a character. Feeling disconnected
from the flaw in society that No. 10 represents allows viewers to more-easily be persuaded by

11. 11

Lumet’s logical appeals. This argument, his logos, is absolutely critical for the monologue to be
effective. As the rhetor, Lumet utilized inductive reasoning in his logos – the formulation of a
general conclusion from a series of specific examples (Foss) – to guide a sympathetic, high-
interest audience to complete his message. He relies heavily on the audience’s ability to
complete logical arguments so that they may fully understand and appreciate the scene’s
development. Within his inductive structure, these incomplete logical syllogisms, called
enthymemes, are at the heart of the monologue’s effectiveness.
There are several important enthymemes that Lumet asks his viewers to complete, the first of
which is a set of visual enthymemes that span the entire length of the film. Although each of the
twelve juror characters serves as a metaphorical representation for a different slice of American
society, Sidney Lumet used the physiological expressions of the three most-conviction-
committed jurors – Nos. 3, 4, and 10 – to give power to these metaphors in the minds of the
audiences. On the subject of difficulties in directing 12 Angry Men, Lumet exhaustedly recalled,
“Then there was the sweat.” (Munyan 45). Especially in the cases of Jurors 3, 4 and 10, sweat
and other physiological expressions were used to typify the major negative aspects of each
character with regard to the trial.
Juror No. 3 sweats profusely during the entire film, even after a rain storm breaks the hot
weather and the other jury members cool off. This enthymeme for perpetual physical stress
further emphasizes No. 3’s inability to shake his preoccupation with his son and their torn
relationship; it is that painful nagging memory which keeps No. 3 pitted so firmly against the
defendant, another “rotten kid” (Rose 8). He is a man who has been blinded to justice in this case
by the unresolved hurt in his past.

12. 12

Juror No. 4 does not sweat at all until his logical argument is challenged by a persistent
barrage of questions from Juror No. 8. It is his cold, matter-of-fact classification of slum kids as
“potential menaces to society” (Rose 8) and his very detailed recollection of the ‘facts’ of the
case – including a timeline of the night of the murder and a cross-reference to the defendant’s
version of events – that defines his character. He is passionless, and is either unwilling or unable
to empathize with the defendant. He is a man who is so emotionally-guarded and ‘fact’-oriented
that he is unable to fully consider the moral and ethical consequences of his part in the
defendant’s conviction. His lack of sweat allows the audience to assume that he is emotionally
disconnected from the case.
Juror No. 10’s physiological metaphor is only slightly more complex because his
sweating is due in part to his hot-weather cold. Sidney Lumet uses Juror No. 10 to create an
analogous relationship between the effect of a cold on a person’s body and that of prejudice on a
person’s mind; he effectively defines prejudice in terms of illness and affliction. Juror No. 10
displays symptoms of prejudice throughout the film: a persistently-runny nose of thinly-veiled
racism/classism, impatience and irritability brought on by a running fever of burning hatred, and
finally, a loud and violent coughing fit of venomous language in the form of a two-minute
outburst. Prejudice compromises the integrity of Juror No. 10’s role as a juror, just as a cold
compromises the integrity of his physical health, and he serves as a case study in the effect of
prejudice on modern society. He is a man who calls on outrageous and unsubstantiated views to
assess the defendant’s guilt, but he is too aware of the weakness of his reality to stand alone
against the reality of those around him. The visual enthymeme of the hot-weather cold asks a
thoughtful audience to understand prejudice as an affliction in society, and as an illness that must
be cured.

13. 13

The film-spanning enthymemes discussed above are completed by an audience with an
understanding of the relationship between emotional/physiological responses and certain ethical
conclusions about those characters. However, the most-powerful visual enthymemes within the
monologue scene are dependent on the ability of the audience to combine their knowledge of the
characters with their knowledge of the 1950s context of the film. This is a more-logical element
of the scene, in which the organization of No. 10’s argument keeps the other jurors from
agreeing with him. In this scene, the enthymemes are completed by the audience to answer one
question: Why did each juror turn his back to No. 10? I have chosen to address three of the
clearest rejections to No. 10’s rant: Jurors No. 5, 11, and 9.
Juror No. 5 is the first to physically express his disagreement with No. 10 by leaving the
table and turning his back. Viewers know from earlier in the film that Juror No. 5 is a mechanic
who has lived in a slum all of his life, and he witnesses firsthand and takes offense to
discriminatory statements from the others about slum inhabitants early in the film. His
background of growing up in a violent slum yields valuable insight into the trial when he
concludes that it was very unlikely that the defendant killed his father: A kid who grew up in the
slums would have had experience with the murder weapon (a switchblade knife), and the fatal
wound did not match the stabbing motion associated with switchblades. While the other jurors
are working to recreate the fatal stab angle, No. 5 steps in and takes the knife, remarking with a
weak smile, “I hate these.” He reveals that he is the only one in the room who has ever seen a
knife fight. He says, “Switchblades came with the neighborhood where I lived” (App. 1.11.15),
and he informs the other jurors that he does not believe that the defendant – nor anyone else
experienced with switchblades – would have used the knife the way that the killer did. Juror No.
5 is established as a kind-hearted man with a tough upbringing who is fundamentally at odds

14. 14

with No. 10, and Lumet establishes his ethos with this character by shedding positive light on the
stereotypical underdog with a heart of gold – a character type that Americans seem to always
love. The audience must call on this background information from the film in order to understand
his reasoning for rejecting No. 10’s argument. He endures No. 10’s blanket characterizations of
people who live in slums as born liars who “don’t know what the truth is” (App. 1.4-5), and who
“don’t need any real big reason to kill someone” (App. 1.5-6) before finally leaving the table in
frustration (App. 2.5). The enthymeme of No. 5’s reaction in this scene is the clearest, but those
involving Nos. 9 and 11 are also powerful.
Juror No. 9 is the second person to rise and turn away from the table during the
monologue scene. His character is established as a thoughtful, retired, elderly man who is
considerate of the perspectives of others. The audience is informed about how to define and react
to Juror No. 10 very clearly by Juror No. 9 in an earlier scene: Juror No. 8 describes some of the
hardships that the defendant went through during his “pretty miserable eighteen years” –
including being born in a slum and suffering through the death of one parent and the
incarceration of another – and cites them as the root of the boy’s behavioral issues: “He’s a wild,
angry kid, that’s all he’s ever been, and you know why? ‘Cause he’s been hit on the head by
somebody once a day, every day. ... I just think we owe him a few words, that’s all.” (Lumet
0:13:12). Juror No. 10 nonverbally disengages from No. 8 partway-through what he likely
considered to be a ‘sob story’, but he resumes attention when No. 8 makes the point that these
circumstances of the defendant’s life culminate into a severe disadvantage and a high potential
for emotional/behavioral instability. As soon as No. 8 stops talking, No. 10 is ready with a
hateful response: “I don’t mind telling you this, mister: We don’t owe him a thing. ... He’s lucky
he got [a long, apparently costly trial]. Look, we’re all grownups in here. We heard the facts,

15. 15

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 No. 9 immediately stands up to counter this assertion by No. 10:
“Only an ignorant man can believe that. Do you think you were born with a monopoly on the
truth? [to the others] I think certain things should be pointed out to this man.” Here, Lumet uses
Juror No. 9 to equate bigotry with ignorance, which adds to his ethos as a rhetor – it shows the
audience that he values the power of understanding to better people. In the monologue scene,
Juror No. 9 stands as No. 10 echoes his earlier sentiments about the defendant’s ‘type’: “that’s
the way they are, by nature. Ya know what I mean? Violent!” (App. 1.7-8). Juror No. 9
immediately stands and turns away, reinforcing his expressed disagreement that No. 10 can
accurately make such absolute judgments about a group of people. The audience is reminded
here of the enthymeme that it is wholly inappropriate to make absolute assertions as if they were
legitimate facts. There is one more prominent enthymeme in this scene that the audience is
responsible for completing.
Juror No. 11 is the third juror to stand and walk away from the table in the monologue
scene. During the film, the audience learns that he is a European watchmaker who holds great
reverence for American democracy, and he makes clear to the others that he takes his role as a
juror in the trial very seriously, especially when the verdict is a decision between life and death
of the accused. He represents an immigrant who is informed about and involved in American
civic life, and who loves and respects the country that he has become a part of. He represents the
American dream in the eyes of the audience. However, the 1950s time period provides the
audience with another piece of context for his character: Though the audience is never told
where he emigrated from or when, viewers should know that in the 1950s, much of Europe was

16. 16

still reeling from the horrors of World War II. Just nine years before Reginald Rose created Juror
No. 11’s character, a war that had demonstrated the darkest depths of inhumanity in the Nazi
treatment of Jews and other groups came to a bittersweet end. Because Juror No. 11 has a strong
accent – but also a watchmaking business and a strong command of the English language – the
audience may assume that he either witnessed or fled before the awful events of the Third Reich
and the Holocaust. Either way, he would likely feel very strongly against the Nazis and their
actions, and he shows empathy and sympathy for people being stepped on. In the scene where
No. 5 lashes out at the others for insulting people who live in the slums, he is told by Juror No.
12 to “not be so sensitive”. Juror No. 11 stands and says “This sensitivity I can understand”
(Lumet 0:21:50). The audience may assume that he has personally faced discrimination or has
seen the mistreatment of others (or both), and views him positively because of his empathy
towards the underdog. In the monologue scene, he does not stand until a very specific trigger
phrase is used by No. 10: “Human life don’t mean as much to them as it does to us” (App. 1.8-9).
Before this sentence ends, No. 11 angrily stands and walks away from the table in disgust (App.
2.8-9). The enthymeme here is that No. 11 is sensitized to questions about the value of human
life and about the human capacity for violence and inhumanity, and Juror No. 10 shows
disregard for the gravity of that statement.
These three enthymematic elements in the monologue scene strengthen Lumet’s artistic
ethos because he strategically evokes the appeals of pathos and logos to inform the audience of
how he believes No. 10’s statements should be responded to. An ideal audience would
understand that Lumet’s character and good will are effectively revealed in his construction of
the monologue scene. Each juror was created to contribute to a representative cross-section of
prominent American societal archetypes at that time, and Lumet believed that an enlightened

17. 17

majority will reject a bigoted minority; he had faith in the ethics and morality of the people of the
United States. In addition to his use of rhetorical invention, he also strategically uses
organization, delivery, and linguistic style within the monologue scene to lead viewers through
an emotionally-charged presentation and subsequent multi-stage rejection of prejudice by the
twelve angry men on screen.
The second of Aristotle’s Canons of Rhetoric is Organization, which is the strategic
structure of the content of a message. The organization of Lumet’s message in the monologue
scene is topical, meaning that each supporting datum is introduced by type. In this scene, Juror
No. 10 attempts to vilify the defendant and his ‘type’ by making several classifications of
minorities/people in the slums. He begins his rant by first classifying the defendant as a member
of the outgroup, which No. 10 and the other jurors are purported to be separate from: He says
“You saw this kid just like I did” (App. 1.2), which sets up the other jurors to identify with him
against the defendant. He then goes on to assert that members of the outgroup are born liars
(App. 1.4) who do not value human life (App. 1.5-6) and are violent alcoholics (App. 1.6-8). He
pulls all of these generalizations together in lines 8 through 10 of the transcript: “Human life
don’t mean as much to them as it does to us! Look, they’re lushing it up and fighting all of the
time, and if somebody gets killed, so somebody gets killed, they don’t care!” At this point in the
scene, three jurors have turned their backs to him, so he unsuccessfully attempts to retrieve some
credibility by saying that he doesn’t mean to demonize all minorities/people in the slums: “Oh
sure, there’s some good things about ‘em too. Look, I’m the first one to say that. I’ve known a
couple who were okay, but that’s the exception, ya know what I mean?” (App. 1.10-12).
However, his attempt to alter the other jurors’ perception of him didn’t last very long, as he
returns to calling the defendant a liar (App. 1.14) and saying “Listen to me, they’re no good.

18. 18

There’s not a one of ‘em who’s any good.” (App. 1.14-15). Near the end of his rant, when only
Juror No. 4 remains facing him, No. 10 begins to stutter more and his voice gets quieter as the
strength of his hatred wanes. He makes one last effort to broadly characterize the outgroup:
“These people are dangerous. They’re wild.” (App. 1.17). The organization of his monologue
moves from specific to general classifications of the outgroup, and Lumet strategically uses this
structure to show the audience that No. 10’s bigotry is unacceptable from beginning to end, and
that his desperation in developing it proves its inadequacy.
The third Canon of Rhetoric is Style, which is comprised of the verbal and nonverbal
choices that Lumet makes to make his message effective. Through Juror No. 10’s monologue,
Lumet asks the audience to see prejudice and bigotry as creating inappropriate distinctions
between groups of people. Juror No. 10 never uses a racist or classist slur to describe his
outgroup, and his use of profanity never goes beyond “what the heck” (App. 1.4). Sidney Lumet
did not need his character to be foul-mouthed in order to produce a powerful and upsetting scene.
Juror No. 10 consistently refers to minorities and/or people from slums as “they,” creating an
ingroup/outgroup dynamic between the jury members – all white men, and only Juror No. 5 is
known to have grown up in a slum – and the defendant, whose young age, low socioeconomic
standing, and ambiguous (but very likely minority) race/ethnicity all work against him during the
jury deliberations. Juror No. 10’s dialogue is very effective at creating this us/them distinction
because it is dense with absolutes and abstractions regarding the characteristics of the outgroup.
Juror No. 10 expresses the implication – by means of name-calling and absolute abstractions –
that members of the outgroup (minorities/slum-dwellers) are uncontrollably-violent,
psychopathic, alcoholic liars who are born that way. These choices of language – and the loud,
belligerent tone with which No.10 spews them – are rhetorical strategies used by Lumet to meet

19. 19

the constraints of his audience and of his purpose, and they are effective for persuading the
audience to disconnect themselves from No. 10’s character type.
Despite the prominently negative and hateful outgroup-directed quality of the rant as a
whole, the high quantity of self- and ingroup-directed language highlights Juror No. 10’s
desperate grasping for confirmation, validation, and agreement from the other jurors. There is
evidence from Rose’s writings on the story that No. 10 is racist, but the character seems to be
attempting to capitalize on the classist (or otherwise-designated) prejudices held by the others by
keeping the subject of his tirade vague. Though he never explicitly states that his attacks are
race-based, his unabashed expression of inappropriate hatred for the defendant’s “type” (App.
1.16) quickly and clearly alienated the other jurors one-by-one. He seemed to construct his
argument based on the assumption that a more-specific enemy than the ambiguous “they” would
have garnered less support from the other jurors, which is why he broadened his statements after
losing the support of the others in the monologue scene. Even those who voted guilty with him in
the last vote (Jurors No. 3 and 4) responded negatively to his outburst. Lumet’s ethos is again
displayed by his stylistic choices in this scene: His intelligence about and familiarity with the
subject of discrimination is revealed through his presentation of a multi-faceted tirade against an
outgroup; the bigotry portrayed by No. 10 in this scene seems to incorporate every common,
broad group disparagement. This was a choice made strategically by Lumet to show the audience
that there is not logic or evidence for the kind of bigotry shown by No. 10, nor for that expressed
by anyone else.
The Canon of Delivery, or the medium by which the message is presented, was used
strategically by Lumet to mentally and emotionally prime his audience. He once again appeals to
his audience’s pathos in the artifact through the strategic use of cinematographic techniques to

20. 20

create tension on-screen and within the minds of audience members. Lumet described these
techniques in brief:
“We did all we could honestly do on a one-set movie to heighten
the drama. We created a claustrophobic tension by gradually changing
camera lenses to narrow the room and crowd up the table. Little by little
we lowered the camera level to shoot up at the furious jurymen. And the
rate of changes in camera angles is stepped up as the talk grows louder and
fiercer.” (Munyan 45).
The effectiveness of Lumet’s cinematographic choices is summed-up in this quote from
Roger Ebert’s 2002 review of the film: “The movie plays like a textbook for directors interested
in how lens choices affect mood” (Ebert). Lumet uses these techniques to meet the physical and
psychological constraints of his audience, who is asked to be invested in and involved with the
screen in front of them while they watch the movie. His camerawork successfully creates an
atmosphere of claustrophobia and tension for his audience, regardless of their physical setting
while viewing 12 Angry Men. In this way, Lumet strategically uses the element of delivery to
fortify his message.
The last of Aristotle’s Canons is Memoria, which is how the rhetor’s use of rhetorical
strategies comes together in the minds of the audience to create a powerful message. Lumet’s
artifact was especially effective through his use of Invention (to construct a message that was
logically-sound, ethically-acceptable, and emotionally-appropriate) and Delivery (to prime an
audience for a thought-provoking experience from a medium in which they may not have
expected it). His use of Style further serves to inform viewers of how he is asking them to
complete his enthymemes, and the Organization of his message is simple enough that a high-

21. 21

interest audience can easily follow the development of the scene. Through his strategic use of
these rhetorical strategies, Sidney Lumet effectively creates a powerful, lasting message in his
film 12 Angry Men.
Juror No. 10’s monologue in 12 Angry Men showcases the ugliness and impropriety
of prejudice in the American justice system, as well as its negative impact on a
representative cross-section of American society. Using the Neo-Aristotelian Approach, I
conclude that Sidney Lumet effectively met the constraints of audience and occasion by
using the rhetorical strategies of invention and delivery. Despite the film’s unremarkable box
office performance upon release, 12 Angry Men has become treasured for its classic
representation of both how ‘justice’ can and should be carried out in a United States jury room.
Even in black and white, with some 1950s phrases (“switchknife”, “feller”, etc.) and clothes, and
an all-male, all-white jury, 12 Angry Men’s timeless message overcomes its dated style. As long
as there is bigotry – or the memory of it – in the world, the film will continue to enlighten those
who are in the dark, to embolden those who are enlightened, and to rally all to stand on the side
of justice for all people.

22. 22


Works Cited
“12 Angry Men (1957) – IMDb.” The Internet Movie Database (IMDb). N.d. Web.
“12 Angry Men – Sidney Lumet.” The Criterion Collection. 2013. Web.
“American President: A Reference Resource.” Dwight David Eisenhower Biography. Miller
Center. University of Virginia: 2013. Retrieved from
http://millercenter.org/president/eisenhower/essays/biography/4. Web.
Derzon, Katya. Appendices 1 and 2, Transcript and Storyboard of monologue scene. Spring
2014. Print.
Derzon, Katya. Media Analysis Notes. Spring 2014. Print.
Ebert, Roger. Rev. of 12 Angry Men, dir. Sidney Lumet. RogerEbert.com, 29 Sep. 2002. Web.
Foss, Sonja K. Rhetorical criticism: exploration and practice. Long Grove, Ill: Waveland Press,
2009. Print.
“Frequently Asked Questions About the National Film Registry.” National Film Registry.
Library of Congress, 10 Mar. 2014. Web.
Lumet, Sidney. 12 Angry Men. United Artists, 1957. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RelOJfFIyp8. Film.
Lumet, Sidney. Interview with Ralph Engleman for Archive of American Television. 28 Oct.
1999. Retrieved from http://www.emmytvlegends.org/interviews/people/sidney-lumet.
Web.

23. 23

Munyan, Russ. Readings on Twelve Angry Men. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. Print.
Rose, Reginald. Twelve Angry Men. Teleplay script, 1954. Retrieved from
http://fischersoph.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/12-angry-men-script.pdf. Web.