Yellowjackets Season 3: Why Is Episode 4 Titled “12 Angry Girls and 1 Drunk Travis”?

Yellowjackets Season 3, Episode 4 takes a fascinating narrative detour, structuring itself around a makeshift wilderness trial that serves as the episode’s centerpiece. Titled “12 Angry Girls and 1 Drunk Travis,” Yellowjackets‘ latest episode deliberately evokes Sidney Lumet’s landmark 1957 courtroom drama 12 Angry Men as the survivors put Coach Ben (Steven Krueger) on trial for allegedly burning down their cabin at the end of Season 2. The episode transforms the show’s typical survival horror dynamics into a tense judicial proceeding, complete with prosecution, defense, witnesses, and deliberation. This clever homage doesn’t just borrow the black-and-white film’s structural elements but also explores similar themes of justice, group psychology, and the fraught nature of determining truth when emotions and survival are at stake.

WARNING: Spoilers below for 12 Angry Men and Yellowjackets Season 3, Episode 4

12 Angry Men, directed by Sidney Lumet and starring Henry Fonda, was released in 1957 to critical acclaim, though it initially underperformed at the box office. The film takes place almost entirely within a jury deliberation room as twelve male jurors debate the fate of a young man accused of murdering his father. The story begins with eleven jurors ready to convict and only Juror 8 (Fonda) voting not guilty – not because he’s convinced of the defendant’s innocence, but because he believes the case deserves thoughtful discussion before sending someone to his death. Through careful questioning and logical reasoning, Juror 8 gradually persuades others to reconsider their positions.

[RELATED: Yellowjackets Season 3 Reveals the Origins of the Man With No Eyes (And Fans Might Hate It)]

12 Angry Men has been preserved in the National Film Registry for its cultural significance and is regularly featured in lists of greatest films ever made due to its exploration of how prejudice, personal history, and group dynamics can influence supposedly objective decision-making. These themes are equally crucial for Yellowjackets Season 3, Episode 4, where the girls face complex questions about justice.

The Thematic Parallel Between Yellowjackets and Henry Fonda’s 12 Angry Men

Yellowjackets adapts the core elements of 12 Angry Men to its unique wilderness setting, replacing the film’s sterile jury room with a primitive tribunal conducted in the middle of the survivors’ camp. Both narratives center on deciding a man’s fate through an imperfect judicial process. However, Yellowjackets raises the stakes by setting its trial in a lawless environment where the consequences are immediately life-or-death, without appeals or safeguards. Nevertheless, the episode mirrors the film’s concern with how justice functions when administered by ordinary people with complex motivations, biases, and emotional investments in the outcome.

Natalie’s (Sophie Thatcher) establishment of a two-thirds majority requirement instead of unanimity reveals a crucial difference between their wilderness justice and the American legal system depicted in 12 Angry Men. In Lumet’s film, the requirement for unanimous agreement creates the central dramatic tension — one dissenting voice, Juror 8, can prevent conviction, emphasizing the system’s preference for letting guilty people go free rather than convicting the innocent. By contrast, Natalie’s two-thirds rule is a pragmatic adaptation to their wilderness reality. When Shauna (Sophie Nélisse) protests, advocating for a simple majority instead, Natalie defends her choice by noting that “real trials” require unanimity, positioning their two-thirds compromise as a middle ground between civilized justice and frontier expediency.

Furthermore, the process of witness examination in both stories reveals how testimony is shaped by personal histories. In 12 Angry Men, Juror 8 methodically deconstructs witness statements, exposing how perception can be clouded by prejudice, poor eyesight, or emotional distress. Similarly, in the Yellowjackets trial, Misty’s (Samantha Hanratty) cross-examination of witnesses reveals how Ben’s actions can be interpreted differently depending on which facts are emphasized. Both narratives demonstrate that “facts” are rarely objective and that the same evidence can support radically different conclusions depending on who’s presenting it and for what purpose.

[RELATED: Yellowjackets: What Happened to the “Bonus” Season 2 Episode?]

Finally, both stories examine how personal biases influence judgment. In Lumet’s film, several jurors’ verdicts are driven by their own traumas and prejudices — Juror 3’s broken relationship with his son colors his view of the defendant, while Juror 10’s racism makes him assume guilt based on the defendant’s background. Yellowjackets explores similar territory by ultimately showing how Shauna bullies other members of the community to vote for Ben’s conviction. The idea that the fire could be an accident is terrifying because it evokes the chaos that governs the wilderness. So, instead, Shauna and the others need someone to blame for their misfortune, someone they can punish and call the deal done.

The episode’s structural homage to 12 Angry Men ultimately serves to illuminate how much the survivors have lost. While they attempt to recreate a courtroom, the true meaning of justice proves more elusive. 12 Angry Men ultimately affirms faith in the justice system’s capacity to arrive at truth through careful deliberation. Yellowjackets presents a darker view, suggesting that when institutional safeguards fall away, justice becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish from group survival instincts and interpersonal power struggles.

New Yellowjackets Season 3 episodes premiere Fridays on Paramount+.

How did you enjoy “12 Angry Girls and 1 Drunk Travis”? What do you think Coach Ben’s punishment will be? Share your thoughts in the comments!