This report is on a movie called, “12 Angry Men.” The movie is about 12 men that are the jury for a case where a young man is being accused of killing his father. A major conflict that is very obvious is the disagreement on whether the young boy was guilty or innocent. After court when all of the men sat down to begin their discussion Courtney B. Vance (#1) Took charge and respectfully was now the leader. He asked what everyone’s votes were and all of the men except for Jack Lemmon (#8) voted the young man was guilty. Because Jack was the odd one that chose differently than the rest of the men, all of the other Jures, were defensive about the evidence just because they were all so confused. Courtney B. Vance took charge once again and …show more content…
Next was George C. Schott (#3) He also voted guilty. George was very stern when he spoke and got angry very easily. George has a son who reminds him a lot of the young boy that is being accused of killing his father. He makes this very personal for him and does everything he can to convince the other men that, this kid is guilty. Armin Muller-Stahl (#4) was very educated and always knew what he was talking about! He was continually bringing up more evidence that which lead to more conflicts. He was judgmental and said, “ people who grew up in slums [which this young man did] are trash. Which leads to why Dorian Harewood (#5) was such an easily offended character. After Armin said what he did Dorian understood the kid more and began to see that he was not guilty so he changed his vote. (#6) was James Gundolfini he brought up a lot of information but mainly just didn’t understand at teat point how the kid could be anything but guilty. Now Tony Danza (#7) was a real character. He was very disrespectful and didn’t care that the boy, maybe didn’t do it, he just wanted to get an agreement so that he wouldn’t …show more content…
Once he had missed his game, he became more understanding; as if he was two completely different people. Jack Lemmon (#8) was the most compassionate and brave to me. He stayed strong to his beliefs and evidence while everyone was rude to him and tried everything to prove him wrong. He didn’t care what the other men’s opinions were he just wanted to make sure that this young boy wasn’t accused of killing his father if it wasn't the truth. The “old man” of the group was Hume Cronyn (#9) at the beginning he was apologetic but willing to take an hour to make sure that this boy wouldn’t be wrongly accused. He changed his vote pretty early and then because very understanding as well as loving. Mykelti Williamson (#10) was a lot like Tony Danza (#7) He was rude, careless and stubborn. He voiced his opinion in the most disrespectful ways, almost always interruption someone else. He believes that a kid from a place like that isn’t any good. The next character is Edward James Olmos (#11) for the first half of the movie he was very quiet and walked around, but once he changed his vote to not guilty he became very kind and helpful. Something he said when he was standing up for the kid was, “ to say one is capable of committing murder
Even before the jury sits to take an initial vote, the third man has found something to complain about. Describing “the way these lawyers can talk, and talk and talk, even when the case is as obvious as this” one was. Then, without discussing any of the facts presented in court, three immediately voiced his opinion that the boy is guilty. It is like this with juror number three quite often, jumping to conclusions without any kind of proof. When the idea that the murder weapon, a unique switchblade knife, is not the only one of its kind, three expresses “[that] it’s not possible!” Juror eight, on the other hand, is a man who takes a much more patient approach to the task of dictating which path the defendant's life takes. The actions of juror three are antagonistic to juror eight as he tries people to take time and look at the evidence. During any discussion, juror number three sided with those who shared his opinion and was put off by anyone who sided with “this golden-voiced little preacher over here,” juror eight. His superior attitude was an influence on his ability to admit when the jury’s argument was weak. Even when a fellow juror had provided a reasonable doubt for evidence to implicate the young defendant, three was the last one to let the argument go. Ironically, the play ends with a 180 turn from where it began; with juror three
12 Angry Men is about 12 men who are the jury for an 18 year old accused of murder. The judge states in the opening scene that it is a premeditated murder in the 1st degree, if found guilty will automatically receive the death penalty. The 18 year old male is accused of killing his father with a “one of a kind” switch blade, in their home. The prosecutors have several eye witness testimonies, and all of the evidence that they could need to convict the 18 year old male. In the movie it takes place on the hottest day of the year in New York City. There are 12 jurors whom are to decide if the evidence is enough to convict the teen of murder in the first degree. In the first initial vote it is 11-1. The only way that the jurors could turn in their votes was if there was unanimous vote either guilty or not guilty among the 12 jurors. As the movie progressed the jurors ended up changing their minds as new evidence was brought to their attention by simple facts that were overlooked by the police and prosecutors in the initial investigation. Tempers were raised, and words flew, there was prejudice and laziness of a few of the jurors that affected the amount of time it took to go over all of the eye witness testimonies and evidence. The eye witness testimonies ended up being proven wrong and some of the evidence was thrown out because it was put there under false pretense.
Except his words strike the others with such force the other Jurors began to believe he was correct about his point of view. His views are just about the same as Juror ten’s, but what the others don’t realize is that on the inside, he is really repressing his emotions to himself in others. Moreover you should leave personal business at the door when you’re a jury member, he decides to bring all of his father and son issues into the room, “Rotten kids... You work your life out!”(12 Angry Men). He is no longer talking about the boy on the stand, but his own son. His prejudice seeps throughout most of the film as well, “I never saw a guiltier man in my life. You sat right in court and heard the same thing I did. The man's a dangerous killer. You could see it.”(12 Angry Men) He, in comparison to others, were going off what they presumed to be fact, but Juror eight stood against it and made sure everything was looked through properly. In addition, referencing figure 1 again, there is a lightning bolt represented as juror three because he also brings a shock to everyone as to why he doesn’t think the kid is innocent. He believes that all ‘slum’ kids are to be brought up the same: low lives. But the end of the lightning bolt is quite literal to his argument. Quite dull. There are no good backups to his reasons. The outside of him is a thin line representing his argument is weak and not as bold as juror eight’s. Furthermore, the color of his inside can represent his emotions, but there seem to be tiny red ‘stars’ in himself those may represent every time he blew off the handle every time they voted, but there is only one tiny little ‘star’ to represent his last vote causing him to collapse into
In the play, 12 Angry Men, written by the well-known writer and producer, Reginald Rose, sets the scene in a stuffy jury room on an extremely hot day where 12 jurors must deem whether a boy is guilty for the murder of his father. The jurors struggle to reach a unanimous decision, as tension between the jurors builds up. The author delivers several clear messages through his play such as standing up for what you believe in, and always pursuing the truth. Often times personal feelings, prejudices, and fear of voicing opinions prevent the truth from being exposed.
As time goes on he becomes more and more passionate and seems to be somehow personally involved with the case. At one point, he tells the other jurors about an argument between him and his son. Juror 3 and his son had an argument which made his son run away. When his son returned to apologize, Juror 3 hit him for leaving the first time thus leading him to run away once more. He has not seen his son in two years and this has left him somewhat bitter inside. His anger toward his supposed ungrateful son is projected toward the young man on trial. Juror 3 has no concern for the life of the defendant. He makes it clear that he would have been an executioner and would have pulled the switch on the boy himself. His personal troubles have imposed on his ability to come to a verdict.
...ted by peer pressure. At the end of the play, after all the other jurors joined up with Juror 8, Juror 3 was the only one who still voted ‘guilty’. This time, Juror 3’s perseverance collapsed and he finally voted on ‘not guilty’. Juror 3 is obviously not as brave as Juror 8 as to stand up for his singular thought on the crime. A reason for this might be because he doesn’t have the intelligence to use good arguments to prove his stance.
The movie, 12 Angry Men is about twelve white men deciding the jail sentence of an 18-year old boy who has allegedly committed murder by stabbing his father. The men must decide if the boy is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt awaiting a death sentence by electric chair. The first scene of the movie is the jurors waling into one room and Juror number 1(foreman) is seen leader of the deliberation. He tells the jurors to gather around a table and explains that the goal of the deliberation is to vote on the sentence of a boy’s guiltiness and innocence. After no deliberation at first, everyone quickly unanimously votes guilty. Everyone except one juror; who explains the reason why he couldn’t cast his vote guilty was because he couldn’t decide such
Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.
...a unanimous vote of not guilty. The final scene takes place signifying the "adjourning stage". Two of the jurors, eight and three exchange the only character names mentioned during the film. The entire process of groupthink occurs in multiple ways that display its symptoms on individual behavior, emotions, and personal filters. These symptoms adversity affected the productivity throughout the juror's debate. In all, all twelve men came to an agreement but displayed group social psychological aspects.
Juror number 3 felt guilty when his son left, therefore making the final decision hit home. Juror 3 was the deciding vote.”3rd: No? you got any kids? 8th: Two. 3rd: yeah well I got one he’s twenty. We did everything for that boy and what happened? when he was nine he ran away from a fight. I saw him. I was so ashamed I almost threw up. So I told him right out i'm gonna make a man outta you or i'm gonna bust you in half trying. Well I made a man outa him alright. when he was sixteen we had a battle. He hit me in the face hes big ya know. I haven't seen him in two years. Rotten kids you work your heart …..[ He breaks off. He said more than he had intended, he is embarrassed.] All right let’s get on with it pg 17-18’’ The 3rd juror just told the whole jury about himself and how it will affect his vote. This shows person vs self
a) Juror Three argued that the switchblade knife was swung down and in, which was ideal for the defendant considering he was shorter than his father. Juror Three stated, “‘Down and in. That’s how I’d stab a taller man in the chest and that’s how it was done.’” (Rose 61). This quote basically accounts for Juror Three’s beliefs with handling the knife.
Juror #1 originally thought that the boy was guilty. He was convinced that the evidence was concrete enough to convict the boy. He continued to think this until the jury voted the first time and saw that one of the jurors thought that the boy was innocent. Then throughout the movie, all of the jurors were slowly convinced that the boy was no guilty.
From the very beginning of 12 Angry Men, we are shown a jury unevenly divided, eleven of the men voting for guilty, and one voting for not guilty. This
A huge part of childhood and schooling is the reading of books, particularly famous ones, which teach important lessons that you can then carry through life. However these books can often be deceptive and hide the whole truth behind a web of lies, which in turn make life seem much nicer than it really is. These falsities can idealize the world to a point that the expectations of what life should be become drastically skewed. However theses lies can provide an example of a world to strive toward and thus I feel it is necessary that books do not portray the world as it is, but rather as it should be to give society a goal to shoot for and to teach valuable lessons.
In viewing 12 Angry Men, we see face to face exactly what man really is capable of being. We see different views, different opinions of men such as altruism, egoism, good and evil. It is no doubt that human beings possess either one or any of these characteristics, which make them unique. It is safe to say that our actions, beliefs, and choices separate us from animals and non-livings. The 20th century English philosopher, Martin Hollis, once said, “Free will – the ability to make decisions about how to act – is what distinguishes people from non-human animals and machines 1”. He went to describe human beings as “self conscious, rational, creative. We can fall in love, write sonnets or plan for tomorrow. We are capable of faith, hope and charity, and for that matter, of envy, hated and malice. We know truth from error, right from wrong 2.” Human nature by definition is “Characteristics or qualities that make human beings different from anything else”. With this said, the topic of human nature has been around for a very long time, it is a complex subject with no right or wrong answer. An American rabbi, Samuel Umen, gave examples of contradictions of human nature in his book, Images of Man. “He is compassionate, generous, loving and forgiving, but also cruel, vengeful, selfish and vindictive 3”. Existentialism by definition is, “The belief that existence comes before essence, that is, that who you are is only determined by you yourself, and not merely an accident of birth”. A French philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, is the most famous and influential 20th - century existentialist. He summed up human nature as “existence precedes essence”. In his book, Existentialism and Human Emotions, he explained what he meant by this. “It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will be something, and he himself will have made what he will be 4”. After watching 12 Angry Men, the prominent view on human nature that is best portrayed in the movie is that people are free to be whatever they want because as Sartre said, “people create themselves every moment of everyday according to the choices they make 5”.