More handpicked essays just for you.
Social psychology in the movie 12 angry men
Introduction about 12 angry men movie
Introduction about 12 angry men movie
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Social psychology in the movie 12 angry men
My favorite character in the movie was juror number 8, for the reason that even when the men were pressuring him to vote guilty, he stood his ground. He stated the facts and he proved the boy was innocent. After all the explaining and evidence pointing towards the boy being not guilty, all jurors came together to decide that the boy was actually innocent and he couldn’t have killed his own dad. My least favorite characters were juror number 10 and 3 because all they did was yell and try to force their opinion on the men trying to decide if the boy is truly guilty or not. They were both stubborn and wouldn’t listen to the facts pointing otherwise on their decision. I assume they could have lowered their voices and point out what they thought
We are all different. We are all at least biased on one topic. Some people just look at the surface, while others dig deeper into the facts that were given. Reginald Rose demonstrated these points beautifully in 12 Angry Men. All of the Jurors bring a special part of their personality to the jury room, which is the beauty of having a jury. All of the jurors are different in their own unique way,
The first vote ended with eleven men voting guilty and one man not guilty. We soon learn that several of the men voted guilty since the boy had a rough background not because of the facts they were presented with. Although numerous jurors did make racist or prejudice comments, juror ten and juror three seemed to be especially judgmental of certain types of people. Juror three happened to be intolerant of young men and stereotyped them due to an incident that happened to his son. In addition, the third juror began to become somewhat emotional talking about his son, showing his past experience may cloud his judgment. Juror ten who considered all people from the slums “those people” was clearly prejudiced against people from a different social background. Also, Juror ten stated in the beginning of the play “You 're not going to tell us that we 're supposed to believe that kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I 've lived among 'em all my life. You can 't believe a word they say. I mean, they 're born liars.” Juror ten did not respect people from the slums and believed them to all act the same. As a result, Juror ten believed that listening to the facts of the case were pointless. For this reason, the tenth juror already knew how “those people” acted and knew for sure the boy was not innocent. Even juror four mentioned just how the slums are a “breeding ground
First off, the settings in the movie are a great deal more fleshed out. In the play, the scene begins with the jurors regarding the judge's final statements concerning the case in the courtroom and then walking out into the jury room. In the movie, the audience is placed in the role of the invisible casual observer, who for perhaps the first 5 minutes of the movie, walks throughout the court building passing other court rooms, lawyers, defendants, security officers, elevators, etc. Not able to remember much about this particular part of the movie, I believe this introductory scene's purpose was to either enhanced the realism of the setting by emphasizing the court building's efficient, business like manner or to provide a timeslot in which to roll the credits for producer, director, stars, etc. The settings aren't only built upon through use of scenery and extras in the movie. Invisible and distant in the play, we see in the movie the judge, bailiff, those witnessing the trial and most importantly of all- the defendant. This is an important change because in the play, we are free to come up with our own unbiased conclusions as to the nature and identity of the defendant, whom we only know to a be a 19 year boy from the slums. Seeing his haggard and worn face in the movie changes all of that, yet for better or worse, it engages the audience deeper into the trial as they surely will sympathize with him and can gain some insight into why, later, Juror 8 does so as well. Of final note in this summary of points concerning the differences in setting, the jurors all mention the heat wave affecting the city when they begin, and as it agitates them, it serves to heighten the tension between each other and their resentment or other feelings towards jury duty. Oh- also lastly, I think we can infer that the movie takes place in Manhattan, New York City.
ghetto who is on trial for the murder of his abusive father. A jury of twelve
I believe that both characters showed interesting standpoints for the audience to recognize and maybe even understand. Juror 3 and 8 were definitely the two most conflicting characters; they created a lot of tension within the play. I find that the play “Twelve Angry men” really brought truth to the saying “justice is blind”; prejudice simply cannot interfere with the truth, neither can it restrict reasonable doubt.
Juror number eight is the main protagonist, he also a reserved with his thoughts, yet very strategic with them. He is the defender of the down trodden victim. He has a calm rational approach to everything and he reveals the gaps in the testimonies placed against the defendant. These examples would be; that the old man couldn’t have seen the boy run out of the house, as the old man had a limp and therefore could not make it to the door in time. The old lady across the road could have never saw the boy stab his father, due to she wasn’t wearing her glasses and it was pitch black. Number eight is a man that s...
After preparing for the job interview for hours, you arrive with time to spare, and you sit down in the conference room. You are greeted by a properly dressed man ready to conduct your interview; however, he gives you an odd look, “Wait, you’re black!” You ignore his rude remark and allow the interview to begin. A few minutes into the interview, a disheveled white man walks into the interview. He apologizes for being late and then proceeds to fumble around is his laptop bag for his resume. You briefly glance at the resume and notice you are far more qualified for the job than he is. At the end of the interview on your way out the door, the interviewer stops you and says in a low voice, “I’m sorry, but I think we are going to go with the other guy. Next time you should tell them you're black so that way you don’t waste your time.” That is ridiculous, not to mention racist! Sergeant Waters feels the effects of the black "ism" and decides to take it out on himself and other black men, possibly
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.
My favorite character from the movie was Juror 8 because he fought for what he thought was right. Comparing him with the others he was brave enough to stand out to everyone thinking the kid was not guilty. Others where to scared to speak up and just went along to what everyone else said. Juror 8 saw things that others didn’t notice. He went in deeper in the case and that’s what makes him different. He actually cared that it was the life of a kid not like the others that thought it was just easy to say he was guilty and kill him. All the jurors thought straight from the beginning that all the testimonies made from the woman and the old man where true. The small details was what made the other jurors doubt that the kid was guilty. For example
One of the strengths the movie has been the filming itself. There were barely any cuts in the movie and it was mostly shot in one scene so it made you feel that you were part of the scene. Another strength in the movie was the anonymity that was given to the jurors. This help me realise that these were just the “general public” and that there are many jury’s that are exactly or similar to this. Another strength that the movie showed was that it helped me realise the potential flaw in our justice system. While the accused is still given a right to a fair trial, when you are in a society where prejudice against minorities is considered a norm, it becomes hard looking at things fairly not because you don’t want to but because most of the society is already doing it. For example, in the movie most of the jurors were quick to accuse the boy guilty without deliberation. Another strength is how this movie showed how influential we are to each other. For example, the group dynamic of economic status was big because while the people on the higher economic status looked at the boy with more prejudice, one of the jurors who was
“Courage - a perfect sensibility of the measure of danger, and a mental willingness to endure it.” Courageous people understand the danger that they face when they act how they do. That is what courage is all about. Many historical events occur due to people having the courage to do what they think is right, or because of those who use their courage to do what they want. Having the courage to stand alone in one’s beliefs may be one of the hardest thing a person can do.
According to Myers and Twenge (2013), conformity is “a change in behavior or belief as the result of real or imagined peer pressure” (p. 188). In 12 Angry Men, conformity is seen in the beginning of the film. As the jury is voting on the suspect’s verdict, there is a hesitancy from a few of the jurors. In the beginning, only a couple jurors raised their hands for “guilty”. Slowly, more and more people started raising their hands as a result of peer pressure from those around them. In the end, everyone but one person was raising their hand for “guilty”, and the vote was 11 to 1 “guilty”. This scene relates to the study of Asch’s (1955) line comparison studies of group pressure. In this study, a line of people was supposed to tell
...irrespective of what majority says. Your participation has the ability to change what others think completely. Due to Jury number 8's participation, the ratio of 1:11 votes(not guilty:guilty) changed to an over all vote of not guilty. Communication doesn't happen non-verbally right at the beginning stages of the group development. If the movie was “11 Angry Men” with Jury number 8 excluded, the other jurors would've done just given vote once, and decided the fate of the boy. Why did the group make its decision not guilty? The answer is plain and simple: “Due to group participation and interaction.” If you were in the place of juror number 8 or any other juror, would you've spoken for the boy or not?
... believed in the innocence of the young man and convinced the others to view the evidence and examine the true events that occurred. He struggled with the other jurors because he became the deviant one in the group, not willing to follow along with the rest. His reasoning and his need to examine things prevailed because one by one, the jurors started to see his perspective and they voted not guilty. Some jurors were not convinced, no matter how much evidence was there, especially Juror #3. His issues with his son affected his decision-making but in the end, he only examined the evidence and concluded that the young man was not guilty.
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”.