Last week we watched the movie 12 angry men in the TOK lesson, which was filmed and directed by Sydney Lumet in the year 1957. I really enjoyed watching it, because it was very interesting to see how talking influences your opinion on something. When you as an audience member watch the movie, you get to know many ways of knowing. The key idea of the movie was to show how these different ways of knowing can be used, to prove someone's innocence if you accused of a crime. The filmmakers wanted the audience to make up an opinion by themselves, meaning the should make up their mind if the boy was innocent or guilty. So while you are watching the movie, you are lead into a case, which is very hard to understand, still it’s an interesting and complex, …show more content…
Juror number 3 (Lee Cobb), was absolutely certain that the boy was completely innocent and had nothing to do with the crime, the people accused him of. The reason for the third Juror Lee not thinking that the boy is guilty that he has a small boy himself, with whom he has his own problems. Meaning he can totally link this boy to his own son, because he has a lot of arguments with him at home as well. Therefore his judgment towards the boy was very different than from all of the other Jurors because he was sad about how his relationship with his son is at the moment because he had done some mistakes which he really regrets that he has done them. Seeing these scenes from the movie, you could say that this man has a very calm character, but he could get angry as well as he said that he has done a lot of mistakes he really regrets, linked with his own son. This leads to my conclusion, that this particular character is a very straight character, meaning that he wants to archive what his goals are. He does not care what people say to him if he thinks something is true or not true, he tries to convince everybody to have the same thought as him. During the process of convincing the people he shows some emotions towards the boy because he could clearly see the connection between him and his son, so he was determined to help the boy out of this …show more content…
He did this with some great leadership skills, meaning he had a key point and he talked to them with a loud and clear voice. Because of the way he talked the Jurors were fascinated by him and changed their mind, due to the points he gave them, and because they wanted to calm themselves down because their discussion from before was too long and unclear.
The Jurors using this technique are Juror 10 and Juror 3. Meaning both of them speak with very loud voices, to kind of force the other Jurors to like their ways of thinking about this certain case. He is doing that very well, because he directly tells some of the Jurors some very uncomfortable things, for example, “If you don’t know something about is, you should better listen to me” or “listen to me, listen” and another one which he said a couple of times was “What are you doing?”. These sentences are always spoken with loud voices to clearly show the viewer who had something to say and who does
The play, ‘Twelve Angry men’, written by Reginald Rose, explores the thrilling story of how twelve different orientated jurors express their perceptions towards a delinquent crime, allegedly committed by a black, sixteen-year-old. Throughout the duration of the play, we witness how the juror’s background ordeals and presumptuous assumptions influence the way they conceptualise the whole testimony itself.
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
Throughout the play, Juror 3 is stubborn and unwilling to listen to any other opinions. Juror 3 continually does or says whatever best suits his needs to convince the rest of the jurors that the teen boy murdered his father. When he first interjects, he describes his thoughts about the case being
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.
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.
The film 12 Angry Men depicts the challenge faced by a jury as they deliberate the charges brought against an 18-year-old boy for the first-degree murder of his father. Their task is to come to an impartial verdict, based on the testimony that was heard in court. The group went through the case over and over while personal prejudices, personality differences, and tension mounted as the process evolved. While the scorching hot weather conditions and personal affairs to tend to led the juror to make quick and rash decisions, one juror convinced them the fate of the 18 year old was more important than everyone’s problems an convinced them that they could not be sure he was guilty. Juror three took the most convincing. After fighting till he
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
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.
This movie goes to show how such crucial facts and minuet evidence if not processed fully and clearly can change the outcome in such a big way. In this jury you have 12 men from all different walks of life, 12 different times, and 12 different personalities. Who have an obligation to come to one conclusion and that's whether or not the young man on trial is guilty of murdering his father or is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Under much frustration and lack of patience these 12 men began to get unruly and unfocused. Throughout this distraction key terms get misused, facts get turned around and more importantly emotions start to cross making it hard for these men to produce a verdict.
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.
The movie “12 Angry Men” examines the dynamics at play in a United States jury room in the 1950’s. It revolves around the opinions and mindsets of twelve diverse characters that are tasked with pronouncing the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of patricide. The extraordinary element is that their finding will determine his life or death. This play was made into a movie in 1957, produced by Henry Fonda who played the lead role, Juror #8, and Reginald Rose who wrote the original screenplay. This essay will explore some of the critical thinking elements found within the context of this movie, and will show that rational reason and logic when used effectively can overcome the mostly ineffective rush to judgment that can be prevalent in a population. The juror that seemed interesting is Juror #8, who was played by Henry Fonda. Juror #8, or Davis, is an architect, the first dissenter and protagonist in the film. He was the first one to declare that the young man was innocent and he managed to convince the other jurors to see his point of view. Durkheim states that when we respond to deviance, it brings people together (Macionis, 2013, p. 159). We affirm the moral ties that bind us together, which was seen in the movie. At first, almost all of the jurors were so bent on convicting the young man based on their feelings, but they then started to analyze the facts and they came together to make their final decision.
These two jurors are almost the plain opposite of each other. Juror 3 appears to be a very intolerant man accustomed of forcing his wishes and views upon others. On the other hand, Juror 8 is an honest man who keeps an open mind for both evidence and reasonable doubt. Since these two people are indeed very different, they both have singular thoughts relating to the murder case. Juror 8 is a man who is loyal to justice. In the beginning of the play, he was the only one to vote ‘not guilty’ the first time the twelve men called a vote. Although his personality is reflected on being a quiet, thoughtful, gentle man, he is still a very persistent person who will fight for justice to be done. Juror 8 is a convincing man who presents his arguments well, but can also be seen as manipulative. An example would be when he kept provoking Juror 3 until he finally said “I’m going to kill you" to Juror 8. He did this because he wanted to prove that saying "I’ll kill you" doesn’t necessarily mean that Juror 3 was actually going to kill him. Juror 3 is a totally different character. He is a stubborn man who can be detected with a streak of sad...
Especially in the start when juror#9, the old man votes non guilty in order to extent his support for the protagonist, juror#8. He did that because he felt that juror#8 was the only one standing against the decision and if pitches in, the jury might face it difficult to convince two people, therefore will start looking at the evidences more deeply and clearly. The protagonist influenced every single person in the jury one after the other with his logical capability. He was consistent with his thought of discussing the evidences so that justice is given to the boy. He corners few people in the jury with his logical ability, so that the statements about the case which the jury believed as facts, goes haywire. He as a single person had minority influence in many occasions in the
There were many things I learned from this film, but the number one thing that I learned is that knowledge is power. It was the men that knew the case and its background, which were able to encourage and persuade the others to take their side. And the same goes for our class, the person with the most knowledge of the situation or lesson, is going to get a better grade or have more people wanting to be on their team. They have the power to change the scene or persuade someone to see it their way.
OB ASSIGNMENT 12 ANGRY MEN 1) SUMMARY OF THE MOVIE: The movie is an American drama film that tells the story of a jury composed of 12 men that deliberates the guilt or acquittal of a defendant on the basis of doubt of reasonable extent. The 12 jurors are unique personalities from different fields of work and personalities. The movie starts with a court scene with the judge advising the jury the details of the case and that the verdict of then jury has the ability to save or kill a man’s life. He ends his talk with a condition that it must be an all or none verdict of the jury in either the case of guilty or not guilty.