In this paper I analyze the 1957 12 Angry Men film. However, I will talk about three chapters that I believe that connects to this film. The first one will be on Prejudice: Disliking Other the second one would be on Conformity and Obedience and the last one will be on Conflict and Peacemaking. Upon watching this film I realize that these three chapters really connect with this film. However, here is why they connect. From the beginning of the movie showed signs of prejudice and stereotypes, discrimination and racism. Some of the jury members were quoted saying them and you know how they are! It makes you wonder looking for an African Americans perspective is the jury like this when the jury is all white. One of the scenes that stuck out was; when jury number 10 said “I don’t mind telling you this, mister. We don’t owe him a thing. He got a fair trial, didn 't he? You know what that trial cost? He’s lucky he got it. Look, we’are all grown ups here. You’re not. Going to tell us that we’re supposed to believe him, knowing what he is. I’ve lived among ‘me all my life. You can’t believe a word they say. You know that”. However, it also shows signs of automatic prejudice in the beginning. …show more content…
The book said when conformity is "established, prejudice is maintained largely by inertia. If a prejudice is socially accepted, many people follow the path of least restriction and conform to the fashion. They will not act so much out of hate as out of a need to be liked and accepted". By this statement is this the reason why 11 jury members voted him guilty. Even the older jury member number 9 who defended the offender saying that only an ignorant man will believe that. However, later in the movie there was a scene that shows a prime example of conformity. When jury number 7 said I 'll tell you something I 'm a little sick of this whole thing already. We 're going nowhere fast let 's break it up and go home, I 'm changing my vote to not
This essay will compare and contrast the protagonist/antagonist's relationship with each other and the other jurors in the play and in the movie versions of Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men. There aren't any changes made to the key part of the story but yet the minor changes made in making the movie adaptation produce a different picture than what one imagines when reading the drama in the form of a play.
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
Juror #10, a garage owner, segregates and divides the world stereotypically into ‘us’ and ‘them.’ ‘Us’ being people living around the rich or middle-class areas, and ‘them’ being people of a different race, or possessing a contrasting skin color, born and raised in the slums (poorer parts of town). It is because of this that he has a bias against the young man on trial, for the young man was born in the slums and was victim to domestic violence since the age of 5. Also, the boy is of a Hispanic descent and is of a different race than this juror, making him fall under the juror’s discriminatory description of a criminal. This is proven on when juror #10 rants: “They don’t need any real big reason to kill someone, either. You know, they get drunk, and bang, someone’s lying in the gutter… most of them, it’s like they have no feelings (59).
During the movie, I found that these concepts that were taught in class helped me better understand and relate to certain clips of the movie. Throughout the rest of the paper, I will be going into a bit more detail about exactly what these concepts are and mean, following that I will be giving examples from the movie that demonstrate the concepts of conflict and politeness theory.
Nearly the whole last half of the book is about racism. The attitude of the whole town is that Tom Robinson, because he is black and,"…all Negroes lie,…all Negroes are basically immoral beings,…all Negro men are not to be trusted around our women…"(Lee 207), will be found guilty regardless of how good a case Atticus makes for him. There was substantial amount of evidence that suggests his innocence. Even the prosecution's two witnesses' stories contradicted each other. The jury did not give a guilty verdict it gave a racist verdict. Not a verdict based on fact, but a verdict based on the color of a man's skin. This is important because the author was not making this racism up; it was what it was like in those times. She is trying to show how ignorant and blind people can be just because of differences between them, as well as how society treats racial minorities.
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
Twelve Angry Men is a depiction of twelve jurors who deliberate over the verdict of a young defendant accused of murder, highlighting many key communications concepts discussed throughout the semester. One of these concepts was the perspective of a true consensus, the complete satisfaction of a decision by all parties attributed. An array of inferences were illustrated in the movie (some spawning collective inferences) as well as defiance among the jurors. Each of these concepts play a role endorsing, or emphasizing the other. We can analyze the final verdict of the jurors and establish if there was a true consensus affecting their decision. In turn, we can analyze the inferences during the deliberation and directly link how they affect the consensus (or lack thereof). Defiance among the jurors was also directly
“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.
In the early twentieth century, the United States was undergoing a dramatic social change. Slavery had been abolished decades before, but the southern states were still attempting to restrict social interaction among people of different races. In particular, blacks were subject to special Jim Crow laws which restricted their rights and attempted to keep the race inferior to whites. Even beyond these laws, however, blacks were feeling the pressure of prejudice. In the legal system, blacks were not judged by a group of their peers; rather, they were judged by a group of twelve white men. In serious court cases involving capital offenses, the outcome always proved to be a guilty verdict. In Harper Lee’s novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, the plot revolves around a Depression-era court case of a black man accused of raping a white woman. The defendant Tom Robinson is presumed guilty because of one thing alone: the color of his skin.
The term groupthink in this report is defined as, the social psychological phenomenon that results in groups during pressure situations. This social psychology theory is broken down into eight signs. Illusion of invulnerability, Collective rationalization, Belief in inherent morality, Stereotyped views of out-groups, Direct pressure on dissenters, Self-censorship, Illusion of unanimity, Self-appointed “mindguards”. According to research conducted by Irving Janis, there are three conditions to groupthink. The first, "high group cohesiveness" which is the direction for a group to be in unity while working towards a goal, or to satisfy the emotional needs of its members. Secondly, the structural faults such as insulation of the group, lack of norms and central leadership, in addition social background of group members. The third, situational context includes the circumstances of the groups meeting, social roles and expected behavior. This notion is exemplified during the movie, "12 Angry Men". The purpose of this essay is to examine the movie content to display the groupthink symptoms in place. Groupthink consists of eight major factors that occur during the film's scenes, as the twelve men debate a premeditated murder court case. All of the factors continue to rise as the jury discusses the young man's fate. During the film, a unanimous vote must be reached, despite this one man refuses to vote guilty. In 1957 the Orson Welles directed film opens as the judge explains the case and its severity. Soon after the group forms as the 12 men enter the jury discussion room. During these scene frames, the case evidence is explained. As the men talk they give details of an old man living beneath the boy testified, that he heard a fight, stat...
Gender and the portrayal of gender roles in a film is an intriguing topic. It is interesting to uncover the way women have been idealized in our films, which mirrors the sentiments of the society of that period in time. Consequently, the thesis of this essay is a feminist approach that seeks to compare and contrast the gender roles of two films. The selected films are A few Good Men and Some Like it Hot.
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”.
In the recent past there been an increase in the number of zombie films, videogames and books. In fact IMDb reports that a whopping 68 films have so far been released in 2015 alone(IMDb). This has elicited a big debate on the significance of zombies in the modern culture. This is important because while so many people are finding the living dead interesting, the forms of entertainment that we as a society choose are relevant. Different perspectives have been put argued on this issue. This paper is going to use the movie film Anger of the Dead by Francesco Picone to consider concerns and issues in the contemporary culture brought about by zombie films. Generational disillusionment, global capitalism and hopelessness are the three aspects of
In the first three episodes of the series Mad Men the main character Don Draper works for a company that creates ads, in the 1960’s, his boss at this company is Rodger Sterling. In the first episode the company that Draper works for is trying to come up with an ad that convinces people that cigarettes are not bad for people’s health. Don Drapper is a high up executive ad man at the company he works for and is trying to find new clients to create ads for. Peggy Olsen, another main character is just starting at the company as Don Drapper’s new secretary. Betty Draper is Don Draper’s wife, they have two kids together. Peter Campbell is a 26 year old up and coming sales man for the same company and works alongside Don Draper. In episode two the company is trying to come up with an ad for right guard spray deodorant. Also Betty Draper is having problems with maintaining control of her