MOVIE ANALYSIS 12 ANGRY MEN Introduction: 12 ANGRY MEN, is basically a story play written for broadcast on CBS in 1954 by an American playwright Reginald Rose. In 1957, Rose finished the screenplay for the movie version, which was co-produced by him and Henry Fonda (Juror#8). The movie was directed by Sydney Lumet. This movie was nominated for many awards like Academy awards for Best Picture, Best Director and Best writing, Screenplay based on Material from another Medium, and an Edgar Allan Poe Award for Best Motion Picture Screenplay from Mystery Writers of America. The story as a whole was inspired by Reginald Rose’s experience of jury duty in New York City. At first he was reluctant to serve on the jury, but he ended up telling in a press meet “ The Moment I Walked into the courtroom and found myself facing a strange man, whose fate is suddenly more or less in my hands, my entire attitude changed.” The words from Rose showed the pressure he faced inside the courtroom and his personal conscience he had not to make a mistake with the decision. The overview of the story is an engrossing drama in which eleven jurors believe the accused is guilty, …show more content…
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
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 calmly stated that everyone has their rights and lets have everyone explain the reasons why they thing the child is guilty or not guilty. Ossie Davis (#2) explained why he voted guilty. While explaining this he was very calm and wise. HE handled conflicts in the same way. Next was George C. Schott (#3) He also voted guilty. George was very st...
When someone in a jury is a A-Hole he shouldn't be a juror. In the story there's a juror who is very prejudice and will say the boys guilty even if there was no evidence presented which is one personal influence on the group because he would sway people to think the boy is just a worthless young male. I think that the foreman in the book was the main influence on the group because he's the one who really changed everyone's mind to proving that the boy was innocent.
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
As one of the seven jury deliberations documented and recorded in the ABC News television series In the Jury Room the discussions of the jurors were able to be seen throughout the United States. A transcript was also created by ABC News for the public as well. The emotions and interactions of the jurors were now capable of being portrayed to anyone interested in the interworkings of jury deliberations. The first task,...
Yet with the help of one aged yet wise and optimistic man he speaks his opinion, one that starts to not change however open the minds of the other eleven men on the jury. By doing this the man puts out a visual picture by verbally expressing the facts discussed during the trial, he uses props from the room and other items the he himself brought with him during the course of the trial. Once expressed the gentleman essentially demonstrate that perhaps this young man on trial May or may not be guilty. Which goes to show the lack of research, and misused information that was used in the benefit of the prosecution. For example when a certain factor was brought upon the trail; that being timing, whether or not it took the neighbor 15 seconds to run from his chair all the way to the door. By proving this right or wrong this man Juror #4 put on a demonstration, but first he made sure his notes were correct with the other 11 jurors. After it was
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.
It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever cost.” Juror 8 is the only one from the twelve men who votes ‘not guilty’ in the beginning, and even he admits that it “[may be] for no reason”; however, he quite rightly thinks that this boy, this defendant in a huge system that is currently running because of people like these jurors, deserves more contemplation on his case, more recognition than a ‘yeah, he’s guilty.’ Juror 8 makes it his job to be the boy’s sole advocate in a room full of twelve men, although he knows that both the odds and his peers in the room are against him. He shows compassion [only the first from a long line of heroic qualities that Juror 8 embodies] for a stranger, one that definitely could have just murdered his father, and gives this boy a second chance at a trial with Juror 8 himself as the lawyer, and his prejudiced peers as the judges. Consequently, he stands up against men who constantly threaten him with physical violence and slurs, and most people cannot do that. In today’s society, we shun those who don’t go with the flow; millions of articles and magazines published every day feed on the reader’s insecurity of not being ‘mainstream’. If challenging this belief that ‘normal’ is good is difficult today, where we constantly have revolutionary movements like ‘Occupy Wall Street’ or ‘LGBTQ+ Pride’, it must have been nearly impossible in the era of conservativeness, prejudice, and racism that was the norm in the mid-twentieth century. This bravery is one of the most prominent aspects of heroism, and Juror 8 is truly one of the most courageous jurors in that facet. Additionally, Juror 8 believes that prejudice should not stand in the way of justice. One of the ways that Juror 8 removes credibility from the evidence that Juror 3 , or 10, or 4 constantly bring up is by revealing their prejudice. He tells Juror 3
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.
Juror eight opened the minds of the others by telling them how the boy”had been kicked around his whole, life. You know living in a slum. His mother dead since he was nine. That’s not very good head start. He’s a tough, angry kid. You know why kids get that way? Because we knock them over their head once a day, every day. I think maybe we owe him a few words.” juror eight goes on to explain how this boy had a hard life and if he did commit this crime he might have done it with reason. Now a hard life did not constitute the boy to kill his father but it may have given him motive to kill his father. We know that he was charged with first degree murder. Simply because he had bought his pocket knife days before the murder. “But as we the jury have talked about it many people own the kind of pocket knife yesterday. Why yes one of our very own jurors happens to own the same knife.” Juror eight is able to prove to everyone that we should not to so quick to judge. As all the facts were placed on the table it showed how by further looking into and embracing new ideas of what could have happen the opend the case to have a birds eye view. To be able to see more than just a poor boy who killed his fathr for
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.
In this single moment of clarity, he is convinced that the old man is distorting the truth. He says “... He was dragging his left leg and trying to hide it because he was ashamed. I think I know him better than anyone here. This is a quiet, frightened, insignificant old man who has been nothing all his life, who has never had recognition… This is very important. It would be so hard for him to recede into the background…”(page 36) Sharing this argument, juror number nine shifts the direction of the discussion. No longer is he speaking about facts and evidence, but about an emotional connection to an old man who wants to feel important for once in his life. Although he is just assuming this based off of context clues, he manages to affect the other jurors. He manages to question the validity of the old man's testimony by connecting with him at a personal level, and for the most part it's
Juror ten is perceived throughout the play as a nuisance. The reason he causes a plethora of conflict is that of his prejudiced views on the If there was no incredibly belligerent, cantankerous and impatient bigot the play would be lacking in its purpose. Reginald Rose created Twelve Angry Men not only for entertainment, but to convey that even the jury system has issues. Rose did this by creating an easily repulsive character that expressed extreme prejudice for the boy on trial.
Twelve Angry Men brings up a few issues the criminal justice system has. The jury selection is where issue number one arises. “A jury of one’s peer’s acts as an important check in cases where a defendant fears that the local justice system may have a prejudice against him, or in corruption cases in which the judiciary itself may be implicated” (Ryan). Deciding one 's future or even fate, in this case, is no easy task, as depicted by the 8th juror.
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 Film Twelve Angry Men, there is a case brought to twelve men that are trying to figure out if a young man is guilty or not of killing his father. The young man is truly against the odds in the case, all but one juror is convinced that he his guilty of killing his father. Luckily for the young man in the case, one juror has reasonable doubts that he is not guilty. All eleven other jurors did not take a hard look at the case or question anything. The one juror who disagrees simply does not want to send the boy off to his death without talking about anything, he valued human life. “Juror #8 is dramatic, just, kind, and smart. But none of these things would get him anywhere with the other jurors if he weren't willing to put himself out there and take risks (Cast).” In the 1957 MGM film entitled Twelve Angry Men, juror number eight uses his beliefs, selflessness and actions to make the other eleven jurors change their vote about the guilt of the boy from guilty to not guilty.