Many times, our poor judgement can bring us from the truth and wrongly accuse others instead of rightly serving justice. It can lead us from the truth, sometimes so far that our decisive actions cannot be undone. Examples of this can be found in the films Twelve Angry Men by Bernard Rose, and The Ox-Bow Incident by William Wellman. To put in other words, in both of the films, many of the character's never bothered to take the time to recheck all of their evidence and information before sending people off to be killed. However, in the film The Ox-bow Incident, the three travelers being judged by the citizens of Bridger's Wells had been hung and killed before anyone had discovered correct facts and information to prove them innocent. In short, …show more content…
there were many similarities and differences comparing the films, Twelve Angry Men and The Ox-Bow Incident that helped develop their storylines. Twelve Angry Men and The Ox-Bow Incident both have many things in common. For instance, two main character's in the film The Ox-bow Incident, Davies and Major Tetley, and Two character's from the film Twelve Angry Men, Juror no.8 and Juror no. 3, both symbolize reason and emotion. In greater detail, Davies and Juror no. 8 symbolize reason from their actions to settle conflicts with the law, and to cross examine all of the facts given to them so they can make a good, educated choice and not jump to conclusions. Whereas, the characters Juror no. 3 and Major Tetley greatly express their emotions, caring more about themselves and pride than of others, as demonstrated from their actions throughout the films. Juror no. 3 never wanted to check evidence or bring in exhibits and was stuck on the fact that children “work your heart out”. Additionally, in both of the films, the few protagonists in Twelve Angry Men and The Ox-Bow incident were the only characters that were willing to take the extra time to reconsider the information given. This is revealed from the antagonists in the films, such as Juror no. 7 constant remarks about how much time he’s waiting sitting in a hot room when he could be watching a baseball game. Major Tetley also is always eager to settle the matter of murder in his own hands, while not even waiting till morning to hang the three convicts legally with the sheriff. Lastly, until the end of both films, many of the character's didn’t fully realize that they were negotiating a conflict with people's life on the line. In other words, the characters were deciding whether someone's life should be taken, or spared, especially with Major Tetley, who carelessly hung and killed 3 men without checking with the sheriff or official. When Tetley did come to realize that he had killed innocent men, he felt no other way out but to kill himself. Overall, Twelve Angry Men, and The Ox-Bow Incident turn out to be very similar films. Despite the many similarities in The Ox-bow Incident and Twelve Angry Men, there are still large differences that differentiate the two films.
For example, Juror no. 8 in the film Twelve Angry men had convinced the other jurors that the defendant was innocent before he was taken to the electric chair. However, in The Ox-Bow incident, the 3 men accused of murder were found innocent after they were hung and killed. Therefore the three convicts in The Ox-Bow Incident could never be reversed from their unfortunate punishment of death. Furthermore, many of the actions and decisions made by the character's in both films depended on the setting they were in. The Ox-Bow Incident took place in Nevada in a small town in the year 1885. However, the film Twelve Angry Men takes place in a New York City courtroom, which is a much better place for a well thought out argument. Lastly, in the film Twelve Angry Men, Juror no. 9 explains, “It’s not easy to stand alone against a ridicule of others”. Specifically, in Twelve Angry Men, Juror no. 8 had the courage to stand up to 11 other jurors. Even so, in The Ox-Bow Incident, the character Sparks must have had a lot more courage to stand up to a much larger crowd by not raising his hand when Mappes was deputizing the town. Many of the people were hesitant to raise their hands, but when they saw the huge crowd of people willing to be deputized, they wanted to follow everyone else. It was a lot harder to get your opinions through to a large group like in The Ox-Bow Incident than in a smaller group similar to the one in Twelve Angry Men. In conclusion, many differences separated the films Twelve Angry Men and The Ox-Bow
Incident. In short, the films Twelve Angry Men, and The Ox-Bow Incident are very different films, but they are similar in many ways. Likewise, both the three convicts and the young boy defendant had been accused of murder, a crime that they had never done. Yet, they were not the only characters that were wrongly accused of a crime. For instance, in the film Twelve Angry Men, Juror no. 11 had multiple times been pointed out by the other jurors that he is just a European Immigrant, even though he knows the most about American democracy. As a result, Juror no. 11 had been accused of being an immigrant. Furthermore, in The Ox-Bow Incident, Rose Mapen had been married with Gil, and she promised to wait in Bridger’s Wells until he came back from his travels. However, when Gil returned three months later, he discovered Rose Mapen had been driven out by the woman in the village because they were jealous of her beauty. Therefore, Rose Mapen had been accused of possessing too much beauty. In the end, the two films have proven that people can be accused of crimes that are irreversible, that stay with you from the time you were born, to the day you die.
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. 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.
Reasonable doubt is defined “as uncertainty as to the guilt of a criminal defendant.” This ideology has been the basis for justice systems in many modern countries for centuries. A panel of twelve men and women who have the immense responsibility of choosing the fate for one person. This principle is the basis for Reginald Rose’s satire, Twelve Angry Men. A play that describes the scene of a New York jury room, where twelve men have to decide between life and death for a inner-city teen, charged with killing his father. These jurors have to sift through the facts and the fiction to uncover the truth about the case and some truths about themselves. Reginald Rose outlines through the actions of juror number three, that no matter the consequences,
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 atmosphere between the two scenarios is very similar with the crowds cheering, the audience can relate to their own experience at a similar sport event. One of the main plots is revenge between the two because Tilly Dunnage wants revenge on the townspeople and jasper Jones wants revenge for whoever killed Laura. Another plot that is similar is murder, Eliza Wishart death and Stuart Pettyman death being the main drive for both texts. Another plot that most audiences can’t connect with is Small towns, simply because most people grew up in similar conditions and environments. A part of the plot that isn’t put together until the end of the in both texts is that one person knew the entire time what happened. Barney and Eliza Wishart saw exactly what happened but didn’t tell anybody because they were scared to be sent away or
People tend to base characteristics and personalities of people pretty quickly. Most people base their opinions on stereotypes. Reginald Rose and his play “12 Angry Men” demonstrate how people are quick to judge other people based on looks. In the movie all twelve jurors must decide if a young boy is guilty or innocent. At the beginning of the movie/play-write, only one juror, juror eight, decides the boy is innocent. Based on the evidence gathered from the case everyone agrees the boy is innocent except one man, juror three. He eventually breaks down and tells the truth. The viewers can tell that this movie/play is full of emotions. Each of these emotions can be described as something more than what comes to the eye.
The Twelve Angry Men was about a boy who was accused of stabbing his father to death in a argument. In the beginning of the trial all twelve of the juror's voted guilty. Many of the juror's were mean and did not care about the boy's future they just wanted to get the trial over with so the juror's can do what they wanted to do. Later in the case one of the juror's realized they were messing with a boys life and his future was all up to them. So a juror realized that some of the information that a witness brought up had to be false. So they analyzed the information and came to the conclusion that the boy could not have stabbed his father the way he did because one of the juror's had seen many knife fight's in his backyard and you can not stab someone downward with a switchblade. Also another witness said that the knife that the kid had could be bought anywhere. The juror's discriminated the boy because he lived in the slums , he has a criminal record and he was always fighting with his dad so they just assumed he was the one that killed his dad.
Humans can only take so much until they reach a certain breaking point. People will crumble filled with rage and commit many immoral acts. Once they execute these evil motives they must be punished. “You will give me your honest confession in my hand, or I cannot keep you from the rope.” (Miller,1272). A great example of this is the Salem witch trials. A few individuals may know it because of The Crucible. In Arthur Miller’s play, The Crucible, he conveys the corrupted decisions and processing in the justice system. Miller clarifies this through the irony of the characters involved in the court, who are presented adequate evidence, and are blinded by their reputation and self worth.
Around 20 years ago from our frame in time, from within the town of Robin Hills was an event of tragedy involving gruesome deaths of children. No matter the point in time the importance of the event that transpired has never changed. The film is based on the murders titled, Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hills, focuses on the lives of the families before, during and after trials. Not only does it focuses on the deaths of the children, the film focusses on an internal theme that explores the riddle; “Is justice still served when given or taken from the undeserved?” Whether the accused teenagers are proven innocent or proven guilty that is what the directors were on the prowl for. Berlinger and Sinofsky documented every aspect they could to convey an honest and unbiased judgement into the trial. The methods the directors used is connected with how the audience will possibly judge the trial. Possibly meaning that the directors, no matter how hard they tried to be unbiased, grew emotionally attached and actually agreed at some point that the teenagers who committed the murders were actually either innocent or guilty. By the ways the filmmakers edited their film, on certain scenes suggest they had their opinions. As they
Stop for a moment and think how many times have you said “I'll kill you” to a person and actually killed that person? Two times? Three times? We all know that the answer is never unless of course you're actually a killer. This is what might or might not have happened with the boy who was accused of killing his father in the movie 12 Angry Men. Firstly, let's consider on the title of the movie itself which says “12 Angry Men.” Twelve is indicating the number of group members, angry is indicating the state of their temper, and men indicating their gender. So the title of the movie strongly connects to the name of the class “Group Communication Studies” because both involve a group, a goal and communication among the group members in order to achieve a common goal. The 96 minute film is all about a group of jurors sitting in a room on a very hot day to decide the fate of an 18 year old boy. Each judge had to come up with a decision— either the boy is guilty or not guilty of killing his father with a switch blade knife. The entire movie theme revolves around the group and how it completes its task. The group is so much involved in the discussion and there are so many conflicts that the members even forget to introduce themselves, hence the audience has to remember them by numbers of the order of their seating arrangement. This movie is a perfect detailed and visual example of how a group forms and develops over time, and most importantly the personality and approach of Jury number 8 gives an idea about how important it is to participate, speak up, and take a stance even in the early stages of the group formation. Each member's involvement and contribution to the group goal is important as it can reshape and change the dimensions of o...
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.
In the play “Twelve Angry men”, the story line presents a variety of perspectives and opinions between twelve very different men. Some are more likely to be pointed out as prejudice, and others are more focused on reaching fair justice. Clearly, it is quite difficult for different people to vote ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ in unity when coming to a fair decision. In all of the twelve jurors, I have chosen Juror 3 and Juror 8 for contrast and comparison. I believe that Juror number 3 is a very opinionated man, with more differences than similarities comparing with Juror number 8.
Can justice be found in the courtroom or is human corruption bound to spill in the courtroom? Arthur Miller writes about the Salem Witch Trials in his book The crucible. He gives us a behind the scenes look of the trials and uncovers the motives of the instigators of said trials. In the book, we see the characters accuse innocent people to gain land, protect themselves, and act upon hidden vengeance.Self-interest is a driving motif in this novel that is the basis for many of the accusations, evidence, and testimonies brought before Salem’s court.
For example, the old man that lived beneath the boy and his father testified that he heard a fight between the boy and the father and heard the boy yell, “I’m gonna kill you,” along with a body hitting the ground, and then claims that he saw the boy running down the stairs. With this information, along with other powerful eyewitness testimonies, all but one of the jury members believed this boy was guilty. The power of eyewitness testimony is also shown in Loftus’s (1974) study. In this study, Loftus (1974) found that those who claimed to “see” something were usually believed even when their testimony is pointless. She discovered in her study that only 18 percent of people convicted if there was no eyewitness testimony, 72 percent of people convicted when someone declared, “That’s the one!”, and even when the witness only had 20/400 vision and was not wearing glasses and claimed “That’s the one!”, 68 percent of people still convicted the person. This proves that in 12 Angry Men and Loftus (1974) study, eyewitness testimony is very powerful and influential in one’s decision to convict a
As George Washington once said “ It is better to offer no excuse then a bad one” which to seems very significant, so significant that people such as Giles Corey and Mr. Seeger would receive punishment for. In Document E, Mr. Seeger was convicted to court and called upon to be directed an answer. In spite of knowing the dangers that may come, he decided not to respond and stay diligent to Albert Einstein’s statement. Henceforth, he received punishment which were one year in prison and to remain blacklisted till the 1960s.Similarly, in the Crucible, Document F, Giles Corey received indictment, where you get stones put on your chest till you collapse. He was given this punishment for not answering the charge because he knew he was going to get hung and die either way. However, this way he died loyal and in the end it was a benefit for his sons as Giles faded with a smile on his face. Mr. Seeger and Giles Corey both were given punishment for their false accusation, and in the end they stayed strong no matter the