Twelve Angry Men Rubbing Off On The Audience
The jurors in the 1957 film Twelve Angry Men, have a strong impact on the way the audience views their self-image by showing them their personality, their actions in the court room and their own personal beliefs if the boy should be charged guilty or not guilty. Each word that comes out of the juror’s mouth could either be a honest statement or a complete lie. It is the audience choice weather to believe it or to not believe it. The 1957 MGM film entitled Twelve Angry Men forces the characters and audience to evaluate their own self-image through observing the personality, actions, and beliefs of the jurors. At the beginning of the jury meeting there were 11 men who said that the young boy was guilty of murdering his father. Although there was still one person in the room who said that the boy was not guilty. For a decision to be made all jurors had to agree to one side. In a book written by a very wise man named Bernard Roth called “The Achievement Habit, stop wishing, start doing, and take command of your life. Roth says, “It is easy to avoid having conversations that deeply go into your feelings and tough issues (Roth 145).” The best way to talk about hard conversations is to put oneself personality into every piece of evidence. At the end of the jury meeting everyone agreed with Henry, the one man who said that the boy was not guilty, because Henry showed his personality in his statements. Henrys personality is strong but
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
In the movie 12 Angry Men, the jurors are set in a hot jury room while they are trying to determine the verdict of a young man who is accused of committing a murder. The jurors all explain why they think the accused is guilty or not guilty. Throughout the movie they are debating back and forth and the reader begins to realize that even though the jurors should try to not let bias cloud their judgement, the majority of the jurors are blinded by bias. The viewer can also see that the jurors have their own distinguishable personalities. Their personalities intertwine with each other to demonstrate how the jury system is flawed, but that is what makes it work.
Prejudice can often be formed without one even realize they are prejudiced, many of the characters in 12 Angry Men, have done as such, allowing their prejudice to not allow them fully evaluate the case unbiasedly. Jurors three, ten and seven are swayed by their prejudiced beliefs against the accused, as the deliberate the accused fate, juror ten states “his type are no good”(12 Angry Men). This prejudice which all of them share, justifiers their neglecting to inspect the evidence and testimony given rather than simply accepting it at face value. The film 12 Angry Men conveys how difficult it can be to set aside prejudiced views through jurors three, seven, and ten. The film also enables the reader to see how prejudice such as past experiences, ingnorance or misinformation, and stereotyping can cloud ones judgement.
The jurors are transformed by the process of deliberating. Eleven men voted guilty because of their prejudices, fears, laziness and insecurities, but they are eventually persuaded by reason to give up these limiting beliefs, to see the potential in the facts, and to find justice. The critical turning points in the jury votes occur, not when there is passion and anger, but when there is reasoned discussion, as the rational Juror 8 triumphs over the prejudices of his fellow jurors. The facts of the case do not change, but the jurors come to see the facts differently, and change by the process they go through. Despite the hostility and tension created in this process, the twelve men end up reconciled, and justice is done.
The film “12 Angry Men” gives the audience insight as to how jury deliberations work. The film follows 12 jurors throughout the process of finding the defendant’s sentencing. The jury is overseeing a case surrounding a young boy who is charged with the murder of his father. It was interesting to see the process of this paired with the way each character’s vote had an effect on each of the other juror’s decisions. The film “12 Angry Men” portrays a realistic fluctuation of stances in a room of jurors as a whole and individually based upon the prior experiences and ethics of each juror.
The film “Twelve Angry Men” directed by Sidney Lumet illustrates many social psychological principles. The tense, gripping storyline that takes place in the 1950s features a group of jurors who must decide unanimously whether a young man is guilty or innocent in the murder of his father. At the beginning, eleven of the twelve jurors voted guilty. Gradually, through some heated discussion, the jurors are swayed to a not-guilty verdict. Upon examination, the film highlights social psychology theories in areas of conformity and group influence.
Reginald Rose’s text, Twelve Angry Men, follows the jury deliberation of a small murder case, with a cast of twelve jury men discussing the evidence presented in court to decide whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. Over the course of the play, led primarily by moral compass jury number 8, the verdict is changed from eleven to one to acquittal, as the men are persuaded and subject to constant distractions, prejudice, bullying, and discussions of unreliable witness testimonies and lawyers, thus exploring issues about the validity of the justice system in magnitude.
The classic 1957 movie 12 Angry Men delves in to a panel of twelve jurors who are deciding the life or death fate of an eighteen year old italian boy accused of stabbing his father to death. The twelve men selected as jurors are a diverse group, each coming to the table with their own socioeconomic backgrounds, personal experiences, prejudice’s, and all of this plays a role in the jurors attitudes and/or misconceptions of the accused young man. How each of the jurors, all but Juror Eight played by Henry Fonda, experiences and personalities impact their original vote of guilty is clear at the beginning of the movie with the first vote. However, from the start, Juror Eight displays confidence, and demonstrates leadership abilities utilizing
During the New York summer of 1957 the play Twelve Angry Men is set in a small humid jury room. The playwright Reginald Rose through this play questions the reliability of current jury system. The jurors are instructed by the judge “to deliberate honestly ant thoughtfully”, as a result some take this instruction more seriously than others. A number of the jurors are able to take a logical stance, whilst other becomes emotionally involved in the issue. Uncertainty plays a vital role in creating doubt in the jurors minds. The contrasting perspectives of Juror 3 and Juror 8 make this very clear. Demonstrating quite evidently that despite the minority most are able to deliberate genuinely and with close considerations to the details of the trial.
The Factors Influencing the Way Each of the Members of the Jury Perceived the Murder in Twelve Angry Men
The 1957 movie version of 12 Angry Men, brings twelve people together with different personalities and experiences to discuss the fate of a young boy that allegedly killed his father. At the very beginning, many agree that the boy is guilty except for one man. Juror #8 votes not guilty and pushes to have the evidence talked through. After reviewing all the evidence carefully, the tables turned from guilty to not guilty. Each juror brought different experiences and personalities to the jury room. The two that were forceful with their opinions and their reasonings to decide either way we're jurors #8 and #3.
Reginald Rose’s ’12 Angry Men’ brings 12 jurors together in a room to decide whether a young foreign boy is guilty of killing his father. The play is interwoven with dynamic characterisation, striking symbolism and intense moments of drama. Although Rose positions Juror 8 as the hero, the strongest character is in fact Juror 4, who is an independent thinker, rational and calm even as tension begins to build. Although Juror 4 initially votes guilty, he is able to admit his fault and change his vote.
Idealized Influence – defined by the values, morals, and ethical principles of a leader and is manifest through behaviours that supress self interest and focus on the good of the collective.
When looking at the film, “12 Angry men”, conformity plays a big role in the jury room. The film demonstrates the tremendous amount of power social influence can have on individuals to conform because they believe that by adjusting their own behaviour to align to the norms of the group, will lead to an increased level of acceptance. Conformity due to social influence can be identified within the jury room, some Juror members conformed due to
According the five Methods for Influencing Other Group Members - use of reason, assertiveness, coalition building, higher values, and bargaining - when Juror Eight said: “we are talking about somebody life here, we can’t just decide within five minutes, suppose we are wrong”, he used the youth human-being life’s important and the danger of a false decision as good reasons to force other jurors in analyzing the facts carefully. He then talks about the boy’s backgrounds for appealing to logic and rational thinking of other jurors. Juror Three was overt prejudice, hostility, and used “assertiveness” to influence the other ten jurors of jury provided an antagonist for juror Eight. Juror eight used “coalition building” method to seek alignment with other group members. He never says that he believes the defendant is innocent but his mantra throughout the movie was “it’s possible!” referring to the reasonable doubt, which he convinced others’ thought. Juror Eight continued to appeal other eleven juror’s higher values by repeatedly reinforcing their moral and judicial obligation to convict only if there was no reasonable doubt. He challenged each juror to look at the facts more thoughtfully. “Bargaining” is offering an instrument exchange. Juror 8 used this method when he said: “I want to call for another vote… If there are 11 votes for guilty, I won’t stand alone… But if anyone votes not guilty, we stay here and talk it out.”