12 Angry Men Inferences

Recently in my AP English class, we watched The film “Twelve Angry Men”. The film was unique in the fact that it only had one setting, the Jury Room. The film showed no one else but the jurors and the warden, who all remained completely nameless throughout the entire movie and we're only identified by their juror numbers. The jurors were drastically different which I believe added more diversity and made the plot more complex and intriguing to the audience. I don't believe the film had a specific intended audience, I believe that this show can be appreciated by all audiences because it shows that reasonable doubt is a much easier state of mind then certainty.

The movie 12 Angry Men is about 12 men who are on jury duty. The case is on the murder of an old man, and the man's son is the suspect. It starts off with 11 of the men voting that the boy is guilty and 1 voting that the boy is not guilty. Throughout the movie, the men go back and forth restating evidence and information that was giving in court, bringing up several different possibilities, and changing their votes. In the end the men all agree that the boy is not guilty and then go their separate ways. However, there are so many clues and evidence that the boy was the one who killed the old man, he is guilty.

The movie “12 Angry Men” by William Friedkin, was a movie that's purpose was to send the viewers a message and that message was to have the audience ask themselves “are facts really facts?”. At the beginning of the movie 11 out of the 12 jurors were confident and sure that “the kid” was guilty of stabbing his father to death, but as the movie continues they start to actually realize that the facts may not be facts after all. The director also plays with the background affects (lighting) to show a change in behavior and attitude in the characters throughout the film, by doing this it allows the audience to become captured but the setting and dialogue.

The last major fact that influences the juries agreement that the accused is not guilty are doubts of another witness’s testimony; the lady across the street who supposedly saw the accused young man stab his father. The jurors started talking about needing glasses to read the clock when Juror 8 realizes that the lady used very strong glasses and it is not possible that she could have had time to put them on and see the young man clearly stab his father. Juror 8 says,

There were many aspects of each category that foreshadows the ultimate themes of this film such as love, freedom, and crime. In the opening sequence, for example, the film starts off with a close emphasis on Bonnie’s appearance and makeup. Her red lipstick could indicate that there will be a romantic or warm, love aspect to the film. When we see red it’s usually an automatic representation of love, happiness, or even violence. Her being more cautious on her appearance indicates that she’s looking for another person to love. Caring about your appearance doesn’t always indicate that you’re trying to attract another person, but it’s one of the many options for a person to care about their appearance. The bold makeup could also represent Bonnie

Winston Churchill once said, “Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.” This quote relates to Juror Eight and Juror Four in the play 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose because both Jurors show courage differently. One Jurors uses courage by speaking up and standing by his ideas, while the other juror shows courage when sitting down and listening. Juror Eight shows courage when he stands up for himself and speaks his own opinion, even if it meant that he had to stand alone. Juror Four shows courage when he set aside possible prejudice and was willing to sit and listen to the other side of the argument. The author was trying to point out that courage comes in many forms, in both speaking

The Constitution guarantees the right to trial by an impartial jury. Impartiality is the principle holding that all parties should be subject to equal treatment under the law. Being impartial requires jury members to reach a decision based on the evidence presented. The chosen jury must be unbiased, and capable of weighing out the evidence objectively. In order to counter bias, The Supreme Court established a rule that the selection of jurors must be from a pool representative of a cross-section of the community.

1. Who do the other jurors think changed his vote? Who actually did write “not guilty”? Juror number 5 but in reality juror number 9 actually changed it.

I believe the ideological message this film conveys is that our criminal justice system needs to do a better job instilling fairness and justice in the court system. Therefore, social status or social conditions will not be the determining factor for conviction based on inequality beliefs. I think this film being made in the early 50’s, is still in line with the issue of race relations as we encounter discrimination even today.

12 Angry Men is a movie centered around a murder case and the 12 men that are in charge of providing a verdict for a kid charged of first degree murder of his own father. In this movie, the characters have to face a long and grueling procedure of figuring out how to charge the kid after a six day long trial and hours long deliberation between the jurors. The film of 12 Angry Men has several key psychological aspects to it that can be accurately and summarily described.

When analyzing the film, 12 Angry Men, one will notice the reasoning is not consumed by the story, but by the characters and their involvement and interaction. In a brief summary of the film, it contains twelve jurors who are all participating in a trial. The trial is concerning a young adolescent who is being appointed for the death of his father. “Credit the power of this lucid study to the fact that the attributes, failings, passions and prejudices of these tales men is as striking and important as the awesome truth that they hold a boy's life in their hands” (Weiler). Through out the story, the juror’s personalities and qualities are shown, each having their own opinion of the plea bargain. Identified in detail through this analysis, one will be able to clearly depict the different characterization of the jurors. Along with their individual personas, all of the juryman fall under the category of either being Socratic or a sophist in Aristocratic terms. When looking at the arguments among the jurors one can see the different logical styles utilized, and which were effect versus the not effective approaches. Progressively through the movie, the argument grows and each juror becoming their own. When criticizing and evaluating the content of 12 Angry Men, the real meaning behind the story becomes apparent. The connotation of this film is studying the actions of the jurors and what each one brings the case in terms of rhetoric and Aristocratic style.

12 Angry Men, a 1957 film directed by Sidney Lumet, based off of a teleplay by Reginald Rose, exemplifies various forms of human communication amongst a small group of men. After the court dispute, the jury had been announced to their destination. Twelve strongly expressive men accumulate into a small group in the court where they will all come to a consensus on whether a boy is to be charged guilty or innocent. The group of twelve men that gathered into this small room, all displayed unique and strong personalities—whether it was a strong aggressive attitude, a strong devoted will, or even a strong mouse personality. Their objective was to all agree towards one single decision—guilty or innocent. If only one person decides to say

Daily there are thousands of people being found guilty for a crime they did not commit because of a prejudiced judge.Sidney Lumet and Reginald Rose the writers and directors of 12 Angry Men wrote and produced a play about 12 jurors that briefly discuss a trial and come to a verdict , personal issues develop which causes conflict and only makes the process more grueling. The accused boy is being found guilty for murdering his father, 12 jurors are put in a hot room in New York and spend hours briefly viewing the scenario. Although one might think that the justice system should be left in the hands of citizens ,the director and writer of 12 Angry Men , Sidney Lumet and Reginald Rose demonstrate that the United States justice system is unfair and is simply corrupt , inefficient , and injustice due to the jurors biases minds, ignorant attitude ,and the lack of time and energy put in the trial while trying to decide a verdict.

Twelve Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, is a play about a jury trying to come to a verdict that will determine whether or not a teenage boy will be put on death row.

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.”