12 Angry Men Movie Analysis

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.

This essay will compare & 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.

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.

As a Criminal Justice major, the classic movie 12 Angry Men has always been very influential and essential in my studies. This brilliant film is based on the concept of a fair trial to a young man, aged eighteen, who has been accused of stabbing his own father to death. Being tried for first-degree murder, the jurors vote most be unanimous on whether or not this child is to be sentence to death. Demanding the viewers to question the veracity behind our “fair” criminal justice system, this 1957 trial film will surely be one to make one ponder.

We are presented in both ‘Twelve Angry Men’ and ‘On The Waterfront’ with environments that represent the tensions between characters and their ability to overcome conflict and prove justice. In ‘Twelve Angry Men’ the jury room is described as “a large, drab, bare room in need of painting, with three windows in the back wall through which can be seen the New York skyline.” The way, in which the jurors are seated facing each other, on the long scarred table that represents the previous troubles and journeys of the jury room, inspires truth and transparency and allows for confrontation between the jurors. In contrast to when Terry Malloy stands in front of the foggy church elaborating he is unclear and still on the pathway to finding himself,

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.

In the movie, the jury has to come to a unanimous decision on the boy’s innocence or guilt as stated by the judge in the beginning of the film and that any decision that is not unanimous will result in a hung jury where they will most likely schedule for a retrial. While most of the characters of the jury seem adamant about the eventual result of the kid and how his fate should pan out, juror number 8 decides that he is going to vote for not guilty in order to have a reasonable discussion about the trial instead of immediately sending the defendant to the chair to be executed. This is met by the initial outrage of the group at the thought of someone going against what was the norm of the group, which is very uncommon for someone to do especially in a murder trial where people tend to be very opinionated and set in stone about their ideas. This unflinching and unresolving attitude is shown throughout the movie as juror number 8 slowly and methodically uses both central and peripheral route persuasion to

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.

The 8th Juror had walked through the boy’s neighborhood the night before and bought a replica knife at a pawnshop. His rationale and conscience led him to vote “not guilty” in order to precipitate a discussion and to buy a switch knife, in order to double check the shopkeeper’s account. By instigating the conversation, Juror 8 was giving the boy more time. For Jury 8, “It’s not easy for [him] to raise [his] hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first” (Rose 12). If he had not been so adamant about the weight of the boy’s life, the 11 other jury members would have sent him off to his death in less than two minutes. By speaking against his peers, Juror 8 planted seeds of doubt in more than a few of the other jurors. In a court of law, doubt is the strongest factor in a verdict.

John is disgusted when he sees the identical groups of workers and has to leave the room to throw up. The new world with its new people is not what John first imagined, and he does not appreciate everything like he thought he would. Instead of being as excited as he was in the beginning, he is disappointed with this society. These identical, deformed people are just another disappointment.

12 Angry Men Summary Fucking hot in the room…say something about the environment Coach -sets the stage for the negotiation by assigning seats based on juror number -said “you fellas can handle this any way you want to, im not going to make any rules”…he should have assumed more of a leadership role from the start -showed signs of becoming a good mediator by redirecting Advertising man’s attention back to the discussion. But then, he said to HF “and we might be able to show you were you were mixed up.” -Coach offered to hand control to GO after GO called Coach a kid…caused a confrontation should have separated people from problem. Took shit too personally -did nothing when Ad man and MSO played TTT…gave up leadership role to HF

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.”

12 Angry Men is a 1957 American courtroom drama film adapted from a teleplay of the same name by Reginald Rose. Written and co-produced by Rose himself and directed by Sidney Lumet, this trial film tells the story of a jury made up of 12 men as they deliberate the guilt or acquittal of a defendant on the basis of reasonable doubt, forcing the jurors to question their morals and values. In the United States, a verdict in most criminal trials by jury must be unanimous. The film is notable for its almost exclusive use of one set: out of 96 minutes of run time, only three minutes take place outside of the jury room.