Analysis Of 12 Angry Men Movie

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.

Twelve Angry Men takes you into a day in the lives of twelve jurors in a New York City courthouse. In the hands of the jurors lies the fate of a young man accused of stabbing his father.

Over the last 60 year laws have significantly changed around the world. In 1957 New York’s penalty for 1st degree murder was the death sentence. In order for an accused to be convicted 12 jurors must come to a unanimous consensus of a guilty verdict. The film 12 Angry Men directed by Sidney Lumet and produced by Henry Fonda and Reginald Rose is about 12 jurors who are attempting to come to a unanimous decision involving an 18 year old boy who allegedly stabbed his father to death. Within the first five minutes of their deliberation 11 jurors voted for a guilty verdict; all expect jurors eight who believe that they should spend some time to discuss, before sending an 18 year old boy to die (Lumet, 1957). During the course of 80 minutes

A boy may die,” and changes his vote to “not guilty” which is another instance where the boy gets a fair trial. The 12th and 7th juror find it difficult to decide on which way to vote and therefore vote “not guilty” so that the boy is not “sent off to die.” The 12th juror’s lack of a defined and consistent point of view reflects America’s post war materialism. The 4th juror believed that the defendant was guilty for most of the play but then was the 2nd last juror to change his vote and admitted that he had a “reasonable doubt.” Although the audience never finds out whether the defendant was “guilty” or “not guilty” the jurors give the “kid from the slums” an honest trial.

In the movie, Twelve Angry Men, all of the characters have their own specific personalities. Jurors 1 through 12 all have gone through different life situations and come from different beginnings. On a certain level, the jurors are all connected to each other in one way or another. That would be the strength of the justice system. It brings people together that no one would have ever thought were compatible to work with each other.

In this novel, twelve jurors are designated to choose the verdict of a case. A sixteen-year-old boy is accused of murdering his father. If the jurors’ verdict is guilty, then the boy will receive a death sentence. The chosen jurors are locked in a room to decide the verdict, guilty or innocent. At the beginning, only one juror chose to vote not guilty, for the sake of reasonable doubt. The juror made thought out points and persuasively changed all other other jurors minds. By the end, all jurors chose to vote not guilty, except one. This particular juror voted guilty because he compared the defendant to his own son, whom he had problems with. This prejudice blocked his mind, making him confuse facts with his own judgment.

The heart of the American Judicial System is the determination of the innocence or guilt of the accused. At the beginning of the play, the jurors all feel that the man is guilty for murdering his father and they all wanted to convict him without carrying out a detailed discussion. The persistence of juror eight, however, plays a significant role in ensuring that the correct and fair verdict is delivered. The judicial system maintains that the defendant does not have an obligation to prove his innocence. The fact is not clear to everyone as Juror 8 reminds Juror 2 about it. The fact is a key element of the judicial system and assists in the process of coming up with a verdict. The defendant is usually innocent until proven guilty. Another element of the judicial system that comes out in the play is for a verdict to stand it must be unanimous. Unanimity ensures that the

Furthermore, the jurors made significant inferences that assured them the defendant was guilty. An individual makes an inference when they conclude an argument by analyzing evidence and by applying reasoning. For instance, the broker believed that the defendant was capable of being a murderer because he grew up in a bad environment. The broker also claimed that the defendant was guilty because he bought a distinctive switch knife that was identical to the murder weapon. In addition, the messenger and the architect inferred that the witnesses’ testimonies were tangible evidence that proved the defendant did commit the crime. For example, the old man claimed that he heard the defendant yell at his father, “I'm going to kill you.” Before he saw

No one's ideal day is to be locked in a cramped, hot, and hostile, deliberation room to decide the fate of the young eighteen year old boy who was accused of stabbing and killing his own father. In the 1957 film, 12 Angry Men, that is just how twelve men who were selected for a jury duty spent their day. All jurors have varying opinions for numerous reasons on whether the boy is innocent or not, but all men base their opinions off of logic, emotion, or just simply what everyone else is voting. Two men inparticular strongly used their inner connection and feelings to decide their vote on this boys trial.

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,

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.

Twelve Angry Men is set during a scorching summer day in New York City, where twelve men (Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, Lee J. Cobb, E.G. Marshall, Jack Klugman, Edward Binns, Jack Warden, Henry Fonda, Joseph Sweeney, Ed Begley, George Voskovec, and Robert Webber) sit on the jury and deliberate the outcome of a murder trial. The defendant is an eighteen-year-old boy who is accused of murdering his abusive father and tried for first-degree murder. Eager to escape the heat and to attend to other matters, eleven of the twelve men cast their vote as guilty, but juror eight does not. Many believe that the boy is capable of murder because the “slums are a breeding ground for criminals.” However, juror eight begins to take apart the prosecution’s case,

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.”