Analysis Of 12 Angry Men

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.

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 “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.

In the 1957 MGM film, Twelve Angry Men, a young boy from the slum is on trial for allegedly stabbing his father to death. The jury from New York City is forced to have 12 men agree as to whether the boy is guilty or not guilty. If they decide not guilty, the boy is set free; if he is found guilty, the boy will receive the death sentence. In the beginning all but one agreed the boy was guilty; Juror 8, Mr. Davis, argues that the boy deserves some deliberation. Mr. Davis changed the other eleven jurors’ minds by using his core values such as keeping an open-mind, staying humble, and believing every life is valuable.

In the play, 12 Angry Men, the vote was 11-1 in favor of a guilty verdict in the case being tried. The one juror stood his ground, explained his theory as to why a guilty verdict could not be delivered, and was unwavering in his stance. The jurors went around the table twice, and ended with everyone siding with the original juror. As the deliberations played out and jurors were questioned, some jurors were not able to justify their guilty verdict, merely stating “It just is”. This statement shows the effect of the groupthink mentality, especially since one juror was considerably vocal and angered by the time being spent on deliberations. The logical discussions the other jurors had with one another displayed a positive aspect

The movie “12 Angry Men” was about twelve male jurors, brought together in a deliberation room to decide whether a boy is guilty of killing his father. The deliberation began with an 11-1 vote for guilty. As the movie progressed, the one man who had a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the young boy, convinced the other members of the jury to question the facts ultimately leading to a unanimous vote for innocence. There were two obvious leaders in this movie, Juror number 1, the foreman and Juror number 8, the man who stood alone with a not-guilty verdict. This paper will discuss these two jurors and how they led the group to reach its goal.

In the beginning of the movie, a simple vote was called upon the jury on the boy’s status. The vote casted was eleven to one, eleven guilty and one innocent. The one man that challenged the whole group evaluated that there was a possibility for error. Due to moralistic values, the boy’s life was at stake and he did not allow the group to just cast aside a life without in depth discussion. Evidently, the man was able to accomplish persuading the group that the boy was innocent. By having the whole group come to one final decision, they were able to display the group decision method of a consensus.

Every single person on this earth is unique unto theirself. Think about it! Each individual has their own personality, agenda and history. Such are the characters portrayed in 12 Angry Men. The movie 12 Angry Men was the first of fourty-three films in the career of director Sidney Lument, who often sought controversial issues (RE). This movie focuses on a jury’s deliberation in a capital murder case, where a guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence. As the deliberations unfold the story quickly becomes a study of the juror’s complex personalities (imdb). Using rationalization, people can justify any action or inaction in an attempt to bring it into accord with their self-image (Roth 199). 12 Angry Men forces the characters

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 movie 12 Angry Men, directed by Sidney Lumet, introduces twelve jury members each one coming from a different background. The experiences and personalities of these men play a critical element in the first majority vote in deciding the verdict of guilty or not guilty. Juror #3, #10, and #11 were very influential in that their opinions and thoughts on the case were determined by their own personal bias. Therefore, a person’s behavior, opinions, and thoughts are reflected on how that person feels on the inside. Juror #3 is against the boy that is being tried and very biased towards him; this results in how he acts during the meeting and what his thoughts are regarding the case.

“12 Angry Men” is a movie about a group of jurors whose job is to decide the guilt or innocence of an accused murder. A teenage boy is accused of killing his father, there are two eyewitnesses who claims that they have both seen and heard the murder. In the beginning of the movie, eleven of the twelve jurors vote guilty. Throughout the movie we witness a discussion where juror number 8 is able to sway the other jurors to change their mind and decide to vote not-guilty. This movie exemplifies many social psychology theories such as groupthink and conformity.

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

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