Analysis Of The Movie ' Twelve Angry Men '

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.

At last, the 8th Juror triumphs to persuade all of the jurors and accomplishes a verdict of “not guilty”. Throughout the play, he tries hard to gain a reasonable doubt and successes in doing so, resulting in acquittal of the defendant. This undoubtedly reveals the 8th Juror’s fortitude in performing his duty as a jury member. Reginald Rose uses the stage directions to leave the 8th Juror until the very end and help out the 3rd Juror who has been exposed and broken by the 8th Juror’s power in jury deliberations: ‘The 8th Juror puts on his own jacket and brings the 3rd Juror’s jacket to him... The 8th Juror helps him on with his jacket’. Rose’s technique of using this stage direction works effectively to the audience members, giving a strong indication of the 8th Juror’s goodness, adding onto the success of persuading the 3rd Juror. Consequently, the 8th Juror is clarified as a ‘favourer’ to the 3rd Juror.

Throughout the film, the audience becomes familiar with each of the jurors and is quickly introduced to topics at issue such as discrimination, iniquitous motives, and concerns about the American judicial system. As the twelve jurors deliberate to reach a verdict, the film epitomizes the validation and condemnation of the American justice system. There are many responsibilities of a jury: to achieve fair and impartial decision, determine guilt or not guilt, give people voice in the government, and to protect the

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 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 movie "12 Angry Men" focuses on a jury's decision on a capital murder case. A 12-man jury is sent to begin decisions on the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year-old Latino accused of stabbing his father to death, where a guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence. The case appears to be open-and-shut: The defendant has a weak alibi; a knife he claimed to have lost is found at the murder scene; and several witnesses either heard screaming, saw the killing or the boy fleeing the scene. Eleven of the jurors immediately vote guilty; only Juror No. 8 (Mr. Davis) casts a not guilty vote. At first Mr. Davis' bases his vote more so for the sake of discussion after all, the jurors must believe beyond a

To start it off, we have juror number 2. Juror number 2 is a very hesitant man who doesn't have an opinion on his own. He is very quiet and doesn't have much to say. During the story he constantly kept changing his mind whenever the last person spoke. “Well, sure, I've heard of it. I know what it is. I . . . what I meant . . . well, anyway, I think he was guilty.” (Juror 2) This quote is the juror thinking he was guilty in the beginning but later on he changes his mind. His past experiences have influenced his opinion on the

They choose to work together more and finally begin to see the argument from both sides. They still argue, but more of the jury is willing to listen and work with Eight. For example, Four finally changes his mind after hearing Eight explain that the woman’s testimony is false because she was not wearing her glasses, saying that it was “Funny. [He] had never thought of [that]” (Rose 107). He sees the flaws in his argument and doesn’t continue fighting. Other jurors start to listen as well. The late jury has a much more open mind and are more willing to change their opinions. They slowly start to work together and come to a consensus. The late jury falls into order and works together after much chaos and

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.

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.

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.

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.

But come to find out Juror #9 admitted to having changed his vote. Juror #9 calls into question the validity of the testimony of the old man living downstairs. Juror #9 provides the possibility that the old man was only testifying to feel important. Juror #8 concludes by saying that even if he did hear him say, “I’m going to kill you,” that very well could be taken out of context as just a figure of speech. Juror #5 changed his vote to not guilty, and the voting processes came out to be 9 of juror

The movie Twelve Angry Men is about the twelve jurors that could adjust their influence in a decision-making process for conviction an eighteen years-old boy, whether the boy guilty or not guilty in murdering of his father. It represents a perfect example for applicable of a work group development framework. It also has examples of influence techniques among a group’s members. This paper is looking at those specific examples in the movie and focusing in analysis the reasons why Juror 8 is so much more effective than others in the meeting.