First Impressions 12 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.

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.

The play and film of Twelve Angry Men show how being in a jury requires a great deal of logic, along with the ability to look over a case thoroughly. At first, the majority of the jurors think that the boy is guilty. They all believe that there is sufficient evidence to prove it. However, juror number eight points out that there are reasonable doubts, and that there is not enough hard evidence to prove the boy guilty. Some information throughout the story is more important or major than other parts, and some information and details were changed throughout the play and the film. Even though the play and the film are similar, there are major and minor details that are changed inside of both stories that make them unique.

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.

An individual's past experiences can have an incredible impact on the way they think and behave for years to come. So, the past have a significant impact on an individual. In my own life, I have had past experiences that have affected me to be the person I am today. One example is, whenever I walked through the downtown part of Edmonton and I noticed a lot of homeless people lying around on the streets. I felt so bad for those poor people that didn’t have a place to live. They appreciate anything and everything they get. This really effects me and teaches me to be more grateful in life. And appreciate everything I have. In the play the 12 Angry Men, jurors 3, 5, and 11 prove that their experiences has affected who they are. I believe that juror 3’s family issues such as his problems with his son has affected him to become an aggressive man. Additionally, juror 5 has had a background of living in a slum all his life. Therefore, he tries to prove that not all people living in slums are criminals. Lastly, juror 11 struggles with others judging him because he is a European Refugee. This affected him by making him feel unconfident about himself and feels that the others jurors don't take his opinion too seriously.

As a member of today’s society, it is easy to become largely aware of the need individuals crave to know everything about everything. Whether it be the topic of entertainment, environmental issues or politics we seem to have a lingering curiosity as a people to be aware of the ins and outs of the world we live in. Just as often as we see this constant curiosity we also see the lack of true initiative. Many areas of our society today call for both our interst and knowledge so that we may fulfill the position of being and active member of the society that we live in.

In a world where the jury is the voice of the people's justice, twelve men sit in a room poised to determine the fate of one boy's life. Did he do it? If he didn't, who did? Why would a young man kill his beloved father with a switchblade knife? The moment that the jury-comprised of twelve Caucasian men, abhorrent in today's society-entered the small, blank, bleak room, they had already come to the conclusion that the young man was guilty as charged without deliberation. One lone man stood his ground and had the guts to stand up to the others and profess that he believed the man could not be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt due to conflicting information. How could he prove it?

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.

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.

Probably almost everyone in the world look at a person and has an opinion but that opinion changes when you talk to the person. I can’t say don’t judge someone by their looks because i all do. In the story cowardly lion

The 1957 movie version of 12 angry men, brings twelve people together with different personalities and experiences to discuss the fate of a young boy that allegedly killed his father. At the very beginning many agree that the boy is guilty except for one man. Juror #8 votes not guilty and pushes to have the evidence talked through. Slowly after reviewing all the evidence carefully the eleven to one vote switched from eleven thinking guilty to eleven thinking not guilty. Each juror brought different experiences and personalities to the jury room. The two that were forceful with their opinions and their reasonings to decide either way we're jurors #8 and #3.

Although 12 Angry Men was released over 60 years ago, the film has maintained universal acclaim among movie critics. With a rare score of 100% on the movie review website RottenTomatoes.com, it is worth investigating what makes this film so appealing. With a seemingly mundane plot, 12 Angry Men follows a jury that debates over the innocence or guilt of a young man who is accused of murder. There are no bright explosions or grandiose imagery. Instead, 12 Angry Men manages to capture audiences simply by offering an engaging story, outstanding acting, and creative production techniques.

Ek Ruka Hua Faisla is probably the best Hindi remake Film which was released in late 1980’s.The Director of this movie is Basu Chatterjee. This Movie is a remake of 12 Angry Men which is an award winning American Movie the Director of this movie is Sidney Lumet.

The jurors in the 1957 film Twelve Angry Men, have a strong impact on the way the audience views their self-image by showing them their personality, their actions in the court room and their own personal beliefs if the boy should be charged guilty or not guilty. Each word that comes out of the juror’s mouth could either be a honest statement or a complete lie. It is the audience choice weather to believe it or to not believe it. The 1957 MGM film entitled Twelve Angry Men forces the characters and audience to evaluate their own self-image through observing the personality, actions, and beliefs of the jurors.