Twelve Angry Men, A Classic Of American Cinema

‘Twelve angry men’ shows that personal experience is the strongest factor influencing human decision-making processes.’ Discuss

12. Juror Twelve is in advertising, and cannot conceive of people on any level other than images.

Juror 3 was basing his failed relationship with his son on the accused boy. The reason that he had such a bad relationship with his son is because when the boy was young, he ran away from a fight and Juror 3 said: “I’m going to make a man out of you or I’m going to bust you up into little pieces trying”. Later on, when his son was older, they got into a fight and Juror 3 hasn’t seen him since. This experience probably left him the impression that all kids take their loved ones for granted, and that they deserve severe punishments. Juror 3 is not the type to provide the sharpest evidence or information, but he is very determined to prove that the accused really did murder the victim. Juror 8 practically gives nothing away about his real life, probably because he did not want to add his own prejudices to the case. Juror 3 gave both his ill-mannered personality and bigotry away in the play.

The old man gave evidence that he heard the boy say “I’ll kill you” from his apartment below and that he saw the boy running from the down the stairs from the apartment after rising from his bedroom. The old lady saw the boy kill his father through her window, whilst a train was passing. Juror #8 analyses each of these points and makes credible arguments that the conclusion is flawed based on incorrect reasoning, by pointing out inconsistencies in the conclusions reached. The other jurors are content to believe that their reasoning is solid, as they have used examples of deductive reasoning to reach their conclusion. Juror #3 gives his reasons for reaching the conclusion that “It’s quite clear that the boy never went to the movies that night, returned home and killed his father with the knife as identified in Court” (Fonda & Lumet, 1957). Until Juror #8 takes out a similar knife and poses the question that it was possible that another knife was used, Juror #7 calls it a million to one however Juror #8 persists in saying it was possible. He also uses this analysis method to cast aspersions on the second point and third points raised by systematically analyzing each component.

During the New York summer of 1957 the play Twelve Angry Men is set in a small humid jury room. The playwright Reginald Rose through this play questions the reliability of current jury system. The jurors are instructed by the judge “to deliberate honestly ant thoughtfully”, as a result some take this instruction more seriously than others. A number of the jurors are able to take a logical stance, whilst other becomes emotionally involved in the issue. Uncertainty plays a vital role in creating doubt in the jurors minds. The contrasting perspectives of Juror 3 and Juror 8 make this very clear. Demonstrating quite evidently that despite the minority most are able to deliberate genuinely and with close considerations to the details of the trial.

Twelve Angry Men is a play that shows the workings of the American Justice System. The play is a celebration of the judicial system, and the main theme of the play is the triumph and the fragility of justice. The defendant’s fate is on the hand of the jurors as the man is accused of a serious offense which is murder. The purpose of the essay is to show the role that the plot, characters and the conflicts among the jurors support the theme of justice. Each juror had an initial verdict when the play begins but as events unfold and conflicts and agreements are reached the final and fair verdict is presented.

The movie “12 Angry Men” covers different negotiation and conflict resolutions. The communication is set in a jury room where people with different worldview are bargaining over the judgment of a murder case. Juror 8 is willing to stand alone with his vote “not guilty”. Trying to avoid the winner’s course, he demanded a conversation about the case despite the clear 11-1 vote on the guilt of the defendant. Juror 8 discredits his opponents’ arguments and uncovers their constraint thinking, he uncovering doubtful evidence, alienating hardliners and engaging in conversations. In the conversation it becomes obvious that not every juror bases his decision on the same facts, and

In the play, Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, Juror Eight convinces the jury with his opinion by being confident and standing up for his opinion. He also has good facts to show that the witnesses were not right. Some good reasons were that the witness evidence was not sold, the murder weapon ended up not being rare, and the way the boy stabbed his father does not match the way he would have done it. After all those allegations, I still believe the boy is not guilty due to the evidence not adding up.

Another factor that can obscure the truth of the case is the ignorance and weak characteristics of some jurors. This particularly applies to juror 7 who is ignorant, impatient and just wants to finish early so that he can watch the ball game. In juror 7’s opinion, the case is a “Goddam waste of time” (p.g 4) and he has better things to do rather than being a juror. His statement indicates that he does not understand how significant the jury process is and how is the truth affects the defendant’s life. Due to his ignorant attitude, he cannot see how facts are important in determining the truth and consequently unwilling to understand the facts. We can see this when he says: “You couldn’t change my kind if you talked for one

From the very start of the play when Juror 10 is first introduced, he has been portrayed as a selfish and impatient person. As a character, he really makes the title of the play stand out as ‘The Twelve Angry Men’, due to his short temper. He usually has negative opinions regarding anyone who is different than he is, hence the strong disagreement with Juror 8 about the boy being guilty or not guilty. The fact that he says, “I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say.

Juror #8 was much more successful with his critical thinking since the beginning of the movie. He was the only one of the jurors that voted not guilty. He expressed that “it’s not easy to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first,” when he is being pressed by the others as to why he did not vote guilty. This is the first step he takes to get the others to talk and think about the case. He uses the idea that “supposing we’re wrong”, when talking about the

You will see a lot of psychological phenomena exhibited in the movie 12 Angry Men. Many of these phenomena are listed in the boxes on the next page. Your task for this assignment is to watch the movie, take note of these various psychological phenomena, and then write a cohesive 2-3 page paper discussing these themes.

What can be said about Twelve Angry Men that hasn't already been said before with more eloquence. Sidney Lumet's first and arguably best feature has entered into the annals of film history and has been picked apart ad nauseum by critics, industry professionals and academics alike. Twelve men walk into a jury room eleven say guilty, the one played by Henry Fonda says not guilty; etc. etc.

In this film, the numerous functional and dysfunctional properties of the 12-jury men play a big role in analysing and evaluating the main purpose at hand, namely identifying the young man guilty or innocent for the murder of his father.

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.