Essay PreviewMore ↓
Firstly, perhaps the most egoistic man seen in the film would be Juror 3.
How to Cite this Page
"Analysis of 12 Angry Men." 123HelpMe.com. 07 Dec 2019
Need Writing Help?
Get feedback on grammar, clarity, concision and logic instantly.Check your paper »
- The play 12 Angry Men is one of the greatest plays I’ve seen. I read the novel and saw both movies but my favorite was the Broadway play we saw as a class. The play was so alive and made me really feel like I was in the jury. The play was about a young man on trial for the murder of his father. The play showed how one man didn’t give up in what he believed to be true. The play also showed a powerful leader who fought till the end. The play was about 12 jurors coming to the same verdict. It was eleven to one in favor of guilty.... [tags: 12 Angry Men, Reginald Rose]
1056 words (3 pages)
- Twelve Angry Men Legal Analysis Brief – Aakriti G The movie Twelve Angry Men is an American drama directed by Sidney Lumet. The film is about an eighteen-year-old boy from the ghetto who is on a trial for the murder of his abusive father. A jury of twelve men who are in one room, separated from the rest of the world, are charged with deciding the fate of this boy. As the movie progresses and the evidence is revealed and we see that all present evidence is against the boy and if the verdict results in one which is guilty, it would send him on row for a death sentence would send him to die.... [tags: Jury, Not proven, Law, Verdict]
736 words (2.1 pages)
- Guilty or not guilty. This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case.... [tags: Twelve Angry Men, Reginald Rose]
617 words (1.8 pages)
- In all criminal cases presented in the courts of the United States, a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The law requires the jury to release the defendant unless it is fully convinced of the defendant's guilt. Many times it may be difficult for a jury to come to such a significant conclusion. This is clearly evident in the movie 12 Angry Men. At first, each juror is convinced of his verdict except one. Yet of those who are convinced that the boy on trial is guilty, all change their vote except one.... [tags: 12 Angry Men, Reginald Rose]
714 words (2 pages)
- Extend Analysis 12 Angry Men Justice is a concept that is crucial for a fair and just society. For hundreds of years, countries have developed constitutions and other documents in place to form justice for those within the country. In Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, the idea of justice is bounced around by twelve men on a jury. These men have the unthinkable decisions of whether a suspected murderer is given the death penalty or able to walk free. Justice is something that has been debated heavily for the entire existence of human life.... [tags: Law, Jury, Judge, Court]
2109 words (6 pages)
- Twelve Angry Men Essay The film begins as we hear the judge’s instructions and see the young man we later learn is accused of murdering his father. The judge states, if there is a reasonable doubt you must bring me a verdict of not guilty and further says that it must be unanimous and the penalty is death. Twelve jurors, men of different classes with various backgrounds, file in to the jury room given the incredible responsibility of deciding whether there is reasonable doubt whether the accused boy committed the murder.... [tags: Jury, Not proven, The Juror, Verdict]
1862 words (5.3 pages)
- Twelve Angry Men exhibits the thought processes of twelve men that rely upon their intuitions on varying levels; some of whom check their intuition, some dismiss their intuition, and some trust it blindly. Of course, absolutism in either direction is not wise, and, in almost any case, moderation will find better results, especially in a court room. Throughout the film, various characters utilize one of these false ways of thought. However, it was characters like Juror Eight, that checked his intuition that saved the accused boy from the death penalty.... [tags: Critical thinking, Law, Jury, Thought]
836 words (2.4 pages)
- In the film 12 angry men, 12 jurors are put in a room to discuss a first degree murder case. Each one has a very different characteristic than the next, but each contribute to the stories plot line equally. Each juror can be classified as the average “every day” person; the silent but analytical, the loud and stubborn or the mediator. The one juror that is more like myself is Juror #11. I find myself to be most like him because he is unbiased, empathetic and is analytic. Juror #11 seems to be an excellent juror because he is unbiased, about both the other juror’s opinions and the case.... [tags: mediator, innocents]
786 words (2.2 pages)
- ... Juror #8 stands with his convictions, and insist that while the young man is probably guilty, he wants to be sure that they really examine all the evidence to ensure that he is guilty without a reasonably doubt. Juror #8, wanting to discuss the case is similar to McLemore’s “Guideline #34, to be patient shows intelligence…the man in a hurry misses the way” (2003). Juror #9, the oldest gentleman in the group, agrees that they jury should review the evidence and be sure without a reasonable doubt the defendant is guilty.... [tags: veredict, jury, guilty ]
782 words (2.2 pages)
- 12 Angry Men The movie “12 Angry Men” is about a child that is just about to be sentence to death penalty because he was suspicious of a premeditated murder. At the trial, the judge tell the jury that they have to find a verdict whether the boy is guilty or not of murdering his father. The judge was very specific when he said that the decision must be unanimous. When they get in the jury room to deliberate, eleven men stood in favor of condemn the boy to death but only one men refuse that sentence because he had many reasonable doubt to don’t belief that.... [tags: Jury, Hung jury, Deliberation, Not proven]
810 words (2.3 pages)
- Christian and Muslim Views on the 14th Century Plague, Known as Black Death
- Legalizing Marijuana Will Have Positive Effects on Society
- Exploring Britain's 19th Century Population Increase
- Similarities Between Burns' Poem, To A Mouse, and Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men
- The History of Voodoo, and its Presence in North America
- A real role model
Another juror, Juror 7, is another example of an egoist, is a loud, flashy type of man who has more important things to do, like go to the baseball game 8. He is quick to show temper and equally quick to form opinions in things which he knows nothing. He is a bully, and, of course, a coward 9. “I think the guy’s guilty. You could not chance my mind if you talked for a hundred years 10”. However, later on, when the odds of eleven-to-one guilty reduce to six-to-six not guilty, Juror 7 changes his vote, “just because”. When Juror 11, (who also believes in seeking justice because he suffered so much injustice 11), confronts him and asks him “Why did you change your vote? If you are changing your vote, you must have a reason, otherwise do not change it because others around you have”. Of course, Juror 7 had no answer, but only stammered back saying, “Who do you think you are? Look at this guy, eh, the nerve of him!”. Again, according to Sartre’s view, Juror 7’s actions show that he is selfish and only cares about himself. He has no opinion on this case and wants to leave as soon as possible.
In the jury room, at the beginning when everyone’s vote was fixated on guilty, there was one man, Juror 8, who had a choice to vote guilty but instead did the opposite because of reasonable doubt. He spent the next few hours correctly going over the evidence, showing a similar knife that he owned that the boy also used to kill his father. In addition, he recreated the old man’s steps, having it timed and matched it to the old man’s testimony and proved it invalid. Juror 8 is a quiet, thoughtful, gentleman – a man who sees all sides of very question and constantly seeks the truth. He is a man of strength tempered with compassion, wants justice to be done, and will fight to see that is 12. He alone convinced ten other jurors that the boy is guiltless, opened up that the impossible is possible and saved an innocent boy from going to the electric chair.
To sum up, 12 Angry Men portrays the prominent view on human nature that people are free to be whatever they want, according to Jean-Paul Sartre, who is an influential existentialist. He says that existence comes before essence and that “Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself. Such is the first principle of existentialism 13”. Such is seen in the movie with the different jurors. As the saying goes, actions speak louder than words. It was clear to see that all the jurors believed the boy was guilty was on what they heard, but they did not deliberate it. Most of them did not have an opinion and went along with what others said and others were too selfish to give a bit of their time to judge an innocent boy’s life. Take Juror 3 for example. As more light was shed on the evidence and jurors started having reasonable doubts, he remained thickheaded and truly believed the boy was guilty based on his personal experiences. He refused to reason with others and absolutely believed that he was right. He demanded an explanation from jurors who changed their votes. According to Sartre, Juror 3 would pose as a narcissistic sadist. In contrast, Juror 8 would pose as a sympathetic pleasant person who only wanted to take some time and talk about the evidence and save someone’s life from being misjudged. Even though making choices is inevitable, in the end, human beings are free to make their own choices and they alone are responsible for those choices. As Samuel Umen said, “Man is the most paradoxical of paradoxes. He is anomaly encased in an enigma. He is a bundle of contradictions 14”.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13, 14 –
Ellsworth, James, Laura Gini-Newman, and IlanChapter 2: Introducing Human Nature Danjoux. "Chapter 2 - Introducing Human Nature." Philosophy Questions and Theories. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 2002. 25+.
6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 –
Rose, Reginald. "Notes on Characters and Costumes." Twelve Angry Men: a Play in Three Acts. Woodstock, IL: Dramatic Pub., 1983. 4-5.