Film Analysis: Twelve Angry Men

1862 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Essay on juror 8 in the film twelve angry men

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. Davis (juror #8) takes his responsibility to carry out justice seriously. We learn early on that he is the only one to initially vote not guilty. He seems to fully understand the concept of reasonable doubt and the value of human life. Throughout the deliberations he uses ethos, pathos and logos along with a calm and respectful demeanor to get the other eleven men to change their minds. He makes everyone believe that he entered …show more content…

We hear many discuss how the case is open and shut, preconceived notions about the accused and that more than one juror wants to get it over with as quickly as possible. The first vote for a verdict is taken and while some hesitate to raise their hand, all but one votes guilty. Davis is the only one to raise his hand for not guilty. When men question, make a few snide comments and ask if he really believes he’s not guilty he simply states, “ I don’t know.” In the conversation that follows he admits it wasn’t easy to raise his hand for not guilty but it’s not easy to send the boy off to die without talking about it. He further states to juror #7 I am not trying to change your mind. This is an excellent choice of words that in many ways set the tone for everything that followed. He is not confrontational, doesn’t say I’m right and you are wrong but simply asks for a

Show More
Related

  • 12 Angry Men Essay

    595 Words  | 2 Pages

    This report is on a movie called, “12 Angry Men.” The movie is about 12 men that are the jury for a case where a young man is being accused of killing his father. A major conflict that is very obvious is the disagreement on whether the young boy was guilty or innocent. After court when all of the men sat down to begin their discussion Courtney B. Vance (#1) Took charge and respectfully was now the leader. He asked what everyone’s votes were and all of the men except for Jack Lemmon (#8) voted the young man was guilty. Because Jack was the odd one that chose differently than the rest of the men, all of the other Jures, were defensive about the evidence just because they were all so confused. Courtney B. Vance took charge once again and calmly stated that everyone has their rights and lets have everyone explain the reasons why they thing the child is guilty or not guilty. Ossie Davis (#2) explained why he voted guilty. While explaining this he was very calm and wise. HE handled conflicts in the same way. Next was George C. Schott (#3) He also voted guilty. George was very st...

    Read More

  • Uncertainty In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men

    980 Words  | 2 Pages

    Reasonable doubt is defined “as uncertainty as to the guilt of a criminal defendant.” This ideology has been the basis for justice systems in many modern countries for centuries. A panel of twelve men and women who have the immense responsibility of choosing the fate for one person. This principle is the basis for Reginald Rose’s satire, Twelve Angry Men. A play that describes the scene of a New York jury room, where twelve men have to decide between life and death for a inner-city teen, charged with killing his father. These jurors have to sift through the facts and the fiction to uncover the truth about the case and some truths about themselves. Reginald Rose outlines through the actions of juror number three, that no matter the consequences,

    Read More

  • Intolerance And Prejudice In The Play Twelve Angry Men

    1285 Words  | 3 Pages

    The first vote ended with eleven men voting guilty and one man not guilty. We soon learn that several of the men voted guilty since the boy had a rough background not because of the facts they were presented with. Although numerous jurors did make racist or prejudice comments, juror ten and juror three seemed to be especially judgmental of certain types of people. Juror three happened to be intolerant of young men and stereotyped them due to an incident that happened to his son. In addition, the third juror began to become somewhat emotional talking about his son, showing his past experience may cloud his judgment. Juror ten who considered all people from the slums “those people” was clearly prejudiced against people from a different social background. Also, Juror ten stated in the beginning of the play “You 're not going to tell us that we 're supposed to believe that kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I 've lived among 'em all my life. You can 't believe a word they say. I mean, they 're born liars.” Juror ten did not respect people from the slums and believed them to all act the same. As a result, Juror ten believed that listening to the facts of the case were pointless. For this reason, the tenth juror already knew how “those people” acted and knew for sure the boy was not innocent. Even juror four mentioned just how the slums are a “breeding ground

    Read More

  • Criminal Justice Concepts in 12 Angry Men

    910 Words  | 2 Pages

    Yet with the help of one aged yet wise and optimistic man he speaks his opinion, one that starts to not change however open the minds of the other eleven men on the jury. By doing this the man puts out a visual picture by verbally expressing the facts discussed during the trial, he uses props from the room and other items the he himself brought with him during the course of the trial. Once expressed the gentleman essentially demonstrate that perhaps this young man on trial May or may not be guilty. Which goes to show the lack of research, and misused information that was used in the benefit of the prosecution. For example when a certain factor was brought upon the trail; that being timing, whether or not it took the neighbor 15 seconds to run from his chair all the way to the door. By proving this right or wrong this man Juror #4 put on a demonstration, but first he made sure his notes were correct with the other 11 jurors. After it was

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men Essay

    732 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the movie Twelve Angry Men, tells the story of an ongoing debate within a jury whether to find the defendant guilty or not for murdering his father. While watching the movie, I couldn’t help but realize that there was a lot of techniques used by the juries and lawyers to sway the vote in either directions. I was able analyze the movie using social psychology as my main tool. I could relate the movie to the topic of social psychology by comparing it to Asch’s experiment and the act of conformity and the act of persuasion.

    Read More

  • Comparing and Contrasting Juror 3 and Juror 8 from Twelve Angry Men

    1056 Words  | 3 Pages

    These two jurors are almost the plain opposite of each other. Juror 3 appears to be a very intolerant man accustomed of forcing his wishes and views upon others. On the other hand, Juror 8 is an honest man who keeps an open mind for both evidence and reasonable doubt. Since these two people are indeed very different, they both have singular thoughts relating to the murder case. Juror 8 is a man who is loyal to justice. In the beginning of the play, he was the only one to vote ‘not guilty’ the first time the twelve men called a vote. Although his personality is reflected on being a quiet, thoughtful, gentle man, he is still a very persistent person who will fight for justice to be done. Juror 8 is a convincing man who presents his arguments well, but can also be seen as manipulative. An example would be when he kept provoking Juror 3 until he finally said “I’m going to kill you" to Juror 8. He did this because he wanted to prove that saying "I’ll kill you" doesn’t necessarily mean that Juror 3 was actually going to kill him. Juror 3 is a totally different character. He is a stubborn man who can be detected with a streak of sad...

    Read More

  • Analysis of the Jurors in 12 Angry Men

    617 Words  | 2 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. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.

    Read More

  • Characterization in 12 Angry Men

    922 Words  | 2 Pages

    strong use of all of these methods, but the use of appearance seems to be the

    Read More

  • Film Analysis: No Country For Old Men

    1705 Words  | 4 Pages

    This analysis observes the opening scene of the Coen brother’s film No Country for Old Men (2007), a neo-noir crime thriller set in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The film does conform to classic Hollywood style in that the story is character-centered and plot and narrative change to serve character exposition. As well as the character’s actions changing plot and narrative and that style is subservient to the story as the ultimate goal is to develop a fictional world that is perceived as real, as Bordwell put it the classic Hollywood style should be “seamless” and “style-less” (Bordwell, 1988). But does have Post-classical influences such as lack of musical score and modern editing techniques and special effects.

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men Courage Analysis

    1026 Words  | 3 Pages

    “Courage - a perfect sensibility of the measure of danger, and a mental willingness to endure it.” Courageous people understand the danger that they face when they act how they do. That is what courage is all about. Many historical events occur due to people having the courage to do what they think is right, or because of those who use their courage to do what they want. Having the courage to stand alone in one’s beliefs may be one of the hardest thing a person can do.

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men Character Analysis

    842 Words  | 2 Pages

    As once Martin Luther King Jr. said “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Humans are imperfect and contain fatal flaws such as lacking fairness in vast situations. In today’s modern time, many obstacles lack righteousness such as the court system. In Twelve Angry Men, Reginald Rose conveys the theme injustice through his characterization of contrasting juror 3 and juror 8 using character foil and the extensive archetypal use of light vs darkness.

    Read More

  • Film Analysis: The Usual Suspects

    477 Words  | 1 Pages

    If there is one reason I’m happy I watched this is because now instead of forcing my boyfriend to watch girly disney movies with me, I can show him this. I think that he would enjoy it. I wouldn’t have to watch it because… well you

    Read More

  • Analysis of 12 Angry Men

    1246 Words  | 3 Pages

    In viewing 12 Angry Men, we see face to face exactly what man really is capable of being. We see different views, different opinions of men such as altruism, egoism, good and evil. It is no doubt that human beings possess either one or any of these characteristics, which make them unique. It is safe to say that our actions, beliefs, and choices separate us from animals and non-livings. The 20th century English philosopher, Martin Hollis, once said, “Free will – the ability to make decisions about how to act – is what distinguishes people from non-human animals and machines 1”. He went to describe human beings as “self conscious, rational, creative. We can fall in love, write sonnets or plan for tomorrow. We are capable of faith, hope and charity, and for that matter, of envy, hated and malice. We know truth from error, right from wrong 2.” Human nature by definition is “Characteristics or qualities that make human beings different from anything else”. With this said, the topic of human nature has been around for a very long time, it is a complex subject with no right or wrong answer. An American rabbi, Samuel Umen, gave examples of contradictions of human nature in his book, Images of Man. “He is compassionate, generous, loving and forgiving, but also cruel, vengeful, selfish and vindictive 3”. Existentialism by definition is, “The belief that existence comes before essence, that is, that who you are is only determined by you yourself, and not merely an accident of birth”. A French philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, is the most famous and influential 20th - century existentialist. He summed up human nature as “existence precedes essence”. In his book, Existentialism and Human Emotions, he explained what he meant by this. “It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will be something, and he himself will have made what he will be 4”. After watching 12 Angry Men, the prominent view on human nature that is best portrayed in the movie is that people are free to be whatever they want because as Sartre said, “people create themselves every moment of everyday according to the choices they make 5”.

    Read More

  • Thirteen Days Movie Analysis

    1335 Words  | 3 Pages

    Roger Donaldson’s film, Thirteen Days dramatizes the Kennedy administration reaction to the Cuban Missile Crisis. The film discusses a time when the United States had come close to a nuclear war with other nations. The film mainly focuses on showing the audience the United States perspective of the crisis. The Cuban Missile crisis was a thirteen-day long confrontation between the United States, Cuba, and the Soviet Union. This crisis started out when both the United States and the Soviet Union wanted to be seen as the most superior nation in the world. Therefore, both nations decided to use the technology they had in order to produce nuclear missiles and other weapons to show the globe how powerful they were as nations. The United States and

    Read More

  • Reflection On 12 Angry Men

    1301 Words  | 3 Pages

    In class we have watched the movie 12 Angry Men. The movie is about a jury of twelve men deciding whether a boy will go to the death penalty or go out the doors a free man. The case seems clear to many that the boy is guilty of killing his father. Two witnesses testified against the boy, which made eleven of the men convinced that the boy was obviously guilty. When the twelve men headed inside the conference room to discuss the verdict, all of the men except one juror raised their hand for guilty. The one juror wanted to discuss the outcome before he sent a boy to die. The eleven other jurors were extremely upset because they felt as if they were wasting time discussing something that was so obvious.

    Read More

More about Film Analysis: Twelve Angry Men

Open Document