Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Analysis of 12 angry men
12 angry men summary essay
Analyse the 12 angry men movie
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Analysis of 12 angry men
Judging a Book by its Cover Why was did it seem so easy to sentence a boy’s life to death? Sure, he was accused of murder, but this is death they were talking about. Did the occupants in the room really care about the truth, or were they just eager to get out of the hot, clammy room. Most people in the room thought the boy was guilty. Juror #8 raised the question, “Why do you think he is guilty?” Instantly, one saw the effects that groupthink was taking on this collection of impatient people. Juror #8 saw the situation differently, however. In the film, 12 Angry Men, people’s true colors were really brought out–whether that be rage, racism, or selfishness. The beautiful thing about the film was that it only took one voice to make a change–to save a life. If Juror #6 would have been a muscular, black male who made his living …show more content…
What the jurors did not know what that Juror #6 was going to be a vital piece in wrapping this case up. A jury is a place of strangers–so why underestimate someone solely based on their looks? The person who looks the most beaten down may end up having all of the answers needed to solve the puzzle. This is case, Juror #6 is overlooked by most of the men–he is dirty, not saying a word, and just a truck driver. Over half of the men do not think he is relevant. This changes the entire feel of the room–at least for Juror #6. Chills run up and down his spine because he is in a room full of white men–white men who seem to think they are better than him. Juror #6 was afraid to even speak in front of these intimidating men. However, Juror #8 wanted to hear what he had to say. It seemed like Juror #6 was building up something excellent inside; however, he was afraid the other men
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.
The jurors took a vote and saw the ratio at eleven for guilty and only one for not guilty. When they repeatedly attacked his point of view, his starting defense was that the boy was innocent until proven guilty, not the opposite as the others had seen it. After Henry Fonda instilled doubt in the mind of another juror, the two worked together to weaken the barriers of hatred and prejudice that prevented them from seeing the truth. The jurors changed their minds one at a time until the ratio stood again at eleven to one, this time in favor of acquittal. At this point, the jurors who believed the defendant was not guilty worked together to prove to the one opposing man that justice would only be found if they returned a verdict of not guilty. They proved this man wrong by using his personal experiences in life to draw him into a series of deadly contradictions.
Juror Five came from the bottom and knows what it’s like. No matter how hard he tried he will always know the feeling of being on the bottom. and at some point he will always be reminded “I used to play in a backyard full of garbage, maybe it still smells on me”(7). Juror Five knows who he is and what he stands for. Now, how he would vote on the Rodney King case I can honestly say that, I don't really know.
Even before the jury sits to take an initial vote, the third man has found something to complain about. Describing “the way these lawyers can talk, and talk and talk, even when the case is as obvious as this” one was. Then, without discussing any of the facts presented in court, three immediately voiced his opinion that the boy is guilty. It is like this with juror number three quite often, jumping to conclusions without any kind of proof. When the idea that the murder weapon, a unique switchblade knife, is not the only one of its kind, three expresses “[that] it’s not possible!” Juror eight, on the other hand, is a man who takes a much more patient approach to the task of dictating which path the defendant's life takes. The actions of juror three are antagonistic to juror eight as he tries people to take time and look at the evidence. During any discussion, juror number three sided with those who shared his opinion and was put off by anyone who sided with “this golden-voiced little preacher over here,” juror eight. His superior attitude was an influence on his ability to admit when the jury’s argument was weak. Even when a fellow juror had provided a reasonable doubt for evidence to implicate the young defendant, three was the last one to let the argument go. Ironically, the play ends with a 180 turn from where it began; with juror three
In the play, 12 Angry Men, written by the well-known writer and producer, Reginald Rose, sets the scene in a stuffy jury room on an extremely hot day where 12 jurors must deem whether a boy is guilty for the murder of his father. The jurors struggle to reach a unanimous decision, as tension between the jurors builds up. The author delivers several clear messages through his play such as standing up for what you believe in, and always pursuing the truth. Often times personal feelings, prejudices, and fear of voicing opinions prevent the truth from being exposed.
In the play “Twelve Angry men”, the story line presents a variety of perspectives and opinions between twelve very different men. Some are more likely to be pointed out as prejudice, and others are more focused on reaching fair justice. Clearly, it is quite difficult for different people to vote ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ in unity when coming to a fair decision. In all of the twelve jurors, I have chosen Juror 3 and Juror 8 for contrast and comparison. I believe that Juror number 3 is a very opinionated man, with more differences than similarities comparing with Juror number 8.
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.
There were changes in behaviors, as the gentlemen became more responsive and nicer towards one another. This was evident when a few of the jurors helped on another put their coats on or even when some of the group members introduce themselves before exiting the building. The closing phase was also present as the men were walking out the building down the stairs. The older juror aske #8 juror what his name was, after being impressed with how he handled himself throughout the entire case and how he eventually emerged as the
For example, the third juror states in his monologue “Yeah, well I've got one. He's twenty. We did everything for that boy… When he was sixteen we had a battle. He hit me in the face. He's big, y'know. I haven't seen him in two years. Rotten kid.”(page 18) This quote alone proves that juror number eight
Juror 10 spoke of his prejudices by stating a fallacy of composition (Pope 2003) that he had lived his whole life amongst people like the accused and assumed he knew exactly the kind of people they all were. After being confronted the first time, Juror 10 still held onto his prejudice opinions as a means to his guilty verdict. It wasn’t until the near ending of the film that Juror 10’s prejudices became evident to himself. This is the second incident that happened after the vote where 9 jurors voted not guilty and 3 voted guilty. It happened during his speech about the defendant and the ‘dishonest’ people from the slums, how they don’t value life and how murdering someone is more of a sport to them.
He based his guilty verdict on the logical information provided in the courtroom. He continued to feel this way until later in the movie when he changed his appeal to pathos. The decision to change his mind was caused by the other jurors starting to change their minds. As the one juror that felt the boy was innocent continued to try and convince the others that there was a chance that they could all be wrong, most of the jurors were starting to see the possibility. Every time there was a new reason why he could be innocent, each juror had more to think about.
Juror 8 has no better reason to vote “not guilty” other than the sympathy he feels for the boy which he elaborates by saying, “Look, this boy's been kicked around all his life... He’s had a pretty terrible sixteen years. ”(pg 13) While Juror 8 is pivotal in saving the boy from death, it can still be said that he exemplified prejudice in the form of reverse discrimination.
From the very beginning of 12 Angry Men, we are shown a jury unevenly divided, eleven of the men voting for guilty, and one voting for not guilty. This
The movie “12 Angry Men” examines the dynamics at play in a United States jury room in the 1950’s. It revolves around the opinions and mindsets of twelve diverse characters that are tasked with pronouncing the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of patricide. The extraordinary element is that their finding will determine his life or death. This play was made into a movie in 1957, produced by Henry Fonda who played the lead role, Juror #8, and Reginald Rose who wrote the original screenplay. This essay will explore some of the critical thinking elements found within the context of this movie, and will show that rational reason and logic when used effectively can overcome the mostly ineffective rush to judgment that can be prevalent in a population. The juror that seemed interesting is Juror #8, who was played by Henry Fonda. Juror #8, or Davis, is an architect, the first dissenter and protagonist in the film. He was the first one to declare that the young man was innocent and he managed to convince the other jurors to see his point of view. Durkheim states that when we respond to deviance, it brings people together (Macionis, 2013, p. 159). We affirm the moral ties that bind us together, which was seen in the movie. At first, almost all of the jurors were so bent on convicting the young man based on their feelings, but they then started to analyze the facts and they came together to make their final decision.
12 Angry Men illustrates the dynamic of a jury of strangers who found a way to turn the tables on a seemingly one-sided case. The jury moved from struggling to establish leadership and group influence to finding cohesion in group roles. The story explores how alternative leadership styles affect group communication and understanding. Through the elaboration of the minority opinion, the jury slowly experienced the domino effect leading to a unanimous verdict. This movie shows how an effective group can form from the most diverse of worldviews.