This movie was all about non-ethical and lazy like sayings, such as: “lets get it over quick” and “who really cares”. One guy, the 8th juror, did not agree with these saying’s and believed that a tough decision like this could not be decided in 5 minutes. He played a smart game, which we call ’playing devils advocate’. While the 11 men thought the person charged was guilty, this one juror thought differently. The 12 angry men were your average men, but each one had a different side.
Twelve Angry Men is a film that chronicles the deliberation process of a jury in the decision of a murder case. The jury, while comprised of twelve men, depicts men from all walks of life—from a seemingly affluent architect to a man who has lived in slums all his life. As such, the issue of diversity seems to be the driving source behind the conflict of the film. In the beginning of the film, Mr. Davis (Henry Fonda, Juror #8) finds himself the sole juror who believes the accused is possibly wrongly accused of the crime. All other eleven men are certain that the boy is guilty.
Davis the name of number 8 juror tried to convince the members of the jury and he succeed to change their minds. Davis was smart and logically man, he started doubt the evidence by the switch knife. The jurors believed the knife belongs to the eighteen years old guy and he stabbed it in his father chest, Davis made his argument by said might the murder used another knife looked like the guy’s knife and he showed the jurors a knife looked like the knife was used to kill the man. After this argument the one of jurors #9 changed his vote to not guilty. After that #5 juror who had a problem to express his opinion, he changed his mind and vote for not guilty.
Juror #2 was a very frantic and nervous type of guy. In the beginning he voted the boy guilty, but by the end of the film his reasonable doubt had him opposed to that previous notion. Juror #3 was the assumed “antagonist” which fits his character very well. He was all for the young boy’s execution the whole time until he glanced at a picture that held some type of symbolism to him when he finally broke down and voted innocent. Juror #4 the Wall Street guy was very analytical about his vote.
12 Angry Men 12 Angry Men Tia Pierce Benedictine University The film 12 Angry Men was not only entertaining but it illustrates many social psychology concepts. The film features a group of twelve jurors who must decide the guilt or innocence of man accused of murdering his own father. Initially eleven of the twelve jurors were set on a guilty vote. Lead by one jurors attempt to convince the others that guilty beyond reasonable doubt had not been proven and that a not guilty verdict might be appropriate and through tense and sometimes heated discussions, gradually, each juror changed their vote to not guilty. The twelve jurors in this film make up a Group.
Inductive or Deductive Reasoning Name:Inductive Instructor’s Name: Wilson University: john Tyler Date: 4/11/2014 Inductive Reasoning: A Case of Twelve Angry Men Twelve Angry Men is a movie that out rightly uses inductive reasoning to judge whether or not a Puerto Rican boy is guilty or not of killing his father with a switch blade. The judge in this case gave instructions to the jury to treat the case as a pre-meditated murder which deserved a mandatory death sentence. Just like any other lawful cases, the judge emphasized on the fact that the boy is innocent until proven guilty. The aspect of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ forms the basis for argument in the Twelve Angry Men. While in the jury room a vote was conducted to determine what people thought of the boy –guilty or not guilty.
12 Angry Men Response The 1957 film, “12 Angry Men,” directed by Sidney Lumet tells the story of twelve jurors who are chosen to sit in on an eighteen year old boy’s trial. These men must decide whether or not the boy is guilty or not of stabbing his father in the chest and killing him. They have the boy’s life in their hands and need to come up with a verdict of either to send him to the chair or let him free. Throughout the movie they take various votes, the first one had the count of 11-1 with guilty being the dominant choice. Juror 8, played by Henry Fonda, was an architect named Davis and the only one to vote towards not guilty.
The movie “Twelve Angry Men” is about twelve male jurors, brought together in a deliberation room to decide whether a boy is guilty of killing his father. The deliberation starts with an 11-1 vote for guilty. As the movie progresses, the one man who had a reasonable doubt about the guilt or innocent of the young boy, convinces the other members of the jury to question the facts presented. This paper examines the application of leadership concepts in the characters of each juror. Throughout the movie several leaders evolved, the main one being Juror #8, the man who stood alone from the get go with a not-guilty verdict.
He was young and illiterate but this did not suppress the fact that he was well capable in carrying out his duties. However, not everyone liked him. The overseer, John Claggart, disliked Billy the moment he set eyes on him. Billy however did not come to understand that Claggart hated him thus was not cautious when dealing with him. Thus, it was easy for Claggart to come up with a plot, thereby accusing Billy of planning rebellion among the fellow workers in the ship.
Even in the man’s rhetoric he chastised the Baltimore fan for simply being a Baltimore fan. Going back to the bigoted man, the second that he said "there’s always one" the viewer right away knew that this man was indeed going to be rude to not only Henry Fonda but to the rest of the jury as well. It was in the way he said to Fonda "there’s always one" was the beginning of the end of his talking influence over the rest of the jury. If one looks closely when he said "there’s always one", the rest of the jury was not exactly in agreement with his remarks but agreeing with the fact that there was a man that simply did not agree with their verdict and that the deciding was going to take a little longer than 5-10 minutes. The interesting aspect about the man who yells a lot and has issues with his son is he has the stress factor that Janis talks about in her article.