12 Angry Men is a 1957 American drama film. This film is about 12 jurors debating in a very hot and uncomfortable room about an 18 yr old boy who has been accused of stabbing and killing his father. Juror #8 the assumed “protagonist” test the well know police statement, “Innocent until proven guilty.” As they deliberate for hours, different jurors’ characteristics start to appear and begin to bump heads. In this paper, the plot, characters, ideas/thoughts/themes, language/dialog, music and spectacle will be described. The characters in this film were very diverse and were from so many different walks of life.
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.
This scene is a turning point because Terry makes up his mind to confront the mob at that moment. Although Terry complains that he “coulda been somebody”, he finally does become someone worthy of our admiration. He does this by confronting his problems, but also through the great acting of Brando which allows the audience to connect with the character. As Charley and Terry are in a cab rolling towards Terry’s death, Charley tries to convince him to take a good job and not say anything about Joey’s murder to stay alive and help the mob. In the past, Terry lost a boxing match that he could have easily won because his brother asked him to.
1) Analyze how the jurors’ personality traits influenced the group decision process. In so doing, identify the most critical moments which can support your argument. Moreover, identify the main roles within the jury, and describe possible correlations between jurors’ personality traits and such roles In the 1957 classic film “12 Angry Men”, group dynamics are portrayed through a jury deliberation. On “the hottest day of the year, without air-condition”, 12 jurors have the duty to decide whether a young boy from the slums murdered his father and should be executed. To render a verdict, they must unanimously vote that the boy did or did not kill his father beyond all reasonable doubt.
A12 Angry Men Essay 12 Angry Men, is a courtroom drama about one juror who slowly succeeds in persuading the remaining eleven jurors that the case presented in the courtroom, was not as clear as they originally perceive. Based on the novel, 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, the movie gives an excellent example of Carnegie’s prescriptive methods of persuasion; pathos (emotion), logos (logic) and ethos (ethics), or rhetoric, at work. The movie also provides an example of how a person’s personality, social and emotional IQ, world view, basic need and own expertise in rhetoric play a role in communication and the persuasion of others. Overall, 12 Angry Men, was an interesting movie that brought out the art of persuasion and communication required in a Jury room setting. The first Juror to vote not-guilty in the case, is Juror eight, a self-actualized man with an Engineer-type personality, who suggests the jury first discuss the facts of the case before condemning the accused eighteen year old to death.
Juror 7 saved the whole process himself by being open to new ideas and questioning what he knew. Not only did Juror Number 7 save the argument of Juror Number 6, his attention to detail and his observation skills ended up helping to convince the rest of the men that the defendant may not be guilty. Juror 7 noticed the indents on the face of Juror Number 3, due to his glasses, and along with the rest of the panel pieced together that the woman who observed the murder most likely wore glasses. They concluded that she was probably not wearing them at night due to fact that they are uncomfortable and painful. They made the conclusion based on his facts that the information from the
Gabriel Cardona Communication 101 October 22, 2012 12 Angry Men “If there is a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused, a reasonable doubt, then you must bring me a verdict of 'Not Guilty'. If, however, there's no reasonable doubt, then you must, in good conscience, find the accused "Guilty". –Judge. Twelve Angry Men is a black and white film from the 1950’s in which 12 men from different backgrounds and lifestyles must use group communication to decide a young, mislead boys fate. All men are lead into a jury room to cast their individual votes and determine a final verdict to the trial.
12 Angry Men Topic (Groupthink) that helps an individual understands the movie, 12 Angry Men. “12 Angry Men”, is a movie about 12 jurors who get stuck in a room to debate if a person charged of murder is guilty or not guilty. The case seemed to look like a one sided case, but little did they know one guy would vote differently. The 11 men actually lost to one man, and it caused emotions from the beginning to the end of the movie. This movie was all about non-ethical and lazy like sayings, such as: “lets get it over quick” and “who really cares”.
He gets absolutely passionate when enacting his work as a lawyer : « He emphasised his words by tapping his knuckles on the table » and really invests all his energy in this case. He disapproved of the Ewells unjust accusation of the so-called rape 'commited' by Tom Robinson as he knows he is innocent , and tries to the best of his abilities to win this case to be able to save the poor man from death penalty, but even if he knows that the Ewels are lying he still feels compassion for Mayella, he treats her politely , « I won't try to scare you for a while...», ««... Miss Mayella », said Atticus in
Sidney Lumet’s first film, 12 Angry Men, is a single-room film about jury-disputing. If 12 jurors fail to find reasonable doubt, an eighteen-year-old boy will sentence to death due to the charge of being the murderer of his father. In the first vote, 11 think the boy is guilty; the one left simply thinks it is too soon to make this decision. The other men get choleric and present the evidence to persuade him. The speech not only shows their thoughts but their attitudes and prejudices.