It was broadcast initially as a television play in 1954. Do you think that the jury in this movie came to the right decision? Vance is an African American actor best known for his role as Ron Carver in Law and Order: Criminal Intent. Seven: So what are you gonna do about it? Boy, Critical thinking, Deliberation 1438 Words 3 Pages the movie 12 Angry Men, twelve jurors with different personalities and background must decide whether an eighteen year old boy is guilty of killing his father. From the start he has started folding papers for voting, and the other jurors seem to follow him. Despite peer pressure, he continued his stance and pushed to reexamine all the evidence closely. In Reginald Rose Twelve Angry Men, Rose uses the play to reflect the duty and responsibility of a juror. The rest of the jury then begins to persuade the architect that the accused is actually guilty.
After being written in 1955, it was re-created at least a further three times at different stages in history with extremely minor differences. The London production of the play opened in November 2013, originally running until 1 March 2014, but extended until 14 June 2014, at the starring , , and. Afterwards, 3 stammers out something akin to an apology to him. He admits that he bought a knife that night but claims that he lost it. The twelve jurors have to decide whether the defendant is guilty or innocent. Resolution The resolution to the story Twelve Angry Men is that the man on trial is proven to be not guilty.
Indian director remade it as in 1986. The Jurors decided to have a secret vote, and when one slip said not guilty, immediately all faces turned to 5. He lacks emotional self-perception which can be. He only sweats once, after 8 manages to prove his point. What do you think led the juror to commit these errors in his thinking with respect to the case he is judging? It kicks into overdrive as the debate rages on. I only say that because I realize some cases only employ s … ix to eight jurors.
If I were to pick one juror for a protagonist, I might choose Juror 8. He appears to have had some plan to defend the accused in the jury room as he brings a matching switch knife as his own evidence. Upon examination, the film highlights social psychology theories in areas of conformity and group influence. Without spending any time discussing the evidence in the case, the jurors cast their votes. It clearly illustrates the pressure of conformity and groupthink. In the Broadway play and 1997 film a fan, in the 1957 film, a fan. However, we quickly realize that all of the men have different things going through their mind and even more complicated ways of expressing them.
We are led to believe that this is a contributing factor to his prejudice against the defendant, accused of stabbing his own father. The tight script by Reginald Rose based on his own teleplay presents each juror vividly using detailed soliloquies, all which are expertly performed by the film's flawless cast. He sticks up for 9th Juror, an old man, and seems to be a respectful man. How can this one man steer the others toward the same conclusion? He says that bearing in mind that the man cannot walk well, it probably took longer. Sidney Lumet's directorial debut remains a tense, atmospheric though slightly manipulative and stagy courtroom thriller, in which the viewer never sees a trial and the only action is verbal. It is open to interpretation, however i feel that it has little importance.
His characteristics were synonymous with the style associated with a Thinker-type personality. Juror Three responds to this with hostility, but Juror Eight argues additionally that even if the boy had said he was going to kill his father, that does not mean he intended to do so, since people often use that or similar phrases without meaning them. He first uses this when he calls for an initial vote amongst the other jurors to see where the votes stand. There is a large, scarred table in the centre with twelve chairs around it. Vowed to make a man out of him.
Juror Nine suggests that the old man may have convinced himself that he heard the words because he has never had any recognition from anyone and has a strong need for attention. Six jurors vote in favor of declaring themselves a hung jury; six vote against. This suggests that the old man's testimony that he saw the boy fleeing may be correct after all. Academy Award for Best Director, Grand jury, Henry Fonda 2051 Words 6 Pages reviewing the film 12 Angry Men, I have identified many types of influence tactics being utilized by the jurors. Yet the movie itself can entrance the viewer with nothing but the use of black coloring and personal feelings of justice over vengeance. The court case was about a boy who was convicted of murder.
You know what that trial cost? These are an excellent companion for anyone reading or performing this play. Deliberation, Grand jury, Hung jury 1166 Words 3 Pages 12 Angry Men Analysis 12 Angry Men is a movie, directed by Sidney Lumet, about twelve jurors who are deliberating a murder trial. The case appears to be open-and-shut: The defendant has a weak alibi; a knife he claimed to have lost is found at the murder scene; and several witnesses either heard screaming, saw the killing or the. He tries his best to impress upon the others the need to base their verdict solely upon the evidence, without prejudice or sympathy. This started when the 8th Juror pulled out a knife that looked exactly like the one the kid had bought. Who else had the motive? She was in bed, unable to sleep, when she looked out the window and saw the boy stab his father. But Juror Five, who has witnessed knife fights, says that anyone using a switchblade would use it underhand, stabbing upward, thus making it unlikely that the boy, who was an experienced knife fighter, could have caused the fatal wound.
This movie is an excellent example of how one person standing up against popular groupthink can, in fact, influence the rest of the group to his way of thinking and help them overcome The Spiral of Silence Theory. But as mean as that guy is, Juror 3 is a much better developed adversary for Juror 8—plus, he's the last holdout for a Guilty verdict. In the United States, a verdict in most criminal trials by jury must be unanimous. A reader may think that this somehow takes away from the characters' personalities or the audience's ability to relate to them. I think maybe we owe him a few words. The other jurors scoff at this, but Juror Eight calls for another vote, a secret one this time.
In this production, the judge is a woman and four of the jurors are black, but most of the action and dialogue of the film are identical to the original. When the story begins, all the jurors are eager to convict the defendant, a young minority, on charges of murdering his father. You know why slum kids get that way? The climax is when juror 9 explains to the rest that the woman across the street couldn't have seen the crime just casually looking out her window from bed without her glasses. He's a tough, angry kid. I thought it was obvious from the word, 'Go'. The vote is ten to two. During the trial, it was verified that this was possible.