TWELVE ANGRY MEN In shape, "12 Angry Men" is a court dramatization. In object, it 's a brief training in those entries of the Constitution that guarantee litigants a reasonable trial and the assumption of blamelessness. It has a sort of stark straightforwardness: Other than a brief setup and epilog, the whole film happens inside of a little New York City juror room, on "the most smoking day of the year," as twelve men discuss the destiny of a youthful respondent accused of killing his dad. In the film, there is a hypothesis around why the litigant couldn 't recollect the name of the motion picture he had seen driving the members of the juror to accept that the kid had lied about heading off to the motion pictures. On the other hand, getting
The movie ‘12 Angry Men’ deals with a jury of twelve men, responsible for coming to a verdict about the fate of an illiterate teenager who was brought up in the slums and could be punished severely if found guilty of murdering his father with a switchblade knife. They have to make a unanimous decision, either guilty or not guilty. They are quite literally caged up in a small, claustrophobic room on a rather hot day. Through the course of the film the inner miseries, opinions and struggles of the jurors are brought out. Their decisions are extremely biased initially either due to the background of the boy or what each of them holds as morally correct i.e.
The 1957 MGM film entitled Twelve Angry Men forces the characters and audience to evaluate their own self-image through observing the personality, actions, and experiences of the jurors. The film is about a murder case where a young boy is being accused of killing his father. There are 12 jurors who discuss the murder case and decide if the boy is found guilty or innocent. If the boy was voted guilty by the 12 jurors, he would be sentenced to a death penalty. All, but one juror voted that the boy was guilty.
With the more corroboration that Juror #8 gave, the more jurors began to believe that the man might not be guilty but instead innocent. In act III of Twelve Angry Men, eventually, after countless discussions, including the substantial amount of evidence that was given, Juror #8 was able to persuade all but one of the jurors. The juror was eventually persuaded into switching his vote from guilty to innocent. Ultimately, the jurors unanimously voted that the man, which was accused of murdering his father,
Atticus was a very patient and understanding man, yet he was very stubborn when he knew what was right. Many times throughout “To Kill a Mockingbird” he demonstrated his ability to stay rational and see others’ points of views. One intense instance he was able to stay rational in was in front of the jailhouse when the group of men came to attempt to kill Tom Robinson, Scout depicted his actions by saying, “We saw Atticus look up from his newspaper. He closed it, folded it deliberately, dropped it in his lap, and pushed his hat to the back of his head” (Lee 201). Scout did not understand at the moment why the men were there, but her father knew full well that if he did not stop them someone would be murdered.
Complete description of all “Fallacies” in the movie “12 ANGRY MEN”: The film “Twelve Angry Men” involves a lot of logical fallacies, some of which are quite prominent and provocative. Like for eg. The fallacies which involve racism and bigotry of Juror #10 and the anger revealed which manifests into personal anguish by Juror#3. The script introduces the viewers to the typical behavior and the state of mind of these jurors, who surprisingly turn out to be the last to change their opinions from “guilty” to “not guilty”. Juror#3 the frustrated father whose personal conflicts and experiences influence his view of the accused’s crime is very desperate to make it clear that his mind is already made up before the deliberations even start.
Most of the subjects delivered the most intense shock available, but only because they were told to do so. When the experiments were repeated in other cities, states and countries, the results showed even more obedience. Even though the subjects could hear the victim holler and beg for them to stop, most of the subjects completed the experiments. There were some subjects such as Fred Prozi a 55-year-old unemployed male who did show concern for his victim and worried about being held responsible for whatever may happen to the victim. However, when informed he would not be held responsible he continued and even administered the most severe shock.
The jurors need to sentence a young man being accused of murder; all 12 jurors must come to a unanimous decision if they decide he’s guilty he’s be executed. If he’s declared innocent he walks free. The film essentially boils down into one question. What is the value of human life? The individual jurors each have their own biases which are formed from their past experiences.
Sidney Lumet 's staggering courtroom drama 12 Angry Men mostly takes place in the cramped jury room where a dozen “men with ties” decide the fate of Puerto Rican teenager accused of murdering his abusive father. Yet the prologue to their civic imprisonment, which takes place beyond these confined walls, sets the stage for Lumet 's overarching concerns about the contradictions of the democratic process. After a few short establishing shots where men, women, and children traverse the plaza steps and interior hallways of the court building, Lumet and director of photography Boris Kaufman focus on a particular door, where one of many cases currently in motion is just about to reach critical mass. The legal arguments have subsided, leaving the courtroom mostly silent and the fate of the accused in the hands of the aforementioned 12 white men. Before their dismissal, the judge looks down at the group and bequeaths them to “separate the fact from the fancy.” Despite his harsh tone, we quickly realize only one of them takes this statement seriously.
12 Angry Men The play is set in a New York City Court of Law jury room in 1957. We discover this is a murder case and that, if discovered blameworthy, the compulsory sentence for the charged is capital punishment. After these guidelines, the members of the jury enter. Every one of the legal hearers assume the conspicuous blame of the litigant, whom we learn has been blamed for slaughtering his dad. The twelve take a seat and a vote is taken.