12 angry men THE STORY UNFOLDS in front of us. The film places us as the audience into the shoes of the different jurors. Forcing us to make tough decisions of character and morality. We’re told very quickly and very efficiently that we’re dealing with a life-and-death situation. 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.
All things considered, if the verdict came back guilty the nineteen-year-old man would be sentenced to death by the electric chair. Without delay, the jurors came to their decision and eleven of the twelve jurors voted guilty, but to be able to prosecute the nineteen-year-old man, the jurors needed to be concordant with each other. Nevertheless, the jurors went to a discrete room to discuss whether the nineteen-year-old man was guilty or not. In act II of Twelve Angry Men, Juror #8 discussed with the rest of the jurors as to why he believed that the man was not guilty in his eyes. With the more corroboration that Juror #8 gave, the more jurors began to believe that the man might not be guilty but instead innocent.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 sheer act in question of a boy killing his father is unthought-of no matter what the situation. One of the central characters in the movie is that of the Jury Foreman, played by Martin Balsam. His role is vital because he is responsible for guiding the whole discussion among the rest of the jurors and organizing an efficient system to ensure everyone’s point of view is taken into account. He comes across as authoritative on multiple occasions when he tries to silence any brewing arguments.
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.
The movie has a simple premise, that a minority may affect a majority if rational thought and logic are used to construct arguments based on sound reasons and that when this is applied to false logic or fallacies that these can be changed.Indeed, the end of the movie illustrates this well, as the final holdout jurors crumble, not because they are convinced the defendant should be acquitted but because of the social pressure to give in to the emerging consensus. Protagonist Fonda analyses each of these points and makes credible arguments that the conclusion is flawed based on incorrect reasoning, by pointing out inconsistencies in the conclusions reached. The
Through the play, ‘Twelve Angry Men’ established in 1957, the playwright, Reginald Rose signifies the importance of both rational attitude and emotions when making crucial decisions. Gathering on the “hottest day of the year” in a “large, drab, bare” jury room is throbbing for most jurors’ present. They have gathered to reach a ‘fair’ verdict and follow the judge’s instruction to “deliberate honestly and thoughtfully” as prejudice and experiences cloud their judgements. Whilst every juror has a different approach to the case, Rose demonstrates that both emotion and reason are used in the process of decision making. Taking decision without the interference of personal life leads one taking a fair judgement.