12 Angry Men Interview Analysis

Many people, if asked what they would prefer, would prefer to read the book instead of watching the movie. It could be because the movie will always leave some parts from the story out. It seems like directors of the movie always leave out parts from the book, only incorporating the important parts from the story. Some also say that they prefer to leave the descriptions of things in the book up to their imagination. Also, when you are reading the book, you get to read the main characters point of view on things. You get to see what goes on in their mind while they go through their everyday life. After reading the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, I would say that there were many similarities between the play and the movie, but there were also many differences.

8th juror appeals to their sense of pathos and pity by saying “this boy’s been kicked around all his life… He’s had a pretty terrible sixteen years. I think maybe we owe him a few words. That’s all.” While this has nothing to do with the case, he hopes to appeal to their humanity in order to get them to give him a chance in these deliberations.

The Power of Three Perspectives One can be easily mislead or persuade in a direction they do not agree with. However this is not the case with Juror 8 (Mr. Davis) in the film 12 Angry Men. In this film, twelve jurors try to identify whether or not the convicted eighteen year-old boy is guilty of murdering his father with a switchblade knife. If the puerto-rican boy is found guilty, he will be sent to the electric chair and sentenced to death.

What if one day, twenty years from now you were chosen to discuss the fate of an eighteen year old boy. What would you do? Would you take your job and do it responsibly, or would you do it like some of the Jurors in 12 Angry Men and blow it off so you can finish early and leave. Even though there was a lot of controversy in that jury room, I noticed that Jurors 3,7, and 9 used their personalities, beliefs, and views of their responsibilities to bring the boy on trial to justice.

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. Similar

Juror Eight states, “It’s not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first” (Rose 231). Juror Eight feels that fairness is essential in a trial with the death penalty on the line. The conviction of a person doesn’t depend on where they come from. In the beginning of act two in Twelve Angry Men, a second vote amongst the jury members who voted guilty the first time takes place.

After watching 12 Angry Men, I was very inspired by juror 8 ' argument techniques. His eye contact, body language, tone, the persuasive techniques he used like induction, pathos, ethos and logos should be studied and analyzed in a very detailed, precise way. These factors were strong enough to change 11 angry men 's mind and to vote not guilty, even juror 3 who is the most stubborn. 12 Angry Men 's message toward individuals and the society as a whole is to think once and twice before judging, how to have a successful, convincing argument and most importantly, it encourage everyone to stand up for your opinion. One of the reasons why everyone should speak up is sometimes other people are thinking the same way, but they are not brave enough to express their opinion.

Juror number eight believed that he is young and everyone makes mistakes. Juror number six had started to change his mind because he started to play out the whole thing, he played out everything the woman had testified. From this, it changed everything. It changed many people's opinion specifically the jurors

A group of juror comprising of 12 men from diverse backgrounds began their early deliberations with 11 of ‘guilty’ and 1 of ‘not guilty’ verdicts. Juror 8 portrayed himself as a charismatic and high self-confident architect. Initially, Juror 1 who played the foreman positioned himself as self-appointed leader of the team in which has led his authority to be challenged as his leadership style lacked in drive and weak. In the contrary, Juror 8 is seen as the emergent leader considering his openness to probing conversations while remaining calm. Implying this openness to the present, it has become crucial that a good decision relies on knowledge, experience, thorough analysis and most importantly critical thinking.

Reginald Rose, the author of Twelve Angry Men, uses characters and their actions to show how the Judicial branch of the government isn’t always fair. The Judicial branch itself may be set up to be fair, but the people in charge of a case may not always put effort into it. The fifth amendment states that a person is innocent until proven guilty, they also do not have to say anything in court, this is set up so the law would have to find him/her guilty. With all this taken in, the jurors decide if the defendant is guilty or not, however if some of the jurors were rushing or biased the “fair” system wouldn’t matter. In the script; eleven of the twelve jurors voted guilty without giving much thought. Some were rushing the case, some were influenced

If it wasn 't for Juror #8, I don 't know what terrible consequences would have been. Owing to his insistence, the case was discussed and everyone began to pay attention to the details of the case, testimony, evidence, and witness actions. In the end, twelve people overcame prejudice, ceased the conflict, and made the right decision. The play tells us that justice can be affected by prejudice very easily.

I would defiantly recommend this movie to friends and family’s because it really engages the audience and opens your mind about law and bias. (2.) I believe that the movie is trying to tell us that the person who killed the victim isn 't actually relevant, which is the way it should be in all murder trials, the only relevant idea is whether the story that the prosecution presents to the jury convinces them beyond reasonable doubt that the boy is guilty. Clearly it does at the start of the film

Whichever way you decide, the verdict must be unanimous. I urge you to deliberate honestly and thoughtfully. You are faced with a grave responsibility. Thank you, gentlemen” (Judges Voice). The jury enters the jury room and twelve men shuffle in.

Again, I am feeling sympathy for a man who could have actually killed another person. I must stop myself from thinking any further because all of the facts are in front of me. This man committed a crime, regardless of his reasons. “I am calling for a vote”, the foreman says, “Everyone voting guilty raise your

but he wasn’t too excited to go to jury duty. When he showed up to the court, he did have to answer questions from an attorney. The first question they asked him was “Can you listen to a testimony and will you be an impartial juror?”. He said yes. Then they asked him the final question and it was “Are you prejudice?”.