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.
he story of the movie ’12 Angry Men’ is grounded on the trail of eighteen years old boy who was accused of killing his abusive father stabbing to death. Twelve jury have been chosen to decide the fate of the boy. If the jury finds him guilty then he will be sentenced to death, it was a grave responsibility for them since it was a matter of life and death. The face of the convict was shown for the first and last time while the jury was retiring from the room, it was a gloomy face whose life is at the hands of the decision of the jury. As the jury entered into the jury room, the air inside the room was hot, which can also be symbolic to the intensity of the case.
In 1957 there was a film entitled “12 Angry Men,’’ and it was a film about a son who supposedly, killed his father and the 12 men who are the jurors for the court case. Throughout the film, there is a lot of arguing and bickering but with the arguing, watchers learn more and more about all the characters and their views and beliefs and how they influence their votes. In the 1957 film, viewers learn the most about how jurors votes are shifted mostly by their, past experiences, unfamiliar knowledge, and their open minds. One of the most influential traits to change the jurors views is their past experiences with “slum boys.’’(Film) The jurors who had been influenced by the trait were jurors all but juror eight. As the movie went on, all the jurors had explained why they had a bad view on children from the slums.
The Twelve Anger Men in my opinion is an extraordinary movie that depicts a diverse group of twelve men who are charged with jury duty. The twelve men differed in age, race, socio-economic status, and life experiences. The movie begins at the close of a murder trial conducted in a New York City courtroom, as a judge specifically gives the jury men instructions as they prepare to deliberate on the murder trial of a Puerto Rican youth accused of killing his father. Before the men deliberated the judge overly reminded them that a guilty verdict that means an automatic death sentence for the defendant, must be obtained without any reasonable doubt. Subsequently, the movie continues as the group of anger jury-men come face to face with their differences
In these two critically-acclaimed movies, government ignorance is explored in distinct ways. In 12 Angry Men, a jury of 12 men is sent to determine the fate of an 18-year-old slum-raised Latino boy accused of stabbing his father to death. A guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence. In Beasts of the Southern Wild we are taken on an adventure alongside Hushpuppy, an African-American six-year old, who lives on a poverty-stricken island called the Bathtub and whose father’s tough love prepares her for a harsh world. As completely opposite as these two perspectives seem, each represents opposing sides of social injustice and ultimately deliver similar messages.
Fallacies in 12 Angry Men 12 Angry Men- a 1957 film, rather a courtroom drama, is full of emotions represented in arguments and intellectual brainstorming. Directed by Sidney Lumet, the film is an example of intellectual art. The film is based the story of a 18-year old slum boy who was on trial for killing his father by stabbing him. The judges, after seeing all the evidences and witnesses, actually leave the decision to the jury, to decide whether the boy was guilty or not. Also, if the jury decides that the boy is guilty, he would have to face the electric chair.
“I’ll kill him!” (Rose 330). This is our first reactive thought to the man who signs the paper, telling us it is our dreaded time to serve jury duty. This stigma carries over to our perspective in the jury room. Twelve Angry Men is a play written by Reginald Rose in 1957. The play clearly shows a great representation of the problems in the modern day court system.
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. This very excitable juror is the last to change his vote, and while his stubbornness could be seen as being based more on emotions than facts, he starts off with his little notebook with facts of the case and tries to insist that he has no personal feelings on the matter.
Juror 7 and and 3 are placed on the left side, but 7 is placed higher than 3. Juror 7 was placed higher in Figure 1 because he thought that he was more important than all the other jurors. “This better be fast. I’ve got tickets to The Seven Year Itch tonight. I must be the only guy in the whole world
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