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. 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, was undeniably innocent.
People act upon what they think. Within “12 Angry Men”, all of the jurors have an opinion but some voice their more than others. One juror in particular, Juror Ten, voices his opinion about the boy in question. Repeatedly throughout the play, Juror Ten makes many thoughtless and hurtful comments about a certain kind of people. It is clear that Juror Ten’s uncompromising belief that the accused is guilty is because of his dislike for the boy’s race.
Juror Nine’s defense indicates that he is a very honest and open person who is still reposeful after being provoked by Juror Ten. He does not like the way Juror Ten is treating the kid and the other jurors that have a different opinion than
Juror 9 was one of the first jurors to show respect for Juror 8. Before the second vote, Juror 9 says “It takes a great deal of courage to stand alone even when you believe in something very strongly” (Rose and Sergel 28). Finally, by the end of the play, many jurors stopped listening to the men who were not civil. Juror 3 is an example of a person who was ignored because he was inconsiderate towards the other jurors. In fact, Juror 3 repeatedly accused many jurors of lying, which is where he lost the other’s vote.
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.
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.
In the movie 12 Angry Men, the jurors are set in a hot jury room and they are trying to determine the verdict of a young man who is accused of committing a murder. The jurors all explain why they think the accused is guilty or not guilty. As they are debating back and forth, the reader begins to realize that each juror brings their own judgement of the world and their own biases. The viewer can see that the jurors have their own distinguishable personalities, but all of their personalities intertwine with each other to create a perfect character balance for a great movie. Juror 10 is a closed minded older man.
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.
The twelve take a seat and a vote is taken. The greater part of the members of the jury vote "Guilty," with the exception of the Eighth Juror, who votes "Not Guilty," which, because of the prerequisite of a consistent jury, constrains them to talk about the case. The members of the jury respond brutally against this contradicting vote. At last,
The play 12 Angry Men is about a jury of twelve men that are given the task of deciding the fate, guilty or not guilty, of a young boy accused of murdering his father. The theme of standing up against the majority is very prevalent in this story because of the decisions some of the jurors make throughout the play. Juror 8 makes the decision to vote not guilty, he is the one and only juror in this play that decides to vote not guilty for the boy in the beginning. The other eleven jurors decide to vote guilty because of the evidence that they have been presented with. The act of Juror 8 standing against the majority of the other jurors about the case, voting not guilty, allows the jurors to thoroughly dissect the case, understanding it fully and thoughtfully before making their decision of guilty or not guilty.