Eleven men found the boy guilt, while juror eight was the only man that wanted to review the case over again to make sure the jury was making the correct decision. All eleven jurymen were set on the boy being guilty and were trying to convince juror eight that he was guilty. Juror eight held his ground and convince the men to look over all of the evidence. Juror eight brought out the files, acted out different situations and the murder scene. The men went back and forth for hours fighting about whether or not the boy was guilt of killing his father Slowly one by one the jurors changed their mind from guilty to not guilty.
12.” (12 Angry Men). He thinks the only pieces of evidence are the witnesses because they said they saw the killing even though there was flaws within their testimony. After further investigation, he agrees the boy is not guilty. Then, juror number three persuades number twelve
Every juror had his own set of prejudices which gave way to so many fallacies to come up. The fallacies here are listed juror wise, all the fallacious traits observed in one juror at a time. 1) Juror 1: i) The juror changes his opinion after listening to the explanations of how the knife was used to hit the man. This could be a fallacy of False Cause. This can be said because just by knowing the way murder was done, it could not be concluded that the kid was
The purpose of this essay is to examine groupthink and to represent Dr. Irving Janis’ symptoms of groupthink in the film. After viewing the film 12 Angry Men, this movie shows a jury of men trying to decide the verdict in the case of a teenager accused of murdering his father. A simple task for the jury deciding on if the teenager is guilty or not guilty turns into irrational decision-making. The 1957 film is an immense example of how groupthink can
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.
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. That man is Juror 8 (Henry Fonda), the lone dissenting voice during the jury 's disturbingly jovial initial vote to convict the boy of first-degree murder, which would send him to the electric chair. Juror 8 has questions, a lot of them that he wants to discuss further, much to the chagrin of his fellow jurors. “There 's always one,” yells sarcastic Juror 10 (Ed Begley), who, like many of his fellow deliberators, desires a quick
Mobashshir Arshad Ansari DM 16230 The movie “12 Angry Men” is a court drama based movie. The entire film takes place within a small New York City jury room, on "the hottest day of the year," as 12 men debate the fate of a young defendant charged with murdering his father. Most courtroom movies feel it necessary to end with a clear-cut verdict. But "12 Angry Men" never states whether the defendant is innocent or guilty if innocent then who is guilty. It is about whether the jury has a reasonable doubt about his guilt.
There is more tension in the air than oxygen. Suddenly one man votes not guilty. Rose develops character and tension by engaging the reader in the case through intense actions and dialogs. In Twelve Angry Men, Rose develops each character through intense actions and long dialogs. For example in Act Two, Juror Three certainly states his mind about the kid on trial “This kid is guilty!
12 angry men movie analysis: 12 Angry Men is a 1957 American drama film with elements of film noir, adapted from a teleplay of the same name by Reginald Rose written and co-produced by Rose himself. Analysis: 1. The 12 jurors all have particular backgrounds, perspective and beliefs about honesty and the boy’s role in the murder. Commonly, the jurors, who are every white male of around middle age, are not illustrative of the more extensive group, and numerous are threatening towards the young man. Rose infers that the respondent originates from a minority ethnic gathering, maybe dark or Hispanic and in view of his broken financial foundation, numerous trusts that he is capable of murder.
This entails much backlash by the others. Most of which came from juror three, who without much thought, was willing to send someone to die. As time went on, more jurors began to realize that there was more evidence pointing towards this boy’s innocence, causing the numbers of those who claimed he was guilty to dwindle. Some of the evidence and reasoning wasn’t right in front of them, but rather came through the wisdom and experience of the some of the other characters. One of whom was juror 5, a normal citizen with a well put together appearance, but as the play moved one, it was soon realized that he actually had a rough upbringing similar to the boy, and had seen and heard things that had occurred that he was able to use in his argument once he claimed he thought the kid was innocent.