ipl-logo

Rhetoric In 12 Angry Men

731 Words3 Pages

In this essay, from the film 12 Angry Men, I will talk about Juror #12. Juror #12 the Advertising Executive is quite an interesting individual whose actions don't show his maturity for his age. His attention to the case at hand is non existing his view and it seems he's just there to fulfill his duties as a citizen. His choice of words for much of the film from Juror #12 was childish and unnecessary for the situation. His lack of empathy for the individual on trial was that he never thought about the evidence and only was going on how the others were thinking of the case. As well for Juror #12 would rather talk about other people's life instead of the life of the prosecutor.

One of the things that the jurors did during this film was that …show more content…

He was only hearing and never giving any input on what others were saying. His view in the case, in my point of view, is that he was unfazed about what the case was about. He would rather doodle and think of work when he was supposed to hear the other jurors. When given the opportunity to talk he would rather give no opinion or solution to the situation. His comment was more of a joke than a suggestion due to the fact that he laughed afterward. “Run it up the flagpole and see if anyone's saluted.” - Juror #12 As well at the end of the film he seemed unaware of what was happening in one of the last votes. He was asked for his verdict and he followed everyone's lead until he was questioned by Juror #3 on why he changed his mind in which he switched back to guilty.

During the film as well acted really childish rather than a mature adult. His language used during the film was more than a distraction than help by giving strange phrases than an actual opinion. One of the ones I believe took the cherry on the cake was when he said, "If nobody else has an idea, I might have a cutie here. Let's throw it out and see if the cat licks it up." This fraise was so inappropriate to the discussion and even Foreman Juror #1 even thought of the phrase as a juvenile phrase and opinion. I believe he was trying to be funny and maybe trying to mellow the situation with his

Show More
Related

  • Twelve Angry Men, By Reginald Rose

    333 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the drama, “Twelve Angry Men,” by Reginald Rose. A 19 year old boy is a suspect in the murdering of his father. A jury of twelve men is left to decide his fate, guilty or not guilty. Juror 10 is biased and a hypocrite, which helped them reach a unanimous vote of not guilty.

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men Rhetorical Analysis

    681 Words  | 3 Pages

    The jurors continually exhibit the opposite of the aforementioned emotions and beliefs. After the protest by the 8th Juror about the oddly quick guilty verdict voted on by the jurors, the 7th Juror dismissed him continually, “It’s just that we’re talking about somebody’s life here. I mean, we can’t decide in five minutes. Suppose we’re wrong? 7TH

    Read More

  • What Is 12 Angry Men Jury Duty

    1108 Words  | 5 Pages

    In a testament to both his own stubbornness and loyalty to the guilty cause, Juror #10 rebuffs every argument made by the not guilty party. Equally important, Juror #3 is willfully obtuse to the revelations made by the other jurors, marking him as the twelfth and final juror to vote not guilty. In the end, it takes the other men demanding his line of thinking for him to finally declare “not guilty” (Rose 115). Juror #3, being the main antagonist, is stuck in his pessimistic mindset and refuses to change his decision regarding the defendant’s fate. At times, it’s clear he is blowing off rationale for the sake of maintaining his guilty verdict.

    Read More

  • Twelve Angry Men: Comparing The Book And Film

    726 Words  | 3 Pages

    When asked why he voted not guilty, juror eight stated “Look, this boy has been kicked around all his life. You know---living in a slum, his mother dead since he was nine. He spent a year in and a half in an orphanage while his father served a jail term for forgery. That’s not a very good head start. He’s had a pretty terrible sixteen years.

    Read More

  • Character Differences In 12 Angry Men

    1133 Words  | 5 Pages

    He is often seen asking other jurors to elaborate on their opinion, not just tell them they are wrong. The cool blue, soft circle shows his willingness to listen, and not have a

    Read More

  • Ethos, Pathos, Pathos And Logos In 12 Angry Men

    1964 Words  | 8 Pages

    What is worth our attention in this movie is how in the beginning they are trying to convince each other to vote guilty. 11 juror voted guilty and only one voted not guilty. Their judgments were based upon either their past personal experience which created their thoughts and behavior or upon facts. Juror 8 represents the conscience. He stood up for his inner feelings that the accused young boy is innocent.

    Read More

  • Group Roles: Following Group Process Observing

    777 Words  | 4 Pages

    He seems to me to be the leader of all the guilty votes. Him and Juror number ten. Both are very upset. I think the Leadership styles that were used here include Leader-as-Technician Juror number eight is very analytical and is an Architect.

    Read More

  • Examples Of Prejudice In 12 Angry Men

    741 Words  | 3 Pages

    For example, when Juror 8 presents a new perspective on the case and casts doubt on the prosecution's evidence, the other jurors are initially resistant to accepting his point of view. This is because their prejudices have caused them to be so set in their ways that they are unwilling to consider alternative explanations. In conclusion, "Twelve Angry Men" exposes various forms of prejudice, including racism, class prejudice, and age prejudice, that affect the jurors' decision-making process. The prejudices of the jurors cause them to be more resistant to changing their minds and to view the evidence in a biased manner.

    Read More

  • Juror 3 In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men

    434 Words  | 2 Pages

    He realizes this when he “contorts [his face] and he begins to pound on [the] table with his fist,” and “seems [to be] about to cry” (Rose 63). This is when Juror 3 realizes that his negative experience with his son has dictated his distaste toward the boy and that he had no real reason to oppose him as much as he did. Though being the most stubborn of the jurors, being able to re-examine the beliefs and opinions he is so fixated on empowers Juror 3 to be able to demonstrate personal accountability, showing how important personal accountability is to confronting one’s past and biases. Throughout the play, because of his loud and opinionated personality, Juror 3 assumes leadership of those voting guilty. This is in stark contrast to Juror 8, a thoughtful person who is willing to give the benefit of the doubt who is the first person to vote not guilty to give the boy a chance.

    Read More

  • Examples Of Prejudice In 12 Angry Men

    915 Words  | 4 Pages

    His prejudice is clear when he says that “I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say” when speaking about the boy (16). Juror Ten’s prejudice causes him to disregard all of the facts that are presented to him by Juror Eight that can prove that the accused is not guilty. Juror 10 allows his prejudice to blind him of the truth. That is until he is called out by his fellow jurors.

    Read More

  • Fallacies In 12 Angry Men

    1404 Words  | 6 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men Analysis

    814 Words  | 4 Pages

    Juror Ten announces his intentions very early in the play. He speaks loudly and forcefully from the beginning, clearly showing his racism and prejudice towards the boy. Juror 10 quickly votes guilty and asserts that the defendant cannot be believed because “they’re born liars”. Additionally, he claims that the “kids who crawl outa those places are real trash.”

    Read More

  • Examples Of Social Injustice In 12 Angry Men

    803 Words  | 4 Pages

    This process continues throughout the course of the movie, and each juror’s biases is slowly revealed. Earlier through the movie, it is already justifiable to label juror 10 as a bigoted racist as he reveals strong racist tendencies against the defendant, stating his only reason for voting guilty is the boy’s ethnicity and background. . Another interesting aspect of this 1957 film is the “reverse prejudice” portrayed by juror

    Read More

  • The Justice System In Twelve Angry Men

    591 Words  | 3 Pages

    Therefore, he tried to make the trial go faster by voting with the side with the most votes. My family in the real world also had to go through inconvenience of the jury duty. My cousin had her first prom and my Aunt got called for jury duty. She couldn’t help her daughter do her hair, makeup, and get pictures. My moms friend also had a conflict with the jury duty.

    Read More

  • Social Psychology In The Movie Twelve Angry Men

    721 Words  | 3 Pages

    The movie “Twelve Angry Men” illustrates lots of social psychology theories. This stretched and attractive film, characterize a group of jurors who have to decide the innocence or guiltiness of an accused murder. They are simply deliberating the destiny of a Puerto Rican teenaged boy accused of murdering his father. Initially, as the film begins, except the juror Davis (Henry Fonda), all other jurors vote guilty. Progressively, the jurors begin trying to compromise on a point that everybody agree because the decision of the jury has to be unanimous.

    Read More

More about Rhetoric In 12 Angry Men

Open Document