The Argument Against The Crowd In The Film 12 Angry Men
An individual can often more than usual doubt their own judgment when they are with a crowd of people. Conforming to what the majority believes because fear of being alone, embarrassed or rejected for how they feel even if their judgment is right. However, there are some people who will stand against the crowd though suffering the consequences or benefits of doing just that and the film 12 Angry Men is one of many examples of that type of incident taking place.
First, the plot occurs in the 1950s dealing with twelve jurors who have to decide the fate of a young teenage boy who is accused of killing his own father. Early in the movie all men, except one juror, number eight, agree that the boy is guilty without a doubt. In this case normative influencer took place which is going along with the crowd in order to be liked or accepted. Juror eight was the only person from the beginning of the deliberation to the end of it that thought the boy was innocent and he had to basically break down all the men to understand why it was true. Also some of the men did not care if the boy was a person who deserved a fair trial because in their eyes he was not like them and they knew people like his kind to be
…show more content…
Though the film took place almost sixty years ago, it really showed how majority can rule even today. That goes back to incidents like being peer pressured and though more often than not peer pressure is considered bad but many forget that it could also be a good thing. In addition to that many do not take the time to really take the time to know a person and will often prejudge a person based on race, gender, sexuality just to name a few. 12 Angry Men showed how persuasion can be a powerful thing and if individuals take the time to understand the information they can make the best decision with or without a
12 Angry Men Assessment: 12 Angry Men
755 Words | 4 PagesThough juror 3 has been adamant on the guilt of the young boy it is safe to say that this case meant more to him because the relationship with his son is similar to the relationship between the boy and the father. Since his personal vendetta causes him to forcefully accuse the boy of murder it leaves the jury 11-1 in favor of not guilty. Since carefully reviewing the movie it becomes very prevalent that there has not been enough substantial evidence to convict the boy of murder. Furthermore, with the usage of group think all of the men, accept juror 3 are able to put their pride aside and vote what they truly believe the verdict should be, which is not guilty. Though, one of the more pragmatic points in the film happens after juror 3 becomes infuriated after realizing that all of the men are voting not guilty.
Fallacies In Sidney Lumet's 12 Angry Men
980 Words | 4 PagesFallacies 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.
Twelve Angry Men: Comparing The Book And Film
726 Words | 3 PagesWhen 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.
Character Differences In 12 Angry Men
1133 Words | 5 PagesThe Film 12 Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose, is a film written about the American jury system. In the film, as in any part in life, emotions are a tricky thing; This is especially true for the 3rd, 7th, and 8th jurors. One of the main themes in the film questions that of the emotions of the jurors. That question is: Is it possible to keep personal prejudice and emotions out of a trial? Is this even a good or bad thing?
Juror Three In Twelve Angry Men
186 Words | 1 PagesAs the play went on, Juror Eight started proving how the boy was innocent. In the end Juror Eight changed all the other juror’s minds, except for Juror Three’s. Juror Three ended up changing his vote, not because they changed his mind but because he gave into peer pressure. He still had his prejudice influenced decision, he only gave in because he didn't want it to be a hung jury. Another example, from the same play, is Juror Eight.
Ethos, Pathos, Pathos And Logos In 12 Angry Men
1964 Words | 8 PagesWhat 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.
Ethos Pathos In 12 Angry Men
997 Words | 4 PagesIn his play Twelve Angry Men, Reginald Rose brings us back in time to 1957, to a jury room of a New York Court of Law where one man, Juror #8, confronts the rest of the jury to look at a homicide case without prejudice, and ultimately convinces Juror #2, a very soft-spoken man who at first had little say in the deliberation. Throughout the play, many of the jurors give convincing arguments that make one think about whether the boy is “guilty” or “not guilty.” Ultimately, one is convinced by ethos, logos, and pathos. We can see ethos, logos, and pathos having an effect on Juror #2 as he begins as a humble man and changes into someone brave at the end. Although all three modes play a part in convincing Juror #2, pathos was the most influential
Examples Of Prejudice In 12 Angry Men
915 Words | 4 PagesHis 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.
Standing Up To The Majority In 12 Angry Men
1191 Words | 5 PagesThe 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.
Evidence In 12 Angry Men
488 Words | 2 PagesTwelve Angry Men “A person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.” In the play, Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, a nineteen years old is on trial for the murder of his father. After many pieces of evidence were presented, the three that are weak include the one of a kind knife, the old men who heard the words “I’m going to kill you!” and the woman who is in question because of her glasses. Based on these, the boy is not guilty.
Juror Eight And Juror Three In John Steinbeck's 12 Angry Men
502 Words | 3 PagesJuror Eight was the only man from the beginning of the play who stuck by his belief that the kid was innocent. He stood alone in front of the other jurors and defended himself from the other jurors, such as Juror Three and Juror Ten. Jurors Three and Ten were adamant that the kid was guilty and refused to listen to Juror Eight’s “nonsense”. Juror Eight’s evidence and speeches persuaded all the other jurors to change their vote from not guilty, except for Juror Three. The only reason Juror Three had it out for the kid was because he himself had some issues with kids respecting their parents, and specifically their fathers.
Analysis Of Stereotypes In 12 Angry Men
747 Words | 3 PagesBased on the evidence gathered from the case everyone agrees the boy is innocent except one man, juror three. He eventually breaks down and consequently tells the truth. The viewers can tell that this movie/play is full of emotions. Each of these emotions can be described as something more than what comes to the eye.
Examples Of Social Injustice In 12 Angry Men
803 Words | 4 PagesThis 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
12 Angry Men Fallacies Analysis
1019 Words | 5 PagesTitle: Fallacies in the movie ’12 Angry Men’ Name: Prerna Singh Roll No.: 13110082 Word Count: The movie ’12 Angry Men’ beautifully presents a number of critical thinking aspects. Fallacies are depicted with excellent examples. Here is a list of the fallacies observed. Every juror had his own set of prejudices which gave way to so many fallacies to come up.
Social Psychology In The Movie Twelve Angry Men
721 Words | 3 PagesThe 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.
More about The Argument Against The Crowd In The Film 12 Angry Men
12 Angry Men Assessment: 12 Angry Men
755 Words | 4 PagesFallacies In Sidney Lumet's 12 Angry Men
980 Words | 4 PagesTwelve Angry Men: Comparing The Book And Film
726 Words | 3 PagesCharacter Differences In 12 Angry Men
1133 Words | 5 PagesJuror Three In Twelve Angry Men
186 Words | 1 PagesEthos, Pathos, Pathos And Logos In 12 Angry Men
1964 Words | 8 PagesEthos Pathos In 12 Angry Men
997 Words | 4 PagesExamples Of Prejudice In 12 Angry Men
915 Words | 4 PagesStanding Up To The Majority In 12 Angry Men
1191 Words | 5 PagesEvidence In 12 Angry Men
488 Words | 2 PagesJuror Eight And Juror Three In John Steinbeck's 12 Angry Men
502 Words | 3 PagesAnalysis Of Stereotypes In 12 Angry Men
747 Words | 3 PagesExamples Of Social Injustice In 12 Angry Men
803 Words | 4 Pages12 Angry Men Fallacies Analysis
1019 Words | 5 PagesSocial Psychology In The Movie Twelve Angry Men
721 Words | 3 Pages