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.
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.
The movie is about twelve jurors who are considering the destiny of a teenaged boy suspect of killing his father. There are the two observers who saw and heard the murder. It seems to be an open and closed case, and if the boy is imprisoned, he will be put to death. The jurors here the suggestion presented by the prosecutor and the boy 's submissive lawyer. As they enter the jury room, all but one is persuaded of his responsibility in a straw vote.
The font and position of the shape used to tell which character is represented by which shape gives away what type of character each juror is in the movie. 12 Angry Men clearly proves that the above shapes represent the characters in different ways. Based on 12 Angry Men, the above shape labeled “A” best represents and builds the character of Juror #3. The shape that is used for the character of Juror #3 is a lightning bolt. This represents his bold viewpoint and his tendency to react quickly and lash out in anger.
In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose twelve jurors in a court have to try to decide If a boy is guilty or innocent in the charge of murdering his father. With this we get to see many personalities within all the jurors making them all extermenley different voices being heard the the courtroom. For this assignment we created shapes showing off the personalonalities for three jurors, the twelfth, eighth and third jurors as they all have they different and distinguishable personalities. While juror eight is logical and tries to examine all the evidence thoroughly, juror three is brash and goes against his personal pregidef.nces, strongly sharing all of them to the other jurors. Juror twelve was the one I had watched in the movie, he didn 't
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. the sheer act in question of a boy killing his father is unthought-of no matter what the situation. One of the central characters in the movie is that of the Jury Foreman, played by Martin Balsam. His role is vital because he is responsible for guiding the whole discussion among the rest of the jurors and organizing an efficient system to ensure everyone’s point of view is taken into account. He comes across as authoritative on multiple occasions when he tries to silence any brewing arguments.
12 Angry men is about 12 jury members and a foreman who are trying to determine if a boy is innocent or guilty. The case is about a boy who allegedly killed his father. All of the Jurors thought the boy with guilty but one, which was number 8. He wanted to make sure that everyone knew all the evidence so, they would be sure before they send a boy to jail. Number 3 was very strongly convinced throughout the whole trial that the boy was guilty.
Title: 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.
The knife that was used to kill the father was said to be “one-of-a-kind”. Mr. Davis who believes the boy isn’t guilty, pulls out a similar knife after the other jurors try to convince him that the boy was guilty because the knife was unique and there wasn’t another knife like that anywhere. The tenth juror is a bigot man who attacks right away and doesn’t change his mind about what he thinks. In the beginning he describes the boy as “one of them”. In "12 Angry Men" as an Integrative Review of Social Psychology Carrie Fried states that, “The movie allows students to examine how situational forces can affect the behavior of individuals even though the individuals have strong and diverse personalities.
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.
Thank you, gentlemen” (Judges Voice). The jury enters the jury room and twelve men shuffle in. This play sets up a murder mystery that keeps the audience on their feet and looking for answers. The jury consisted of twelve stubborn men. 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.
As completely opposite as these two perspectives seem, each represents opposing sides of social injustice and ultimately deliver similar messages. In 12 Angry Men, the movie begins in a courtroom where the case is being discussed by the judge, who seems fairly uninterested. The jurors are then instructed to enter the jury room to begin their deliberations. They take a vote and all but juror 8 vote guilty. The jurors react violently to the dissenting vote but ultimately decide to go around the table in hope of convincing the 8th juror.
Why should the color of someone’s skin effect a crime that was committed? In the vignette of “Twelve Angry Men” the author, Reginald Rose addresses racism. According to act three on page 27 the Jurors are coming to a vote on whether or not the boy was guilty or not. The boy claimed that he wasn’t guilty of committing a premeditated murder but Juror number ten said otherwise. The evidence that is shown to prove this point is when all the jurors are all at the table and they all go to the window and turn their backs towards juror number ten, specifically juror numbers three and four.
Complete description of all “Fallacies” in the movie “12 ANGRY MEN”: The film “Twelve Angry Men” involves a lot of logical fallacies, some of which are quite prominent and provocative. Like for eg. The fallacies which involve racism and bigotry of Juror #10 and the anger revealed which manifests into personal anguish by Juror#3. 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.
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.
While both end up voting the same way, their approaches throughout the majority of the film are vastly different. To start, the third juror is much more factual, stating in the film, “Okay let’s get the facts… and he ran to the door of his apartment and the boy!”(12 Angry Men) This immediately shows the viewer that Juror 3 will base the majority of his argument in fact. In contrast, Juror 8 feels that communicating with the other jurors and piecing together their views is a better way to solve the case. This is shown when Juror 8 says, “There were eleven votes guilty. It’s not so easy for me to send a boy off to die without talking about it first.”(12 Angry Men) In the first difference, Juror 7 falls with Juror 3, believing much more of the facts than discussion.
Story Line 12 men meet at a Jury Room after a trial to decide if a 16 year old man is guilty of killing his father if the man is found guilty the sentence is Death Penalty, this was supposed to be an easy decision, but turn around when one of the members of the Jury was not agree and bought in question the witnesses and what they saw or heard versus what they should. The majority of the members were against Jury number 8, but when he was presenting more remarkable and questionable proves to the case one by one started changing their mind. At the end all the members where agree that was not enough proves to convict this young man to death. Overview of the Film Themes: Justice 12 men are responsible to decide if a young man is guilty of killing
Fallacy is defects due to which a statement turns wrong. There are many fallacies in the movie 12 angry men – In the starting of the movie when all the member sat together the third men said that he heard all things and he think that the man is a killer but there was an fallacy in that because without seeing the facts evidences he said that he was an killer, he just heard everything in at the court which could be an man made story and interpreted that the man was a killer, and the statements he heard was of the old man who heard the voices and saw the boy running and heard the story of old women who saw the murder from the window which was not a really big proof .There is one more statement that was in my knowledge was wrong to use that
In what seemed like solid, compelling evidence at first, turned out to be faulty after deep analysis and logical thought. By exposing the audience to the logical discoveries made by the jury, 12 Angry Men truly displayed a sense of realism throughout the film. Perhaps the most realistic aspect of the film is best described by critic Mark Nunez, where: Many critics advance the rational argument that the power of a juror to decide one way or another for no apparent reason cannot possibly work to achieve justice. However, the film also exposes us to those jurors in the room who openly express their thoughts, ideas, and feelings about the case. This juxtaposition of characters in the jury room is ultimately consistent with the fact that the room should reflect the diverse community in which we live.
However you decide your verdict must be unanimous. (Twelve Angry Men 02:03) Twelve men sit in deliberation room in New York City to decide a verdict of an eighteen-year-old boys trial. Eleven men let their biases get in the way of justice; one man is not sure but wants to discuss the case. In the 1957 MGM film Twelve Angry Men, the jurors reveal their prejudice through their attitudes, actions, and beliefs. Although eleven of the jurors were angry, the attitude of Juror Eight