The way each particular character speaks gives us an inside view of their life and…
Twelve Angry Men is a classic movie depicting how one determined leader can alter an entire crowd. Through dedication, curiosity, and the pursuit for the truth he is able to persuade a group of twelve to second guess even themselves. Within this heterogynous group are a dozen different personalities - some of which were leaders and most of which were not.…
In today’s fast-paced world we often find ourselves making hasty, split-second decisions on the seemingly unimportant matters with which we are faced. According to The Critical Thinking Handbook “...critical thinking evaluates reasons and brings thought in line with...” our best sense of what is true enabling us come to insightful conclusions on which we base our actions. In Twelve Angry Men a group of twelve ordinary citizens are faced with an important choice whose consequence is the fate of a sixteen-year-old boy accused of killing his father. Initially deemed an open-shut-case, throughout the play we witness the jurors, under the direction of Juror 8, slowly break down the evidence and testimony on which they later base their final verdict. Each juror with his unique approach to reasoning raises important arguments, suggesting both the innocence and guilt of the accused and further adding to the complexity of the case. In Twelve Angry Men, three pieces of evidence that proved crucial in shifting the jury in favor of acquittal were the murder weapon, the old man’s testimony, and that of the woman who claimed to have seen the murder from across the street.…
Imagine having to decide a young boy’s fate who is accused of murder in the first degree. This is the case in “Twelve Angry Men”, the prize-winning drama written by Reginald Rose. Some jurors address relevant topics, while others permit their personal “judgments” from thoroughly looking at the case. After hours of deliberation, the jurors reached the decision that the boy is not guilty, due to the fact of reasonable doubt. While few jurors are motivated by their respect and determination for the justice system, Juror 10 is motivated by his personal prejudice.…
The movie Twelve Angry Men provided an example of a work group and a service group, because they had the goal of finding the man innocent or guilty on behalf of the organization of the court system and assisted a worthy cause that helped people outside the group. The judge said, “One man is dead. The life of another is at stake. If there is a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused . . . then you must declare him not guilty. If, however, there is no reasonable doubt, then he must be found guilty. Whichever way you decide, the verdict must be unanimous. I urge you to deliberate honestly and thoughtfully.” This is the goal that the men are striving to achieve and what makes them a working group and the man they are helping makes them an example of a service group.…
Twelve Angry Men is a play about a young boy on trial for murdering his father. If the boy is found guilty, he will be sentenced to death. The jury men are very aware of this fact, most are perfectly fine with sending this boy to die as one man searches for the empathy of his jury peers. One by one the jury begins to sway toward the not guilty plea, as every fact thrown into conversation gets disproved. Now, one lone juror faces not the pressure of his peers but the pressure of his emotional attachment to the case to see that the boy be punished. This finally leads to Juror #3’s inevitable surrender of not guilty.…
Authors use the way characters act or think to tell the reader how the characters are feeling.…
Twelve Angry Men is a very interesting play about an unfortunate young man, who was convicted of killing his dad. The worst part was, the young man was only nineteen, and his life was just starting. The jurors listened to all the evidence, then came the hard part, making the decision: guilty, or innocent. Eleven jurors said guilty and only one said innocent. There was a lot of peer pressure involved. I decided to write about different peer pressures three of the jurors used. The three jurors I picked are juror #10, juror #7, and juror #8.<br><br>The first juror I want to write about is #10. Juror #10 was using a lot of sarcasm, whenever he was trying to prove his point, or prove someone else wrong. I think that this method of peer pressure is one of the most powerful ones. I believes so, because when you are embarrassed in front of 11 other people (in this case jurors) you do not know, really lowers your self-esteem. It may lower it to the point where you will say guilty, eve though deep down inside, you will feel that the person is innocent. This is a quote I picked to illustrate sarcasm skillfully used by #10: "You're a pretty smart fellow, aren't you?" I think this one sentence could really put anyone down, and make anyone feel embarrassed, and maybe stupid. <br><br>Another juror I decided to write about is #7. He was muscle flexing most of the time. Muscle flexing means, he was raising his voice, even screaming at everyone, as if he was the boss. Whenever #8 was trying to present reasonable arguments to the rest of the jurors, #7 would start screaming, even jumping out of his chair, calling seven crazy. Although a lot of evidence was really convincing, he tried to prove it unconvincing and use sarcasm to convince other jurors otherwise. One example of #7 using sarcasm would be this quote: "Why don't we have them run the trial over..." I think this quote clearly shows that juror #7 is trying to convince other jurors, that court's evidence proves the young man is…
For generations, plays have been passed down how they entertain, and also how they guide the audience. It is through dramatic techniques in which move audiences, allowing them to have an insight and appreciation of the playwright’s issues. ‘The Twelve Angry Men’ is a prime example, as it uses its techniques to raise the play’s key ideas on prejudice in the court of jury, educate viewers on the triumph of justice, and emphasising the theme of conviction of the story.…
Throughout all these texts we see internal emotions and conflicts develop or become less evident, this happens as we learn more about the characters…
I believe in the beginning the 2 main jurors who were basing their decisions on prejudice were mainly Jurors #3 and #10. Juror #3 more based on prejudices of young men, particularly because he had such a horrendous relationship with his own son, I feel like this case really hit him close to home and really affected him in a personal way. I believe he let his feelings got in the way of his logical thinking and was practically projecting the anger he had towards his son towards the young men on trial, who had been accused of a horrible crime against his father. Juror #10 was more prejudice of the young suspects race, making statements like; “You know how they are,” and “They’re all the same, all born liars”.…
This was a meeting of 12 jurors to deliberate the fate of an eighteen year old boy. The meeting was more of a verbal structure. The jury foreman was the team leader of the meeting. I feel as though the beginning of the meeting started strong with his decision of voting for guilty or innocence that lead to a hung jury. There was no planning really or discussing the trial at the beginning, and the jurors did not work together in a timely manner. The presentation of evidence was to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the teen was either guilty or innocent. A closer look at the evidence presented brought good points as to why the boy was innocent. The example in which the knife was used, the question being brought up about if the teen really lost the knife used to kill his father before going to the movies was even possible, or did he really even go to movies were all valid points that needed to be revisited. Also the demonstration of the elderly man being able to make it to the door in fifteen seconds to see if the person going down the stairs the man’s son or someone else clearly helped to head the meeting in a different direction. Along with the demonstration it was discovered that the elderly man would not have been able to hear clearly with the noise from noise from the L train. Most important of all was the question of the lady across the railroad tracks in another apartment really sees the murder take place while the L train was passing in ten seconds without her eyeglasses. All these points helped to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the boy was innocent. Finally all the jurors agreed on a not guilty plea and presented it to the judge.…
The movie “12 Angry Men” displays many well orchestrated examples of the terms Pathos, Ethos, and Logos. Through this film many topics arise in order to reach a verdict on a young mans life. The boy was on trial for murder, and most of the evidence at first glance made him look guilty. Twelve jurors must reach a unanimous decision in order to convict this young man, but the task seems to be more difficult to accomplish as one of the men fights in the boys favor.…
In 1954, an understated motion picture was released in theaters. Despite its invigorating content, the movie made very little money and was virtually unknown to the vast public for decades. About 25 years ago, this movie was rediscovered, and has since become an American classic.…
12 Angry Men, by the American playwright Reginald Rose, was originally written for television, and it was broadcast live on CBS 's in 1954 (12 Angry Men, n.d.). In 1957, Rose wrote the screenplay, which he co-produced with the actor Henry Fonda (12 Angry Men, n.d.). The play was originally inspired by Rose’s own experience on a jury for a murder case in New York, New York. Rose did not want to serve as a juror for the case, however he said “the moment I walked into the courtroom … and found myself facing a strange man whose fate was suddenly more or less in my hands, my entire attitude changed" (12 Angry Men, n.d.). Rose wrote the drama based on his own experience and what was produced was an exciting and interesting play that investigates human nature and the relationships of group dynamics.…