Although more than one method is used one or two of them will be more dominant.…
1. Each Act takes happens in the same place. The entire play takes place in the jury room of a New York City court of law in 1957 during a very hot summer afternoon. It is a large, dull, minimalistic room with three windows in the brick wall which the skyline of New York City can be seen. There is also a wash room and lavatory off the jury room. There is a large, scarred table in the centre with twelve chairs around it. There are pencils pads and an ashtray on the table. There is also a water cooler in the room with plastic cups. The dullness of the room may signify and provide a mood for the act and is evident in the interactions between the jurors. The Twelve jurors are all seemingly awkward and uneasy towards each other once they enter the room.…
* Questioned and arrested boy at 3AM when he returned home from the movies, in his apartment next to his father’s dead body…
Throughout the years of America, we had many juries during criminal trials to decide if the defendant guilty or not guilty. In the 1957 movie, 12 Angry Men shows the best representation of American jury system and how people change their minds. 12 Angry Men shows that personal feeling get in the way in their votes. The movie is about how 12 jurors decide the fate of young boy that persumed he killed his father, while during the initial vote only Juror 8 raised his hand not guilty. Then throughout the movie and script each of the 11 jurors for various reason change their votes to not guilty. The 12 jurors change their votes from guilty to not guilty through character flaws, positive personality traits, expertise on the evidence, and pattern of behavior.…
The movie "12 Angry Men" focuses on a jury's decision on a capital murder case. A 12-man jury is sent to begin decisions on the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year-old Latino accused of stabbing his father to death, where a guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence. The case appears to be open-and-shut: The defendant has a weak alibi; a knife he claimed to have lost is found at the murder scene; and several witnesses either heard screaming, saw the killing or the boy fleeing the scene. Eleven of the jurors immediately vote guilty; only Juror No. 8 (Mr. Davis) casts a not guilty vote. At first Mr. Davis' bases his vote more so for the sake of discussion after all, the jurors must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. As the movie unfolds, the story quickly becomes a study of the jurors' complex personalities and how they deal with argumentation within groups and critical thinking. This allows Mr. Davis to try and convince the other jury members that the defendant might not be guilty by using cooperative argumentation, claim, evidence, warrant, facts, etc.…
For fans of courtroom dramas and crime television, these court case movies all revolve around the courtroom. Unlike the orderly process of a real courtroom, the stories are filled with drama, intrigue and corruption. Getting to the truth is seldom as straightforward as it appears within these hit movies.…
Hughes, Anthony, Gary Kmcd, and Kathy Li. IMDb. IMDb.com, 1990-2012. Web. 12 Apr. 2012. .…
Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose is a play about a jury consisting of twelve men trying to decide whether a boy accused of murder is guilty or innocent. Each juror has their own past experiences, each with their own influence. However, some jurors bring up their pasts during the case. That is because a man’s experiences have a profound effect on the way he thinks and acts. Beneficial or not, Jurors Three and Eleven’s pasts affect not only the way they act, but the way the rest of the jurors act throughout the deliberation process as well.…
The behaviour of individuals in any large dynamic group naturally exhibits various signs of either conscious or subconscious conformity. The psychological principle of conformity which related to social influence basically refers to an exertion on the will of the affected individual to act in a manner that is not in accordance with one¡¦s actual beliefs. Many different studies of conformity as a result of social influence have been conducted which reveal that almost all conformist responses to social influence can be narrowed down to three distinctive types: compliance, identification and internalization. This paper will use 12 Angry Men as a case study on the dynamics of social influence, especially the influence of individual nonconformist,…
Prejudice is seen as one crucial issue in constituting a verdict for the jury, as two of the jurors are biased against the suspect of the murder. Language and characterisation of the jurors is crucial techniques in which Reginald uses to convey the bitterness of one of the jurors, Juror #10. In the play, he states “Look, you know how these people lie! It's born in them!” halfway through the play, displaying his racial prejudice towards the suspect of murder; generalising slum people as those who “…you cannot trust”. The use of characterisation and speech, allows the audience to recognise the prejudice in the jury some that is justifiable. Tension is also another dramatic technique used to convey the Juror #3 bias against the boy because of his own relationship with his son who “…didn’t know how to fight”. This technique shows the conflicts between him and Juror #8; every time Juror #8 brings up an argument, Juror #3 always rebuts with biased statements, bringing the tension up. However, this tension is always brought down by some a change in stage direction. Shown in ACT II, Juror #2 “moves to the window” after arguing with Juror #8; allowing the play’s audience to perceive Juror #8 as someone who is not biased against the murder suspect, displaying him as someone who was doing the right thing.…
In contrast, the play also highlights potential flaws in the jury system, where prejudice obstructs the pursuit of justice. This is supported by the 3rd Juror's reluctance to change his initial 'guilty' verdict and the manner in which he characterises, 'kids...nowadays. Angry! Hostile!'. This…
survive. Thus proving his point that folks pushed into poverty are then forced into trying…
In analyzing 12 Angry Men the first theory that came to mind is the Universal Theory of Leadership. The theory is defined as the belief that certain personal characteristics and skills contribute to leadership effectiveness in many situations. This shows true with Juror #8. Juror #8 was the architect who emerged as a real effective leader. The architect showed self-confidence and assertiveness. He convinced the jury that once all thought the young man was guilty to believing he was innocent due to the lack of proof and questionable assumptions. He showed himself as respectable, knowledgeable, and authentic. The architect rose question as to whether or not the circumstances could be possible by re-enacting the situation. He challenged the process completely by doing this. He was also a leader of integrity because he was loyal to rational principles, practiced what he preached, and did this regardless of the social pressure from fellow jurors’. With these characteristic traits the architect proves to be an charismatic and effective leader.…
Twelve angry men is a 1957 American Film that originated from a play of Reginald Rose and has been directed to a film by Sidney Lumet. The movie is not just about the outcome of the trial of a Puerto Rican youth who has been accused of murdering his father, but also shows how the beliefs and attitudes of the twelve jurors lead to his acquittal. Aside from that, this movie also shows Leadership traits that can help every individual on developing their leadership capabilities. The story started when the twelve jurors were put together in a sweltering deliberation room somewhere in America where they have been asked for their verdicts whether to put the child on chair or not. Eleven of them unanimously voted that the youth is guilty and must be…
The film “12 Angry Men” is a 1957 drama consisting of a dozen men on jury, who attempt to reach a verdict involving a teenager in a murder case. A guilty verdict was initially predicted, but the jury members start questioning and reasoning the testimonies given in court. Was the boy being accused of stabbing his father really guilty? All the information regarding the timing of the train, the timing of the murder, and the testimonies did not add up. Through much debate, a complex voting process, and many concepts learned through SCOM, the jury managed to attain a not-guilty ruling due to the inadequate testimonies and facts gathered.…