In today’s world, with the increase in the reporting of police brutality and political tensions on the rise as well the world is on the edge of something that is similar to the events that happened in Do The Right Thing. A movie about the results of when the tensions and the heat of the climate run high resulting in a breakout that requires characters to do the right thing. After watching the film, the audience will be asking the same questions about their own actions. Spike Lee’s film Do The Right Thing uses film elements such as color, narration, and the movement of the camera to tell a story about racial tension in the 20th century. The audience should take away from the film the need to do what is fair in this world.…
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.…
In the movie twelve angry man, after the twelve jurors listened to the facts in the trail, the judge gives her instructions to them. The judge told them that the man could face the death penalty if he found guilty. The 12 man gather in a stifling hot room to have a concluding about the case. They start arguing and adding their own experience, culture, and understanding of people's motives as a way of reconsidering the facts. Although all the jurors had listened to the same stated facts and they were in the same situation, each one of them interprets the facts differently. This reflects the differences in people and the different ways that we view the same things.…
In the play, Twelve Angry Men, juror #3 is an excitable, stubborn, and prejudiced man. He seems to be of middle class background because he can afford to look down on people from slum areas. From the way he refuses to listen to any other person’s opinions, if it contradicts his own, juror #3 marks himself as an ignorant and obstinate individual. He is quick to judge and eagerly jumps at any opportunity to engage himself in an argument, such as the dispute he starts with juror #5 over a changed verdict: “We’re trying to put a guilty man in the chair where he belongs and all of a sudden somebody’s telling us fairy tales – and we’re listening.” The third juror uses ethos to no avail and comes across as an unpleasant, partial, and uneducated man.…
The film 12 Angry Men is about a murder trial conducted in a courtroom. The judge gave the jury its final instruction telling them that a guilty verdict will result in a death sentence for the defendant, an 18-year-old boy who was accused of murdering his father using a knife! One juror had a personal connection with the case. He has not seen his son for more than two years. He claims that the young boy is guilty and that all young kids are criminals. The juror has bias towards the trial because he see his son in the young boy. Out of the twelve jurors, eleven jurors voted for conviction. Another juror states that he has doubts about the case and hopes to give the boy a favorable decision. The young boy had a hard life living in the slum. A third juror claims that each of the…
Reginald Rose’s play, Twelve Angry Men, is about a jury’s decision making process in a murder trial. The facts in this play become blinded by the prejudices that some Juror’s possess. A prejudice jury became formed due to a biased testimony and the facts became clouded as generalisations were formed by the Juror’s. Some Juror’s bigotry can be based on their past experiences and discrimination didn’t only happen to the defendant, but it was also experienced by Juror’s themselves…
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.…
Set in the sweltering summer of 1954, Reginald Rose's socially insightful play "Twelve Angry Men", illustrates the dangers of a justice system that relies on twelve individuals to reach a "life or death" decision with collective states of minds hindered by "personal prejudice". At the conception of the play, rose explores the idea that doubt is a harder state of mind than certainty by portraying doubt, in the guilt of the boy, as a minority view within the courtroom. However, as the play progresses a seed of doubt is planted and the importance of self prejudice hindering the verdict is removed, making it harder for the jurors to hold their certainty in their guilty verdict.…
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.…
Most people will choose to do the right thing even when they are faced with controversy. Sometimes it can be very hard to do the right thing especially if others disagree with you. We tend to go with the majority so we don’t feel out of place or feel like we a being judged. “Twelve Angry Men,” a play written by Reginald Rose, is an excellent example of how some people choose to do the right thing even when controversy comes their way.…
It’s the hottest day of the year in New York City, and 12 clammy men, who were put on a jury, are locked into a room, where the fan doesn’t work and the windows stick, to discuss the case of an 18 year old accused of murder. In the opening scene, the judge states that is it a first degree murder and if found guilty the teenager will receive the death penalty. The 18 year old is accused of killing his father with a “one of a kind” switch blade. The 12 jurors must decide if there is enough evidence to convict the teen of murder. When the initial vote is taken it is 11-1. The one vote for not guilty is juror eight, whose real name is Davis. He is a well-spoken man, wore a suit and tie and had his dark hair slicked back for the trial. Davis admits that he doesn’t know if the teen is innocent but says he could be. In the movie 12 Angry Men, Juror eight shows true justice…
The play Twelve Angry Men tells a story of a tainted jury nearly sending a nineteen year old from the slums of Chicago to death row with reasons based solely on bias. Two of the narrow-minded jurors include Juror Three; a sadist, and Juror Ten; a bigot. The entirety of the play is Juror Eight attempting to give a man a fair trial while others would rather send him to death, than discussing the fact he might be innocent. Rose, through Juror Eight, forces the jurors to ask themselves why they are so convinced he is guilty and why they have such biased toward him, and one juror responds “I just think he’s guilty. I thought it was…
1950s America saw the nation fall into a period of national tension and idealogical turmoil following the McCarthy Trials and the Cold War, which produced a flourish of works such as Regnald Rose’s ‘Twelve Angry Men.’ Using a jury of twelve anonymous men, the play scrutinizes both the strengths and flaws of the American judicial system. The case of a fictional “delinquent” who faces capitol punishment under charges of patricide acts as a vehicle to examine the moral dilemma of prejudice and judgement, and its importance, underpinning American jury rooms in a time of profound social division. Through his structuring and characterizations, Rose does not merely attack the system, but contends is functionality stems from the very individuals within it, and their ability to see with objectivity and compassion.…
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.…
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…