12 ANGRY MEN Twelve Angry Men was created in 1957 and directed by Sidney Lumet. The is basically about a dissenting juror in a murder trial who slowly manages to convince the others that the case they’re examining is not as obviously clear as it seemed in court. The defense and the prosecution have rested and the jury is filing into the jury room to decide if a young Spanish American is guilty or innocent of murdering his father. It begins as an open and shut case of murder‚ but soon becomes
Premium Court Jury Henry Fonda
Though all 12 jurors are white men‚ they are a varied crew. They attempt to sit still around the heavy table at the centre of Allen Moyer’s set‚ but in their passion keep leaping up to pace the room‚ mop their brows and peer out at an oppressively humid New York day. Relying on their analytic abilities - this is the 1950s‚ years before fancy forensics determined verdicts - they pore over the details of the case. If Rose’s dialogue makes one wish occasionally for the more clipped speed of cop-show
Premium Jury Film
2B 12 Angry Men 1. Which characters base their decisions on prejudice? Juror number 4 based his decision based on the fact that the boy on trial grew up in the slum. Juror number 4 said‚ “He was born in a slum. The slum is a breeding ground for criminals. I know it and so do you. It’s no secret that children from slum backgrounds are menaces to society.” While Juror number ten just doesn’t like the boy bases on his race. Throughout the entire movie‚ he referred to the boy as them. 2. Does Juror
Premium Jury John Cavil Samuel Anders
The 1957 film Twelve Angry Men serves as an excellent example demonstrating sources of power and influence tactics in leadership. At the start‚ the Foreman of the Jury sits at the head of the table and assigns each juror a number. He is using a legitimate source of power because he holds the position title and serves as a formal authoritative figure for the jury. The Foreman also facilitates the initial voting and discussion on the reasons why each jury member felt that way. The jury was almost unanimous
Premium Jury Leadership Emotion
X155 Writing Assignment 3 Angie Vargas 3-10-14 “12 Angry Men” In 12 Angry Men directed by Reginal Rose‚ a jury determines the guilt or innocence of a young man who is accused of murder. The jury room is very intense‚ they have little time and their tempers all together tend to click at one time which causes them to argue a lot. Out of the twelve‚ ten jurors have voted to convict. In the film the character that is uncertain is Henry Fondas character. Henry first views the testimony as a pair
Premium English-language films Jury Critical thinking
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. The various conflicts in Rose’s play are tools which he uses to
Premium Jury Common law Critical thinking
Critical Analysis: 12 ANGRY MEN Patrick L. Milligan ORGL 502 – Organizational Ethics February 22‚ 2013 12 ANGRY MEN Introduction 12 Angry Men is one of the most lauded films in education and for good reason. The subject is timeless; the characters are so real and are easy to relate to. The story line is both touching and thought-provoking. I tend to appreciate detail in movies and this one was no different. The film opens with a long‚ ascending shot of the court house (giving us
Premium Ethics Decision making Decision theory
12 Angry Men Motivation Paper Written By: Olivia Bumgardner 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
Premium Thought Mind Common law
automatically assumed‚ by juror 10‚ that because the defendant lived in the ‘slums’ he was violent and guilty. His personal beliefs affected his vote instead of the facts and evidence. He seem to value social status and beliefs more than the truth. Example 2 – Juror 3 made reference to his own son and how he has not seen him in 3 years. When he voted‚ he seems to vote about his own personal life and how his son was no good‚ run away. He believed that it was ok to beat children into submission and that
Free Jury Not proven Verdict
Juror # 1: He is the foreman on this jury. He takes his role very seriously but is seen at times to lose control of the proceedings of the group of jury members that he is supposed to oversee. Juror # 2: He seems to be the most timid and nervous member of the jury. He is easily swayed by the opinion of others. Juror # 3: He is the most vociferous member of the jury. He has some very strong opinions which at times appear to not be backed by any logic. His character shows some signs of sadism ingrained
Premium