12 angry men film analysis - understand
Plot[ edit ] In the overheated jury room of the New York County Courthouse , a jury prepares to deliberate the case of an year-old impoverished youth accused of stabbing his father to death. The judge instructs them that if there is any reasonable doubt , the jurors are to return a verdict of not guilty; if found guilty, the defendant will receive a death sentence. The verdict must be unanimous. At first, the evidence seems convincing: a neighbor testified to witnessing the defendant stab his father from her window. Another neighbor testified that he heard the defendant threaten to kill his father and the father's body hitting the ground, and then, through his peephole, saw the defendant run past his door. The boy has a violent past and had recently purchased a switchblade of the same type as was found at the murder scene, but claimed he lost it. 12 angry men film analysis.Pages: 1 2 3 4 Background 12 Angry Menor Twelve Angry Menis the gripping, penetrating, and engrossing examination of a diverse group of twelve jurors all male, mostly middle-aged, white, and generally of middle-class status who are uncomfortably brought together to deliberate after hearing the 'facts' in a seemingly open-and-shut murder trial case. They retire to a jury room to do their civic duty and serve up a just verdict for the indigent minority defendant with a criminal record whose life 12 angry men film analysis in the balance. The film is a powerful indictment, denouncement and expose of the trial by jury system.
The frightened, teenaged defendant is on trial, as well as the jury here the American judicial system with its purported sense of infallibility, fairness and lack of bias. Alternatively, the slow-boiling film could also be viewed as commentary on McCarthyism, Fascism, or Communism threatening forces in the 50s.
Navigation menu
The jury of twelve 'angry men,' entrusted with the power to send an uneducated, teenaged Puerto Rican, tenement-dwelling boy to the electric chair for killing his father with a switchblade knife, are literally 12 angry men film analysis into a small, claustrophobic rectangular jury room on a stifling hot summer day until they come up with a unanimous decision - either guilty or not guilty.
The compelling, provocative film examines the twelve men's deep-seated personal prejudices, perceptual biases and weaknesses, indifference, anger, personalities, unreliable judgments, cultural differences, ignorance and fears, that threaten to taint their decision-making abilities, cause them to ignore the real issues in the case, and potentially lead them to a miscarriage of justice. Fortunately, one brave dissenting juror votes 'not guilty' at the start of the deliberations because of his reasonable doubt. Persistently and learn more here, he forces the other men to slowly reconsider and review the shaky case and eyewitness testimony against the endangered defendant.
He also chastises the system for giving the unfortunate defendant an inept 'court-appointed' public defense lawyer who "resented being appointed" - a case with "no money, no glory, not even much chance of winning" - and who inadequately cross-examined the witnesses. Heated discussions, the formation of alliances, the frequent re-evaluation and changing of opinions, votes and certainties, and the revelation of personal experiences, insults and outbursts fill the jury room. However, it's slightly forgivable since the play made the jury and trial largely symbolic and metaphoric the jurors were made to represent a cross-section of 12 angry men film analysis attitudes towards race, justice, and ideology, and were not entirely realistic.
Film Analysis Of The Film 12 Angry Men
The introduction of information about the defendant's past juvenile crimes wouldn't 12 angry men film analysis been allowed. Jurors 3 and 10 were so prejudiced that their attitudes would have quickly eliminated them https://digitales.com.au/blog/wp-content/custom/a-simple-barcoding-system-has-changed-inventory/wes-watson-prison.php being selected during jury review.
And it was improper for Juror 8 to act as a defense attorney - to re-enact the old man's walk to the front door or to investigate on his own by purchasing a similar knife. The 'angry' interactions between some of the jurors seem overly personal and exaggerated.
It has no flashbacks, narration, or subtitles.
Prejudice In 12 Angry Men With Clouded Judgement
The camera is essentially locked 12 angry men film analysis the enclosed room with the deliberating jurors for 90 of the film's 95 minutes, and the film is basically shot in real-time in an actual jury room. Cinematographer Boris Kaufman, 12 angry men film analysis had already demonstrated his on-location film-making skill in Elia Kazan's On the Waterfront in Hoboken, and Baby Doll in Mississippi, uses diverse camera angles a few dramatic, grotesque closeups and mostly well-composed medium-shots to illuminate and energize the film's cramped proceedings. Except for Henry Fonda, the ensemble character actors were chosen for their experience in the burgeoning art of television. The film was a financial disaster when it first opened during a time of colorful widescreen film offeringsbut it did receive three Academy Award nominations with no wins : Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Adapted Screenplay. Henry Fonda's central role as a juror with resolute caution was un-nominated as Best Actor.
None of the jurors are named, and they don't formally introduce themselves to each other except for two of them in the final brief ending. Jurors are labeled with numbers based on their goodyear study numbers and seats at a conference table in the jury room in clock-wise order.
The Twelve Jurors: A summary of the anonymous characters helps to flesh vilm their characters and backgrounds. Cobb Runs a messenger service the "Beck and Call" Companya bullying, rude and husky man, extremely opinionated 12 angry men film analysis biased, completely intolerant, forceful and loud-mouthed, temperamental and vengeful; estrangement from his own teenaged son causes him to be hateful and hostile toward all young people and the defendant ; arrogant, quick-angered, quick-to-convict, and defiant until the very end [12] Juror 4: E.
The subjective camera wanders about inside the marbled interior rotunda and hallways, and on the second floor haphazardly makes its way into a double-doored room marked There, a bored-sounding, non-committal judge Rudy Bond wearily instructs the twelve-man jury to begin their deliberations after listening to six days of a "long and complex case of murder in 112 first degree. If however, there is no reasonable doubt, then you must in good conscience find the accused guilty.
However you decide, your verdict must be unanimous. In the event that you find the accused guilty, the bench will not entertain a recommendation for mercy. The death sentence is mandatory in this case.
You are faced with a grave responsibility. Thank you, gentlemen. As the jury leaves the box and retires to the jury room to deliberate, the camera presents a side-view and then a lingering, silent closeup of the innocent-faced, frightened, despondent slum boy defendant with round, sad brown eyes.]
I am sorry, that I interfere, I too would like to express the opinion.
It is scandal!
What necessary phrase... super, excellent idea
You are absolutely right.