12 angry men ambiguous

12 angry men essay

In a length of only 95 minutes it sometimes feels as if the movie is shot in real time , the jurors are all defined in terms of their personalities, backgrounds, occupations, prejudices and emotional tilts. But "12 Angry Men" never states whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. The sense of increasing claustrophobia did a lot to raise the tension of the last part of the movie. Juror No. Juror 10 erupts in vitriol against slum people. Marshall as Juror 4, a rational, unflappable, self-assured and analytical stock broker Jack Klugman as Juror 5, a man who grew up in a violent slum, sensitive to insults about his upbringing Edward Binns as Juror 6, a tough but principled house painter Jack Warden as Juror 7, a wisecracking salesman and Yankees fan Henry Fonda as Davis, Juror 8; an architect, initially the only one to vote "not guilty" and openly questions the seemingly clear evidence presented Joseph Sweeney as McCardle, Juror 9; an intelligent, wise, and observant senior Ed Begley as Juror 10, a pushy, loud-mouthed, and bigoted garage owner George Voskovec as Juror 11, a European watchmaker and naturalized American citizen who demonstrates strong patriotism Robert Webber as Juror 12, an indecisive advertising executive. The defendant, a young boy accused of murdering his father, looks up as the jurors are dismissed, the expression on his face nothing if not resigned; at this point, everything feels very familiar, the film a routine one about crime and, presumably, the delivery of well-deserved justice. Juror 3 accuses Juror 5, who grew up in a slum, of changing his vote out of sympathy, but Juror 9 reveals that he changed his vote, agreeing there should be some discussion. Juror 5 demonstrates that someone skilled with a switchblade, as the boy would have been, would not have stabbed downward. By the end, they loom over us, and we feel overwhelmed by the force of their passion. Juror 9, seeing Juror 4 rub his nose, irritated by his glasses, realizes that the witness had impressions on her nose indicating she wore glasses, but did not wear them in court. The movie is timely in view of recent revelations that many Death Row convictions are based on contaminated evidence. Juror 3 tries to attack Juror 8, shouting "I'll kill him!

Juror 4 declares that the woman who saw the killing from across the street stands as solid evidence. Juror 8 argues that the noise of a passing train would have obscured the threat that one witness claimed to have heard the defendant tell his father: "I'm going to kill you".

12 angry men ending

This is a film where tension comes from personality conflict, dialogue and body language, not action; where the defendant has been glimpsed only in a single brief shot; where logic, emotion and prejudice struggle to control the field. Consider these titles from among his 43 films: "The Pawnbroker" the Holocaust , "Fail-Safe" accidental nuclear war , "Serpico" police corruption , " Dog Day Afternoon " homosexuality , " Network " the decay of TV news , " The Verdict " alcoholism and malpractice , " Daniel " a son punished for the sins of his parents , " Running on Empty " radical fugitives , and " Critical Care " health care. Juror 8 argues that he cannot vote "guilty" because reasonable doubt exists. But "12 Angry Men" never states whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. The sense of increasing claustrophobia did a lot to raise the tension of the last part of the movie. The ballot reveals one "not guilty" vote. And then, so gradually as to be unnoticed, we descend with the camera from our lofty perch. The content of their debates, and what is revealed by and in their murkiest depths, would be easy to share. Advertisement The principle of reasonable doubt, the belief that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty, is one of the most enlightened elements of our Constitution, although many Americans have had difficulty in accepting it. They don't know what the truth is.

Cobb as Juror 3, the most passionate advocate of a guilty verdict E. For Sidney Lumet, born in"12 Angry Men" was the beginning of a film career that has often sought controversial issues. As the film begins we look down on the characters, and the angle suggests they can be comprehended and mastered.

12 angry men character analysis

The ballot reveals one "not guilty" vote. Cobb as the jury first gathers in their claustrophobic little room. I could tell you exactly what transpires between these ordinary men, the content of their deliberations, the conclusions they reach, but instead I will only tell you this: the journey undertaken in that little room is unmistakably, unapologetically, and uncomfortably human.

Although the movie is clearly in favor of the Fonda position, not all of those voting "guilty" are portrayed negatively.

12 angry men themes

Evidence is debated so completely that we feel we know as much as the jury does, especially about the old man who says he heard the murder and saw the defendant fleeing, and the lady across the street who says she saw it happen through the windows of a moving L train. Even the music is fairly standard, whimsical and absent of urgency. Although the movie is clearly in favor of the Fonda position, not all of those voting "guilty" are portrayed negatively. I could tell you exactly what transpires between these ordinary men, the content of their deliberations, the conclusions they reach, but instead I will only tell you this: the journey undertaken in that little room is unmistakably, unapologetically, and uncomfortably human. Juror No. By the end, they loom over us, and we feel overwhelmed by the force of their passion. Jurors 12 and 1 then change their votes, leaving only Jurors 3, 4 and It is obvious the jurors do not plan on being there for long—even we and the camera seem about to leave, looking down at the jurors from behind the stationary wall fan as they sit down according to number. The defendant, a young boy accused of murdering his father, looks up as the jurors are dismissed, the expression on his face nothing if not resigned; at this point, everything feels very familiar, the film a routine one about crime and, presumably, the delivery of well-deserved justice. Over the tense course of the film, we are continuously dragged , camera-bound, into the fray, thrown into explosive arguments and out of them again with only the briefest of reprieves in between. Have you ever seen this movie? In that way, toward the end the ceiling began to appear. Juror 10 erupts in vitriol against slum people. The film possesses great insight and consistently fantastic performances watch for Lee J.

Supposing we're wrong? It is a masterpiece of stylized realism--the style coming in the way the photography and editing comment on the bare bones of the content.

12 angry men analysis

It is obvious the jurors do not plan on being there for long—even we and the camera seem about to leave, looking down at the jurors from behind the stationary wall fan as they sit down according to number. Marshall as Juror 4, a rational, unflappable, self-assured and analytical stock broker Jack Klugman as Juror 5, a man who grew up in a violent slum, sensitive to insults about his upbringing Edward Binns as Juror 6, a tough but principled house painter Jack Warden as Juror 7, a wisecracking salesman and Yankees fan Henry Fonda as Davis, Juror 8; an architect, initially the only one to vote "not guilty" and openly questions the seemingly clear evidence presented Joseph Sweeney as McCardle, Juror 9; an intelligent, wise, and observant senior Ed Begley as Juror 10, a pushy, loud-mouthed, and bigoted garage owner George Voskovec as Juror 11, a European watchmaker and naturalized American citizen who demonstrates strong patriotism Robert Webber as Juror 12, an indecisive advertising executive. Juror 5 demonstrates that someone skilled with a switchblade, as the boy would have been, would not have stabbed downward. Juror 3 gives an increasingly tortured string of arguments, building on earlier remarks about his strained relationship with his own son, the reason he wants the accused to be guilty. Juror 8 helps the distraught Juror 3 with his coat and the jurors leave the courthouse. His tone of voice indicates the verdict is a foregone conclusion. The defendant, a young boy accused of murdering his father, looks up as the jurors are dismissed, the expression on his face nothing if not resigned; at this point, everything feels very familiar, the film a routine one about crime and, presumably, the delivery of well-deserved justice. Juror 4 declares that the woman who saw the killing from across the street stands as solid evidence. Juror 9, seeing Juror 4 rub his nose, irritated by his glasses, realizes that the witness had impressions on her nose indicating she wore glasses, but did not wear them in court. Juror 10 erupts in vitriol against slum people. They don't know what the truth is. Have you ever seen this movie? Come sit down! In purpose, it's a crash course in those passages of the Constitution that promise defendants a fair trial and the presumption of innocence. Supposing we're wrong?

Twelve unenthused men sit in the jury as the judge his tone as removed as we are explains the importance and responsibility of the jury.

Rated 10/10 based on 6 review
Download
12 Angry Men Is More Relevant Than Ever in the Age of Trump