What are the fallcies of twelve angry men?
the theme is to understand how a jury trial is in that point of viewed how they all come together to come up with an answer by looking at the evidence they have . div style=%22padding: 0pt; margin: 10px 0pt 0pt 37px; background-image: url(%22http://site.wikianswers.com/templates/icons/ql.gif%22); …background-position: left top; background-repeat: no-repeat; height: 22px "> . (MORE)
The 12th juror in the play 12 Angry Men originally believes thatthe boy is guilty. He later changes his vote to not guiltyfollowing the deliberation.
This isn't really explored. 12 Angry Men makes for a better title than 12 Angry People. While making remakes, adding female jurors was explored but dismissed as executives did not want to change the title. Writing in a female might change the group dynamic and require extra work in script writing…. (MORE)
The climax is when juror #9 explains to the rest that the woman across the street couldn't have seen the crime just casually looking out her window from bed without her glasses. (cuz no one wears their glasses to bed.) Previously, juror #4 said that her testimony was good evidence, but after #9 disp…roves this, only #3 is left voting guilty. This is the climax because at the beginning of the play, all but one (#8) of the jurors vote guilty. But at this point, all but one vote not guilty (#3). (MORE)
in the movies there's some African American grown up in it but in the book it doesn't mention anything about a Afro-American. also the film has a black guy as a foreman instead of the white foreman in the play...
The first vote was 11-1 against Henry Fonda. So all the others changed their vote.
Juror 9 was an elderly old man, but quite insightful. Although not physically strong, he was very sharp and had the courage to stand up for what he believed in. He appears to be the most observant in terms of noticing people's behaviours.
Juror #8 -played by Henry Fonda in the 1957 black-and-white version directed by Sidney Lumet- manages to persuade all 11 other jurors to find the defendant not guilty. And they leave the courthouse..
Ultimately they deduce through process of elimination that the evidence against the accused is entirely circumstantial and they therefore under the constitution, cannot find him guilty of the crime charged against him. That is the overall ending. It is a glimpse into a day of 12 strangers having to …work together for a mutual end and conflicting but overall coming to resolve. (MORE)
The cast of the 1957 movie 12 Angry Men :. In the order in which they sat around the table, starting with Juror #1: Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, Lee J. Cobb, E.G. Marshall, Jack Klugman, Ed Binns, Jack Warden, Henry Fonda, Joseph Sweeney, Ed Begley, George Voskovec, Robert Webber.
Juror 10 is a loud mouthed impolite bigot. He berates people he doesn't agree with and has a low opinion of people living in slum areas.
1) The knife 2) the old man hearing the boy and his father fighting 3) the old man seeing the boy run down the stairs 4) the boys inability to remember the movies he saw or who starred in them 5) the woman's testimony that she saw the boy do it Not necisarrily evidence but issues bought up
Juror #3 would take the Antagonist position because he stands to his opinion "Guilty" the longest, having Juror #8 to finally persuade him at the end.
Twelve Angry Men does not have a set protagonist or antagonist. It is referenced as a "gang drama." A gang drama's resolution occurs when everyone cooperates and comes to a general consensus. There is technically no protagonist, but the closest thing to it is Juror 8. He is arguing for the life of a… boy that may or may not be guilty. The real conclusion to the book lies in the fact that everyone was able to settle with a unanimous vote. (MORE)
It is open to interpretation, however i feel that it has little importance. It is just a ploy by the author to generate side conversation to add to the story and detract from the focus of the story. It could also be interpreted as a comparison of the tension felt within the room and the warmth reson…ating from outside, or maybe a longing to go outside by some of the characters is shown by this heat such as the man with the tickets wishing to leave to get off to where he needs to be. Its up to you, there is no way to be wrong in an interpretation so just go with whatever you think it is, or use one of the interpretations i provided. (MORE)
Act 1 Twelve Angry Men takes place in a jury room in the late afternoon on a hot summer's day in New York City. After the curtain rises, the judge's voice is heard offstage, giving instructions to the jury. He says that the defendant is being tried for first-degree murder, which carries a mandato…ry death penalty. The judge adds that if the jury has reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused, they must acquit him. The verdict must be unanimous. The jurors, all men, file into the jury room and sit in straight-backed chairs around a long conference table. The weather is hot, and there is no air-conditioning; some of the men are irritable. From the initial chitchat, it is clear that most members of the jury regard the man as guilty. Jurors Seven and Ten ridicule the defendant's story. Apparently, a young man has stabbed his father to death with a knife. He admits that he bought a knife that night but claims that he lost it. The jury takes a vote. Eleven jurors vote guilty, and one juror, Juror Eight, votes not guilty. Jurors Three, Seven, and Twelve criticize him, but Juror Eight says that he does not know whether the man is guilty or not but that it is not easy for him to send a boy to his death without discussing it first. After some argument, they agree to discuss the facts of the case. Juror Three reviews what they know. An old man who lives underneath the room where the murder took place heard loud noises just after midnight. He heard the son yell at the father that he was going to kill him. Then he heard a body falling and moments later, saw the boy running out of the house. Juror Four says the boy's story is flimsy. He said that he was at the movies at the time of the murder, but no one remembers seeing him there. Also, a woman living opposite looked out of her window and saw the murder through the windows of a passing elevated train. During the trial, it was verified that this was possible. Further facts emerge: the father regularly beat his son, and the son had been arrested for car theft, mugging, and knife fighting. He had been sent to reform school for knifing someone. Juror Eight insists that, during the trial, too many questions were left unasked. He asks for the murder weapon to be brought in and says that it is possible that someone else stabbed the boy's father with a similar knife. Several jurors insist the knife is a very unusual one, but then Juror Eight produces from his pocket a switchblade that is exactly the same. He says that it is possible the boy is telling the truth. The other jurors scoff at this, but Juror Eight calls for another vote, a secret one this time. He says that he will abstain. When the votes are counted, there are ten guilty votes and one not guilty. Act 2 Juror Three is angry with Juror Five because he thinks that Juror Five is the one who changed his vote. It transpires that the not-guilty vote was cast by Juror Nine. This juror says that he wants to hear more discussion of the case, even though there is still a strong feeling among the other jurors that the defendant is guilty. Jurors Three and Twelve start to play a game of tic-tac-toe to pass the time, but Juror Eight angrily snatches the piece of paper away, saying that jury deliberations are not a game. Pressured by Juror Eight, the jury agrees that it would take about ten seconds for the train to pass by the apartment. Juror Eight also establishes that the train is noisy, so the old man could not have heard the boy yell that he was going to kill his father, as the old man testified. Juror Nine suggests that the old man may have convinced himself that he heard the words because he has never had any recognition from anyone and has a strong need for attention. Juror Three responds to this with hostility, but Juror Eight argues additionally that even if the boy had said he was going to kill his father, that does not mean he intended to do so, since people often use that or similar phrases without meaning them. Convinced by these arguments, Juror Five changes his vote to not guilty, making the vote nine to three. Juror Eight then questions the old man's testimony that he took only fifteen seconds to get downstairs, open the front door, and see the boy fleeing. He says that bearing in mind that the man cannot walk well, it probably took longer. Using a diagram of the apartment, Juror Eight acts out the old man's steps and is timed at thirty-nine seconds. He says that the old man must have heard, rather than seen, someone racing down the stairs and assumed it was the boy. An argument erupts between Jurors Three and Eight, as Juror Three insists the boy is guilty and must be executed. Juror Eight accuses him of being a sadist. Juror Three lunges at him, screaming that he will kill him. Juror Eight replies softly, suggesting that perhaps Juror Three does not really mean what he is saying. Act 3 The jurors take another vote, this time an open one, which is evenly split, six to six. Jurors Two, Six, and Eleven have switched their votes, to the annoyance of Jurors Three and Ten. The possibility of being a hung jury is brought up, but Juror Eight refuses to accept the possibility. They take a vote on that, too. Six jurors vote in favor of declaring themselves a hung jury; six vote against. Juror Four changes his vote, so it is seven to five against declaring a hung jury. Juror Four then argues persuasively for a guilty verdict, based on the evidence. He raises the possibility that although the old man may have taken longer to get to the door than he testified, the murderer might also have taken longer to escape. Reenacting the actions of the murderer, the jurors time it at twenty-nine and a half seconds. This suggests that the old man's testimony that he saw the boy fleeing may be correct after all. As a result, three jurors change their votes back, leaving the tally at nine to three in favor of guilt. Juror Two raises a question about the fact that the fatal wound was caused by a downward thrust of the knife. How could that be, since the son is six inches shorter than his father, which would make such an action very awkward? Juror Three demonstrates on Juror Eight how it could be done, crouching down to approximate the boy's height and then raising the knife and making a downward stabbing motion. But Juror Five, who has witnessed knife fights, says that anyone using a switchblade would use it underhand, stabbing upward, thus making it unlikely that the boy, who was an experienced knife fighter, could have caused the fatal wound. Another vote is taken, and it is nine to three in favor of acquittal. Juror Ten goes off on a prejudiced rant about how all people from the slums are liars and violent and have no respect for human life. Disgusted with his views, most of the other jurors get up and walk to the window, where they turn their backs on Juror Ten. Juror Four still insists that the boy is guilty. He says the most important testimony is that of the woman who says she saw the murder. She was in bed, unable to sleep, when she looked out the window and saw the boy stab his father. Juror Eight reminds them that the woman wears glasses, but she would not wear them in bed and would not have had time to put them on to see what she claims to have seen. He contends that she could have seen only a blur. At this, Jurors Four and Ten change their votes to not guilty, leaving the tally at eleven to one. Only Juror Three insists on a guilty verdict, but when he sees that he stands alone and cannot change anyone else's opinion, he begrudgingly votes not guilty. The jury has reached a unanimous decision, and the defendant is acquitted. (MORE)
The law is accurate in the movie Twelve Angry Men as it relates to finding a Defendant " Guilty beyond reasonable doubt ."
Juror 5 gets mad after the second vote, when Juror 3 accuses him of being soft and changing his vote. It turns out Juror 9 (the old man) was the one to change his vote.
The story is set in the jury room in New York City. It was late afternoon, and summer time.
Well, there really are no leaders in Twelve Angry Men, but those with more 'input' would include Juror #1 (Martin Balsam) the Foreman and Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) who pushes for fellow jury members to consider the possibility the Defendant may not be guilty of the crime.
Juror #12 Is: Superficial, easily-swayed, and easy-going; vacillating, lacks deep convictions or belief system; uses interesting analogies such as: "Run this idea up the flagpole and see if anybody salutes it."
The 1957 version was directed by Sidney Lumet. The 1997 version was directed by William Friedkin.
After the Preliminary vote, the results were: Eleven voting in favor of Guilty and one hold-out (Juror #8) for Not Guilty.
Some differences between the play and the movie are that in the movie, there is a scene in the very beginning in the courtroom, and in the middle, a scene in the bathroom. I can't remember exactly, but in one of them, the boy is 19 years old, and in the other, he's 18 years old. In the movie, one of… the jurors want to leave because he has tickets to a ball game, and in the play, he has theater tickets. I know there are some more, but it's been a while since I read/ watched this! Hope I helped! :) (MORE)
Juror Number Ten (played by Ed Begley) is garage owner who simmers with anger, bitterness and racist bigotry and needs the support of others to reinforce his stance. He is nasty, repellent, intolerant, reactionary and accusative. This character segregates the world into 'Us' and 'Them' categories.
The main conflict in the film Twelve Angry Men, was that there were eleven jurors who initially voted Guilty with one hold-out. That lone juror (Henry Fonda) would spend the rest of the film presenting causes for 'reasonable doubt' in the minds of fellow jurors.
The most important strength portrayed by the jury in Twelve Angry Men was 'determination' regardless of any justifiable (or unjustifiable) logic each individual attached to the term. The group was determined to complete the deliberations as directed by the Judge in the case.
The boy claimed he went to a movie about 11:30 pm, returning home at 3:10 am "to find his father dead and himself arrested'.
Juror #7 had a hidden agenda. He wanted the court case to be over and done with as fast as possible so that he could attend a ball game. He even went as far as to change his vote to not-guilty claiming he was "sick of all the talking." But what he really wanted was to speed up the proceedings.
There have always been twelve jurors on any jury panels that I know of. Does something give you the impression there should be any less? I believe twelve individuals would be able to come up with the appropriate verdict much better than six. I only say that because I realize some cases only employ s…ix to eight jurors. But, not in Capital cases! (MORE)
Twelve Angry Men was first remade in 1957 as the famous movie. It was originally a teleplay in 1954. It was also remade in 1997, 2004, and 2006.
In the 1957 version, he is played by Robert Webber. In the 1997 television production, he is played by William Petersen.
1: High School Football Coach 2: Bank Teller 3: Owner of Messenger Service 4: Stock Broker 5: Never Stated 6: Painter 7: Salesman 8: Architect 9: Never Stated 10: Garage Owner 11: Watch Maker 12: Advertising Executive
There aren't any actors names in the book Twelve Angry Men (unless addressed as Juror 1, 2, 3, 4, etc). However, if you are wondering what the actors names are from the original cast of the 1957 movie Twelve Angry Men, here they are: Martin Balsam, Lee J. Cobb, John Fiedler, E.G. Marshall, J…ack Clugman, Edward Binns, Jack Warden, Henry Fonda, Joseph Sweeney, Ed Begley, George Voskovec and Robert Webber. (MORE)
A teenager is on trial for murder. The film is about the jury deliberating a verdict.
Juror 2 brings up the point that the accused is a half foot shorter than his father, so it would have been hard to stab him downwards. Juror 5 (the one brought up in the slums) brought up the point that the killer slashed down with the knife, as opposed to upwards like you would in a knife fight,… using the duplicate knife brought by Juror 8 as demonstration. (MORE)
Juror 1, the foreman never seemed to get involved in the arguments. He is a representation of complete impartiality. When Juror 1 votes not guilty, it is a turning point, a sign that the evidence points to a not-guilty verdict.
Juror #1, Juror #2, Juror #3, Juror #4, Juror #5, Juror #6, Juror #7, Juror #8, Juror #9, Juror #10, Juror #11, Juror #12, Only two character's names are revealed. At the end of the film, while the jurors are leaving the courthouse, Henry Fonda (Juror #8) and Joseph Sweeney (Juror #9) meet on the… steps. Fonda introduces himself as "Davis", Sweeney as "McCardle". (MORE)
The film is only about the trial of the boy. Once he is found Not Guilty, the film ends. The murder is unsolved at that point.
His normal job is not specified, although he did have a job as a juror .
Twelve jurors are trying to come to a decision on whether a young man is guilty or innocent for the murder of his father.
Jack Lemmon's character accuses Juror #3 as being a "sadist" when he proposes that 3 cares nothing for the facts of the case, and is bent on sending the kid to the chair for killing his father. It is reiterated throughout the film that 3 has more of a vendetta than the others in that he feels very n…egatively against a son being against a father, as this is something that had happened to 3 himself with his son, and he has yet to get over it. (MORE)
The boy's motive for killing his father was due to the abuse and strained relationship between the two of them. His innocence was established in the end though.
He is the one juror who is truly pragmatic and tries to follow only the evidence with no emotions.
The 9th among the 12 Juror's is an old Man whosematured & impressive memory, the role played by Jack Wardendecides to change his vote, because of the sane reasoning as putforth by the 7th Juror , played by Henry Fonda insupport of the accused as not-guilty. Juror 9 changed his vote infavor of… Juror 7 because of his stand which would put an 18 yearold boy on Death Row by an unanimous decision of the 12Jurors if voted guilty. Therefore as a worldly-wise & keen observer of the proceedingsin the Court, he weighs the pros & cons, deciding to vote insupport of the accuse as not guilty, turning the vote count to 2not-guilty against the majority 10 Jurors voting himguilty . There are several remakes, but the story & thecharacters r the same but with different actors. My Answer is basedon Sidney Lumet's directorial debut with "12Angry Men" releasedin 1957. This Courtroom drama was adapted from a teleplay ofthe same name by Reginald Rose who co-produced and wrote thescreenplay for the movie. (MORE)
We don't know if he was guilty or not. Maybe he did do it, or maybe he didn't, that's not the point. The play/movie is all against capital punishment, and that no one can decide if a man can live or die, because it's too much responsability and our limited knowledge and judgement do not allow us to …say for sure if a person is guilty or not. No matter the evidence there's always a chance, you know? __________________________ The evidence was circumstantial. The jurors decided they could not convict based only on that. (MORE)
The defendant was never shown; the focus was on the 12 man jury who had to determine his guilt or innocence. The whole movie was shot in the jury room and its adjacent bathroom.
Juror #3 was played by actor Lee J. Cobb. In addition to being in this film, he had a very extensive resume and had been in such films as On the Waterfront and The Exorcist among many others.
The irony of the play is that in the beginning, everyone was certain of the boy's guilt and voted 11-1 in favor of guilty. They were all ready to give judgment without speaking of the evidence and simply send him to the chair. With Juror 8's persuasion, he is able to find reasonable doubt in all of …the presented evidence against the boy which by Act Three, has all jurors in agreement that the boy is not guilty, except for one: Juror 3. The irony is that the vote count is the complete opposite from the beginning to the end of the play. Even as they discuss the evidence throughout the play, there are times when the vote is 3-9 then 9-3 as well as 6-6 straight down the middle. It's a flip flop throughout! (MORE)
His first doubt was the knife. The knife had been described as very rare. But he had been able to buy one for $6 at a store in the neighborhood of the murder.