12 Angry Men - Movie Review - Assignment Example

12 Angry Men- Movie Review The Story-Background: 12 Angry men is a movie based on the trial of a teenaged South American boy accused of his father’s murder. The movie is set in the jury room where 12 men are to decide the fate of the boy based on the facts as provided before and their own deliberations. But there can be only two verdicts, and if they choose “guilty” the boy will go the electric chair for his death sentence. There is no choice of appeal. However, if they have reasonable doubt about the case they must acquit the boy of the murder charge. His life now lies in the hands of the 12 men who begin the deliberations almost convinced of his guilt but as it is later revealed their judgments are clouded by personal biases and preconceived notions. The movie is a depiction of how jury decides the verdict and despite all the facts they can easily be blinded by the prejudices resulting in the flawed logical reasoning by them as happened in this case. If not for juror 8 counter arguments the jury would have been completely unaware of the fallacies in the prosecution’s argument. Few of the Idiosyncrasies of this movie: The movie presents an all mal, all white jury which is not the case usually in practice. Juror 8 acted as defence attorney, which is legally improper. Jury is not properly introduced. The Jurors and their arguments: Very early in the movie Juror 10 starts with accusatory his racist remarks towards the people who are black and live in slums. His words “Youre not gonna tell me that were supposed to believe this kid, knowing what he is. Listen, Ive lived among them all my life. You cant believe a word they say. You know that. I mean, theyre born liars,” are a reminder of his deep seeded resentment towards these people throughout the movie. He is unwilling to look at the facts and decide the verdict without letting his prejudice get in the way of his judgment. Juror 4 and 7 also show prejudice towards the boy’s socio-economic group however, it is Juror 10 who takes it to extreme heights.He sees the light when Juror 5 a slum dweller challenges his biased general opinion. He however, does not change his vote until the middle of the movie when others tell him to stop his insulting remarks and calm down. Juror 7 remarks “I think the guys guilty. You couldnt change my mind if you talked for a hundred years.” Show that he has made up his mind before the deliberation of the jury even began. His behaviour shows that he considers the prosecution case as final and conclusive, and is insensitive towards the case itself and cares more about the baseball game tonight. Juror 7 argument is logically flawed as he is generalizing the facts, that every troubled child who has been involved in minor crimes is doomed. He implies that since he has a criminal record before it is logical to conclude that he is the killer. He is sure of the boy’s guilt when most of the people aren’t and dismisses the facts and changes vote just to make it a unanimous decision because he is tired and wants to go home. Juror 2 "I just think hes guilty. I thought it was obvious. I mean, nobody proved otherwise." Juror 2 is a meek and submissive person who is too scared to think on his own. He believes the prosecution has proved the boy guilty therefore he believes it too. His argument is devoid of sound logical reasoning (circular argument) and is a repetition of the case. He believes in the conclusion because he likes to believe that it is true. Just because there is not enough evidence to prove that the boy is not guilty, he tries to prove that he is actually guilty. Juror 3 is disillusioned by his own experience. Since he is estranged from his own son who ran away he believes (sweeping generalization) that all young teenaged boys are inclined towards bad side. He is hostile towards the accused boy, letting his personal anger cloud his judgement. He remains defiant till the very end and presents most resistance in hearing anything that could raise reasonable doubt and prove the boy to be not guilty. He does not want to agree that the evidence is inconclusive as he wants revenge of his own son’s behaviour from this boy. Putting the boy to chair, he is actually punishing his son thereby getting involved in the case too personally. “This kid is guilty! Hes got to burn! Were letting him slip through our fingers here.” Juror 3 tries to force his own opinion on others. It is obvious the way he shouts at Juror 5 after the first secret ballot. “Whats the matter with you? You come in here and you vote guilty and then this slick preacher starts to tear your heart out with stories about a poor little kid who just couldnt help becoming a murderer. So you change your vote. If that isnt the most sickening...” He is trying to influence his vote by using harsh behaviour since he does not have any sound reasoning to support his stance. Juror 3 on the other hand also contradicts himself in the later half when the jury is sifting through the old man’s testimony. He is adamant about believing the eyewitness account of the old man who has not completely seen everything. He is putting too much trust in one witness account to prove that the boy is indeed guilty. Later he himself says “Hes an old man. You saw him. Half the time he was confused. How could he be positive about anything?” These words are a clear indication that the testimony is not credible and strong enough. Juror 7 is also resentful towards Juror 8. He repeatedly tries to put down his arguments by attacking him personally (ad hominem). “How do you like this guy? He comes over here running for his life, and before he can even take a big breath hes telling us how to run the show. The arrogance of him!” Since he has no logical counter argument to the arguments of Juror 8, he attacks his personality in order to gain support for himself. On another instance he says “He ought to write for American Detective Monthly. Hed make a fortune.” Juror 8 although the logical person in the whole movie and the person who makes everyone see the loop holes in the prosecution case also commits a mistake in the movie. He tries to recreate the scene on the night of murder in an attempt to verify the old man’s testimony. It is an improper act especially when the jury can only deliberate on the basis of evidence and facts. Then again when he tries to imitate the old man and calculate the time, he is assuming that the man cannot go faster if the need be. It is very likely that the man had an adrenaline rush as he heard the body hit the floor casing him to move faster than he actually does. His walking pace is completely based on what they have seen by the man while walking through the courtroom, which is nowhere conclusive. His other fallacy is being too sure of the boy’s innocence. And in many arguments it seems that he is actually fighting in boy’s defence rather than just proving reasonable doubt in the case. At many times he personally provokes the jurors so they give in to their anger and prejudices. Juror 4 initially claims that the testimony of the woman across the unshakable. He claims “She said that she went to bed at about eleven oclock that night. Her bed was next to the open window, and she could look out of the window while lying down and see directly into the window across the street. She tossed and turned for over an hour, unable to fall asleep. Finally she turned toward the window at about twelve ten and as she looked out, she saw the boy stabs his father. As far as I can see, this is unshakable testimony.” He explicitly assumes that the woman is telling complete truth in her statement. However, when they all look closely the woman wore bifocals and unless she had them on when she saw the murder, whatever she saw must have been a blur. As a result her statement immediately loses credibility and no longer remains an eye witness account. “You come in here with your heart bleeding all over the floor about slum kids and injustice and you make up these wild stories, and youve got some soft hearted old ladies listening to you. Well, Im not. Im getting real sick of it. Whats the matter with you people?” These are again Juror 3 words. He is again personally attacking others (ad hominem) jury members because of their support for the kid. He has no sound reasons to support that there is no reasonable doubt in the case. This is his last attempt to change the vote of some of them. But he fails. The jury decides on the verdict of “not guilty”. OUTLINE 1: Children need to play not Compete I. Sports: Good Sports & Bad Sports A. Good Sports: A source of entertainment for Children 1. Refreshes mind 2. Develops friendly Relations with peers 3. Helps develop physical potency 4. Benefits health 5. Develops sense of healthy competition 6. Teaches ethics for Social circle B. Bad Sports: A Mere Fatigue 1. Winning, not loosing 2. Aggression 3. Psychological Dangers 4. Survival of the fittest 5. Aggressive coaches II. Choice of sports A. Factors 1. Age of the child 2. Level of Pressure of sports 3. Health of the child 4. Emotional status of the child 5. Assessment of the sports a child plays 6. Attributes of the Coach 7. Inclination/Aggression of the society towards a Sport III. Childhood Sports: Consequences & Outcomes A. Effects revealed in adulthood 1. Personality Development 2. Ideological orientation 3. Economic orientation 4. Social orientation 5. Political orientation 6. Confidence Building OUTLINE 2: Dilemmas faced by Teenagers before entering high school and Participation of teachers and parents in their life A. Graduation of 18 years old 1. Meaningless diplomas 2. Limited knowledge B. Literacy programs after graduation 1. English Language courses 2. Attending workshops a. Result of fake education system C. Teacher’s attention 1. Teacher as a friend 2. Teacher discussing their personal life problems D. Reason of poor academic grades 1. Student is on drugs a. Divorced parents b. Relationships E. What should teacher do to grasp student attention 1. Teaching style 2. Involving classes a. Class participation 3. Encourage students for their good performance in front of class 4. Try to help weak students and ask their problems when they are alone. 5. Don’t discourage weaker ones F. Parents should take interest in studies of their child 1. Ask students about their studies 2. Check if they are giving proper time to their education 3. Encourage teachers 4. Ask teachers about the intellectual level of child a. Instructions to improve it b. Ask if it is appropriate with the age c. And precautions to increase it G. Parents should emphasize the importance of teachers in front of their child 1. Second well-wisher after parents 2. They are making your life better 3. They are teaching you how to survive in this world 4. They are helping you to achieve better grades H. Expectations from graduates 1. Basic Knowledge with high intellectual 2. Excellent job opportunities 3. Highly paid jobs 4. Do they know everything what their transcript says I. Feeling of graduates 1. I don’t deserve the degree or diploma 2. Increasing rate of unemployment J. The number of flunking students increase 1. Give your child proper confidence 2. Help teachers to understand problem of their child a. Teachers dig out the hidden intelligence with the help of motivation b. Excellent opportunities for students in future Read More