12 angry people is a movie with a simple premise, but its ending conflict and themes are incredibly complex. Based on Reginald Rose’s 1954 teleplay (not a book), 12 angry people Shows the deliberations of a jury on a murder case in which a young boy is accused of killing his father and faces the death penalty. At first, the jury is almost unanimous in finding the young man guilty, but deliberations continue when Juror 8 (Henry Fonda) dissents. Juror 8 was able to convince the other jurors that the case had room for reasonable doubt, eventually leading to a 12-0″Not guilty“Judgment.
Go at the end of 12 angry peopleJuror 8 managed to get five of the other jurors on his side, completely splitting the jury. However, a vocal minority led by Juror 3 holds firmly to the conviction that the defendant is guilty. Combined with the stressors of the sweltering heat and peer pressure, tensions rise in the deliberation room as more jurors cast their votes to “Not guilty.”
Did the boy kill the father in 12 Evil Men?
12 Angry people do not provide a concrete answer about the young man’s guilt
12 angry people Centers around the trial of an adolescent boy accused of murdering his father with a switchblade, but despite all the evidence provided throughout the iconic 1950s movie, it is unclear if the young man actually committed the crime. By the end of the movie, the 12 jurors managed to come to a consensus that they should return a verdict of “Not guilty“, as none of them were able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the boy was guilty. However, there was never conclusive proof of the defendant’s innocence in the crime, nor 12 angry people Put an alternative for who killed the boy’s father.
It does not matter if young man killed his father 12 angry peopleRather, he was not killed as a result of insufficient evidence and the personal prejudices of others.
Although 12 angry people Not fully confirming the character’s innocence could be seen as an unsatisfying conclusion to the court drama, it’s actually the perfect ending. finally, The iconic Henry Fonda movie is not about who committed the murder, but whether it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the boy did or did not do it. Therefore, it does not matter if the young man killed his father 12 angry peopleRather, he was not killed as a result of insufficient evidence and the personal prejudices of others.
Why Juror 3 Changed His Vote
Juror 3 has an emotional breakdown in the jury room
Throughout the movie, Lee J. Cobb’s Juror 3 remains passionate about the boy who is guilty of murdering his father, only changing his vote to “Not guilty“At the end of the movie. Previously, Juror 3 was part of the voting majority of 12 angry people Characters who believed that the young man was guilty, but he ended up being the only one left. Juror 3 gives an impassioned speech about why he must be guilty, but after he rips a picture of his son from his wallet, Juror 3 breaks down and changes his vote. Although it is never stated why Juror 3 switched his vote, 12 angry people hint at his excuse.
Related
12 angry people Establishes that Juror 3 has a strained relationship with his son, whom he has not seen in two years. During the trial, Juror 3 projected the relationship on the crime, which made him wish that the boy was guilty and why he was so eager to believe the prosecution’s evidence. Juror 3 only realizes that he has the bias once he tears up the photograph of his son. Because of Juror 3’s remorse for the situation with his son, as well as his realization that his personal life is clouding his judgment, he changes his vote, securing a “Not guilty“Judgment for this case.
Symbolism of the hot weather during 12 evil men’s deliberation
The weather symbolizes the emotional experiences of the characters
first and foremost, 12 angry people is about Juror 8’s crusade to prove that the boy may be innocent, but the movie also puts a lot of focus on the intense weather that these people have to suffer. Throughout the majority of this classic Hollywood movie, the jurors are plagued by the heat, which is made worse by the fact that the fan in the deliberation room is apparently broken. Besides discussing the case, the fever is what the jurors remember the most, and while it may just be another reason they want to rush through their deliberations, the fever has a deeper meaning in 12 angry people.
Rather than just an arbitrary weather pattern, the heat in 12 angry people is one of the most important symbols of the movie. The blistering heat conveys several key aspects of the characters’ experiences, such as the pressure to unite and deliver a verdict, their hostility to one another, and their discomfort at being challenged their biases about the case and life. Once the jury reaches a 6-6 vote, it begins to rain, marking a turning point for their deliberations. As more jury members begin to hear the arguments of Juror 8. Juror 7 is even able to turn on the “broken” fan, allowing cooler heads to prevail.
Why Jurors 8 and 9 reveal their names to each other
The two jurors bond over their shared humanity
at the end of 12 angry peopleJurors 8 and 9 stand outside the courthouse and share their names with each other, which is strange because none of the other jurors have the same. Juror 9 taking this step reflects the difference between him and the other people who serve on the jury. While the others changed their votes due to their convictions in the case, Juror 9 took this step as a sign of respect for Juror 8.
The other jurors saw number 8 as a problem, until they spoke to each other. Contrast, 9 saw the humanity in the man sitting next to him, recognizing that he was not just trying to be difficult. The couple swapping names signifies their mutual respect, bond, and shared humanity. After all, names have power. Giving a name and calling another person by name are some of the most basic signs of connection.
Additionally, the couple exchanging names at the end reminds viewers that the Twelve felt safe to show their most authentic selves, in part because of the anonymity of the situation. It was easy for eleven people to vote guilty without even talking about the case, knowing that a young person could die, because they didn’t have to face consequences for their choices.
The movie shows how prejudice can cloud a person’s judgment, from Juror 3’s relationship with his son to Juror 10’s racism.
Moreover, the jurors in 12 angry people Could show their biases with little risk because nobody knew their names, and they were behind closed doors. Ultimately, the two most compassionate people sharing names helps reinforce the message that anonymity breeds contempt. Unlike the others, jurors 8 and 9 did not hide behind their names.
How 12 Angry Men’s original ending compares to the 1997 remake
Jurors 10 and 3 have different endings in the remake of 12 Angry Men
The 1957 movie and 1997 remake of 12 Angry Men both follow the original teleplay fairly closely, but the TV remake takes a different approach to conveying the same basic themes and character arcs. Juror 10’s terrifying and grandiose monologue and subsequent reactions make for one of the most memorable scenes in either version of the story. In the 1957 film, the juror begins a vitriolic tirade, and each person stands up, one by one, and turns away from him. This moment is especially powerful in a film from the 1950s.
The scene in the 1997 remake starts the same way. Juror 10 begins spewing hate and racist statements to justify him thinking that the young man on trial is guilty. Because Juror 10 is black in this version of the story, he starts appealing to the other black members of the jury, saying that Latinx people are outbreeding them. The change serves as a reminder that minority groups are not a monolith, and they can also have racist attitudes. Rather than stand up and turn their backs on him, the men at the table push back against his statements.
Ultimately, Juror 10 acquiesces to the others with a not guilty vote because he doesn’t care anymore, not because he actually believes the person is innocent. His attitude towards the vote is a massive change from the 1957 version of 12 Angry Men. In the original movie, Juror 10 votes not guilty, apparently because he believes that the young man did not commit the crime, regardless of his views on Latinx people. Juror 10’s decision in the 1997 remake reinforces the fact that racism is not an easy thing to overcome.
Related
The 1997 remake of 12 Angry Men also changes how Juror 3 realizes his bias and changes his vote. Rather than tearing up a picture of his son, the juror ends his monologue by saying that he can feel the knife going inside him, comparing himself to the victim. After the emotional climax, Juror 8 points out that the defendant is not his son.
Ultimately, both versions are equally impressive, with Lee J. Cobb and George C. Scott giving tear-jerking performances. The original actor expresses the character’s distress more through physicality, whereas the remake actor uses his flexibility and tone to convey his emotional breakdown. In both cases, the emotions change from intense anger and distress to grief in a palpable way.
The Meaning of 12 Evil Men’s Story
12 evil men explore the meaning of humanity through a trial
For a movie with such a simple premise, the real meaning of 12 angry peopleHis story is multifaceted, revealing truths about democracy, the American judicial system and human nature. A pushback against lynch mob mentalities, 12 angry people Highlights how American democracy and the judicial system should work. Other courtroom dramas tend to focus on proving guilt, however 12 angry people Reasserts that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Although it does not make a sensational story, it is just as triumphant to see 12 incredibly different people stop a boy from receiving the death penalty as it can be to see a conviction in other media.
12 angry people is also a study of human nature, good and bad. The movie shows how prejudice can cloud a person’s judgment, from Juror 3’s relationship with his son to Juror 10’s racism. This is leveraged with Juror 8’s moral compass, and by coupling compassion with the facts as they are presented, he ensures a fair verdict. Juror 8’s compassion is the heartbeat of the story, exemplified by him helping Juror 3 with his coat after Juror 3’s breakdown. Going through these complex topics in just over 90 minutes is an impressive feat, demonstrating that 12 angry peopleIts reputation as one of the best movies of the 1950s is well-earned.