12 angry men This is a film with a simple premise, but the ending conflict and themes are incredibly complex. Based on the 1954 television play by Reginald Rose (not the book). 12 angry men shows jury deliberations in a murder case in which a boy is accused of killing his father and faces the death penalty. At first, the jury almost unanimously finds the young man guilty, but deliberations continue when the eighth juror (Henry Fonda) disagrees. Juror 8 single-handedly manages to convince the other jurors that there is room for reasonable doubt in the case, ultimately resulting in a 12-0 score.”not guiltyverdict.
Let’s move on to the finale 12 angry menJuror 8 managed to win over five other jurors, completely splitting the jury. However, a vocal minority, led by Juror 3, remains steadfast in their belief that the defendant is guilty. Combined with sweltering heat and peer pressure, tensions rise in the deliberation room as more jurors change their votes to “not guilty“
Did the boy kill his father in 12 Angry Men?
12 Angry Men Doesn’t Give a Specific Answer About the Young Man’s Guilt
12 angry men The trial centers on a teenage boy accused of murdering his father with a switchblade, but despite all the evidence presented in the cult 1950s film, it is unclear whether the young man actually committed the crime. By the end of the film, the 12 jurors manage to reach a consensus that they must reach a verdict: “not guilty“, since none of them can prove the boy’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, convincing evidence of the defendant’s innocence in committing the crime was never obtained. 12 angry men present an alternative to the one who killed the boy’s father.
It doesn’t really matter whether the young man killed his father in 12 angry menbut rather that he was not executed due to insufficient evidence and the personal prejudices of others.
Although 12 angry men While the incomplete confirmation of a character’s innocence may be seen as an unsatisfactory ending to a court drama, it is in fact an ideal ending. Ultimately, Henry Fonda’s famous film is not about who committed the murder, but rather whether it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a boy did or did not commit the murder. So it doesn’t really matter whether the young man killed his father in 12 angry menbut rather that he was not executed due to insufficient evidence and the personal prejudices of others.
Why did the third juror change his vote?
Juror 3 had an emotional breakdown in the jury room.
Throughout the film, Juror 3 Lee J. Cobb continues to passionately believe the boy is guilty of killing his father, only changing his voice to “not guilty“at the very end of the film. Previously, Juror 3 was part of the voting majority 12 angry men characters who believed the young man was guilty, but in the end he was the only one left. Juror 3 gives an impassioned speech about why he must be guilty, but after he rips a photo of his son out of his wallet, Juror 3 breaks down and changes his vote. Although it is never stated why the third juror changed his vote, 12 angry men hinted at his reasoning.
Connected
12 angry men 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 this connection onto the crime, what made him want the boy to be guilty and why he was so willing to believe the prosecution’s evidence. Juror 3 only realizes that he had these prejudices when he tears up a photo of his son. Due to Juror 3’s remorse for the situation with his son, as well as his realization that he had allowed his personal life to cloud his judgment, he changes his vote, ensuring “not guiltyverdict in the case.
Hot Weather Symbolism During the Discussion of 12 Angry Men
The weather symbolizes the emotional experiences of the characters
First of all, 12 angry men follows Juror 8’s crusade to prove that a boy may be innocent, but the film also focuses heavily on the harsh weather the men must endure. Throughout much of the classic Hollywood film, the jury suffers from the heat, which is made worse by the fact that the fan in the deliberation room is apparently broken. In addition to discussing the case, the jurors mention the heat, and while this may just be another reason they want to speed up deliberations, the heat has a deeper meaning in 12 angry men.
This is not just an arbitrary weather pattern, but the heat in 12 angry men – one of the most important symbols of the film. The searing heat conveys several key aspects of the characters’ experiences, such as the need to come together and reach a verdict, their hostility towards each other, and their discomfort at having their preconceptions about their case and life challenged. Just as the jury reaches a score of 6–6, it begins to rain, which becomes a turning point in their deliberations. as more jurors begin to hear Juror 8’s arguments. Juror 7 may even turn on “brokena fan allowing cooler heads to prevail.
Why do jurors 8 and 9 reveal their names to each other?
Two jurors bonded by a common humanity
At the end 12 angry menJurors 8 and 9 stop outside the courthouse and share their names with each other, which is strange considering none of the other jurors did the same. Juror 9 taking this step reflects the difference between him and the other members of the jury. While the others changed their vote because of their beliefs in the case, Juror Nine made the move as a sign of respect for Juror 8.
The rest of the jurors considered number 8 a liability until each of them was convinced. In contrast, 9 saw the humanity in the man sitting next to him and realized that he wasn’t just trying to be difficult. A couple changing names signifies their mutual respect, connection and shared humanity. After all, names have power. Saying your name and calling the other person by name are some of the most basic signs of connection.
Additionally, the couple exchanging names at the end reminds viewers that these twelve men felt safe showing their truest selves, in part due to the anonymity of the situation. It was easy for the eleven men to vote guilty without even talking about the case, knowing that the young man could die, because they didn’t have to face the consequences of their choice.
The film shows how prejudice can cloud a person’s judgment, from Juror 3’s relationship with his son to Juror 10’s racism.
Moreover, the jury in 12 angry men could demonstrate their bias without much risk since no one knew their names and they were behind closed doors. Ultimately, two of the most compassionate men sharing names helps reinforce the idea that anonymity breeds contempt. Unlike the others, the eighth and ninth jurors did not hide behind their anonymity.
How does the original ending of 12 Angry Men differ from the 1997 remake?
Jurors 10 and 3 have different endings in 12 Angry Men remake
Both the 1957 film and the 1997 remake of 12 Angry Men follow the original television play fairly closely, but the television remake takes a different approach to conveying the same basic themes and character arcs. Juror 10’s horrifying and bigoted monologue and subsequent reaction creates one of the most memorable scenes in each version of the story. In the 1957 film, a juror goes on a tirade and one by one each man stands up 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 making hateful and racist statements to justify his view that the young man on trial is guilty. Because Juror 10 is black in this version of the story, he begins appealing to the other black members of the jury, saying that Hispanics are superior to them in offspring. This change serves as a reminder that minority groups are not a monolith and can also harbor racist sentiments. Instead of standing up and turning their backs on him, the men at the table rebut his statements.
In the end, Juror 10 goes along with the others, voting not guilty because he no longer cares, not because he truly believes the man is innocent. His attitude towards voting is very different from the 1957 version of 12 Angry Men. In the original film, the 10th juror votes not guilty, apparently because he believes the young man did not commit a crime, regardless of his opinion of Latinos. The decision of the 10th juror in the 1997 remake reinforces the fact that racism is not easy to overcome.
Connected
The 1997 remake of 12 Angry Men also changes the way Juror 3 becomes aware of his bias and changes his voice. Instead of tearing up the photo of his son, the juror ends his monologue by saying that he feels the knife going into him, comparing himself to the victim. After this emotional climax, the eighth juror notes that the accused is not his son.
Ultimately, both versions are equally impressive, with Lee J. Cobb and George C. Scott delivering heartbreaking performances. The original actor expresses the character’s suffering more through physicality, whereas the remake actor uses intonation and tone to convey his emotional breakdown. In both cases, emotions tangibly switch from intense anger and distress to sadness.
The meaning of the story of 12 angry men
12 Angry Men Explore the Meaning of Humanity Through Trial
For a movie with such a simple premise, it makes real sense. 12 angry menThe story is multifaceted and reveals truths about democracy, the American judicial system, and human nature. Fight back against the vigilante mentality 12 angry men highlights how American democracy and the judicial system should work. Other courtroom dramas tend to focus on proving guilt, but 12 angry men confirms that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. While it doesn’t sensationalize the story, seeing 12 very different men stop a boy from getting the death sentence is just as triumphant as seeing a conviction in other media.
12 angry men It is also an exploration of human nature, the good and the bad. The film shows how prejudice can cloud a person’s judgment, from Juror 3’s relationship with his son to Juror 10’s racism. This is reinforced by Juror 8’s moral compass, and by combining compassion with the facts as they are presented, he ensures a fair verdict. Juror 8’s compassion is the heart of the story, exemplified by him helping Juror 3 put on his coat after Juror 3 breaks down. Learning these complex topics in just over 90 minutes is an impressive feat, demonstrating that 12 angry menIts reputation as one of the best films of the 1950s is well deserved.