Rather, it was a strategy to identify any feeling of uncertainty or doubt. In this movie, we see the outcome a civilized society would expect for an innocent person. The verdict must be unanimous. When the first ballot is taken, 10 of his fellow jurors agree, and there is only one holdout--Juror No. Juror 3, the antagonist, opinionated and stubborn, has been played by Franchot Tone, Lee J.
Even though they all fit into one demographic ,their life experiences and the stage at which they were in their life had a direct effect on how they each approached the situation. One of the key characters is Juror No. Unfortunately, leaving our prejudices outside the court room door is near impossible. The current jury had immigrants, had men of different occupational and cultural backgrounds and of different age so it played on some demographics just not the common ones of nationality and gender. Juror 3 gives a long and increasingly tortured string of arguments, building on earlier remarks that his relationship with his own son is deeply strained, which is ultimately why he wants the accused to be guilty.
The film forces the characters and audience to evaluate their own self-image through observing the personality, experiences, and actions of the jurors. This played a huge part in the decision making process. However, the open voting procedure, by a simple raise of hand was counterproductive. His heated reaction is seemingly a byproduct of other jurors trying to make sense of the case and not convict the kid on loose and, somewhat unbelievable causes. Jurors 12 and 1 then change their votes, leaving only three dissenters: Jurors 3, 4 and 10. When they began discussing the case, Juror 1 took the leadership role and left the floor open to whoever wanted to speak. Today we are looking at the 1957 movie Twelve Angry Men directed by Sidney Lumet and featuring Henry Fonda as Davies.
His reasoning revealed that he was prejudice. Although eleven jurors claimed that the boy was guilty, only juror 8 questions about the decision of other jurors. In 1997, a television remake of the film was directed by and produced by. The film, set in a New York City courthouse, tells the story of a twelve man jury at the trial of an 18 year old Hispanic boy from the slums on trail for murdering his father. Juror 1 takes the lead based on his juror number and decides that their juror numbers will determine the order in which to speak. In fact, two had an emotional outburst.
Jurors 5, 6 and 8 question the witness's claim to have seen the defendant fleeing 15 seconds after hearing the father's body hit the floor since he was physically incapable of reaching an appropriate vantage point in time, having once suffered a stroke. Pressured by Juror Eight, the jury agrees that it would take about ten seconds for the train to pass by the apartment. Because the jurors were not political by occupation, the guiding principles of governance were mostly absent in their debate. The men are anything but dispassionate when the deliberation process reveals their irrationalities and biases and makes them confront them. He struggles as Eight watches calmly. Therefore, the procedure of going around the table and having everyone voice their argument proved to be productive.
The men file in and decide to take a short break before deliberating. Therefore, jurors use their emotions and personal biases over facts to judge this trial. In 2007, presented a production of the play that was recorded as an ; directed by , the cast included , , , , James Gleason, , , , Rob Nagle, , , and. He has his opinion and loves to share it. His use of different procedures in voting greatly influenced the outcome.
We hear all kinds of stuff about witnesses and testimony that's happened before this movie begins, but all we really know about it is what we hear secondhand from the jurors. On the other hand, I think a decision may have been reached more quickly if there was a better structure although I am not sure the most factually accurate decision would have been made. Final closing arguments having been presented, a visibly bored judge instructs the jury to decide whether the boy is guilty of murder. One could say that the lack of instituted rules — the only one they have is that they must reach a verdict unanimously — leads to power struggles among the jurors as well as taking the conversation in unexpected turns. In this play, the weather changes from being very hot to rainy and stormy. The 10th juror also had an emotional outburst. Yet the play does not represent either the American criminal justice system or the abstract concept of justice as simple or clear.
Other jurors, including Juror 4, confirm that they saw the same thing. This allows jurors to see things from varying perspectives and helps to eliminate bias during discussions and decision-making although it is unlikely that bias can ever be completely eliminated. This was a curious piece of information for us to learn since this juror adamantly stuck to his vote that the defendant was guilty until that very point, when he realized, based on his own life experiences, that it was impossible for the boy to have stabbed his father. Similarly, after the initial vote, the group chose to have each person state his or her opinion in more detail, which played a clear role in leading to the eventual outcome. When he finally comes to terms with the realization that he is basing his decision on his own biases, he lets go in a very emotion way.