12 Angry Men 3

12 Angry Men 3Issues
12 Angry Men (original title: 12 Angry Men) is an American film from 1957, written by Reginald Rose. The film received three Academy Award nominations, best picture, best director and best adapted screenplay. It is an excellent example of 1950s social awareness and preparation of the common people in everyday situations. The film is thus a purely naturalistic wonders where all the action happens in real time, except for the film's beginning and end, in one place.

Historically, we can look at the film in the context of the year of publication, 1957. USA was at this time in a political transition period. The civil rights movement was already well underway with the judgment of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 and the bus boycott in Montgomery in 1956. Many of the film's themes is about racial and social inequalities which characterize this era in American history.

The film is critical of society and provokes important social issues in the course of action. Examples are "class differences", "justice", "doubt", "one-to-many" and "the relationship between father and son." Together these stresses, a specific, comprehensive theme through action races, namely the "prejudice". Jury members' prejudices and personal insights against the accused, the trial and to one another is driving both the problem and the resolution of the action. The problem is thus as follows:

How are the jury members' judgment influenced by prejudice?

Action Report
It is late summer in New York. The year is 1957 and a jury of twelve men is about to settle a young boy's future. The boy is charged with murder, and a guilty verdict will send the boy to the electric chair. Almost all jurors seem to have the same undoubted mein none of the defendant's obvious guilt. Steward 8, however, does not agree with the rest of the group. This introduces protagonist. He justifies his choice for no other reason than that he is not sure, and because of the justice system requirement of a unanimous jury, they are with this forced to discuss the matter.

It apparently seems to be an irreconcilable conflict between a single man and a group of eleven men, dissolves gradually into bitter quarrels between all jurors. Throughout the film it emerges how personal insights and opinions affect their attitudes.

We see later how they go from fighting against each other, to work together toward a common goal. One by one, they manage to put down their own personal opinions, to think rationally about the matter. The sentence ends with a unanimous jury believes that there is enough doubt in the case to justify an acquittal. The defendant is sentenced "not guilty". At the same time you never know the truth behind the case. Was an innocent man spared the electric chair? Got a guilty man set free? The viewers are left to decide for themselves.

For practical purposes, the characters set up in order of when they change their votes from "guilty" to "not guilty".

Jury 8
Jury member 8 is the only one of the jurors who vote "not guilty" at the first ballot. He appears to be sympathetic and friendly, and is portrayed as the most heroic jury member, protagonist. He is unhappy with the way the trial was handled, and wishing to examine the evidence more closely. Through the action's run, he uses time to encourage the rest of the group to be patient. He is convinced that there is enough doubt in the matter.
Steward 9
Jury member 9 is an older man. He is the first of jurors showing support and respect the protagonist desire for justice.

Steward 5
Jury member 5 is a key member of the jury because he had a very similar upbringing as the defendant, and says that he has lived in the "ghetto" all his life. He is afraid to express their own opinions, especially in front of the older members of the group.

Steward 11
Jury member 11 is a German immigrant and watchmaker. He shows patriotism and mentions several times how much he values ​​democracy and the American legal system.

Steward 2
Steward 2 is a more shy type, the action uses a lot of time to get comfortable enough to participate in the discussion. He is easily influenced by the opinions of others and can not justify their own choices.

Steward 6
Jury member 6 is one of the less prominent characters in the film. He is a house painter, and is pleased that the trial continue so he will not have to work.

Steward 7
Steward 7s biggest concern in the matter is whether it will end before the baseball match his starts. He changes his voice for no other reason than that the majority change their voices, and wish that the debate should end. He represents samfunnsindividene who reluctantly want to be in a jury.

Steward 12
Jury member 12 is an arrogant and impatient advertising manager. He wants the trial to end so he can return to his career. Before the jury began interactions, he speaks with the protagonist, where he says: What did you think of the case? ... I'll tell you we were lucky two get a murder case. I figured us for a burglary or an assault of something. Those can be the dullest. "This remark shows finish what Reginald Rose thinks is wrong with the American justice system. We have here a person determining a person's life, and he is glad that it is a murder, because he thinks it's exciting. He shows a complete lack of sympathy.

Steward 1
1 Steward is chairman of the jury, and is responsible for keeping the group organized. He takes the authoritarian role seriously and want to be as fair as possible.

Steward 10
Steward 10 is one of the most aggressive attack on the defendant. He is ignorant and bigoted, and condemned the accused as "one of them", right from the beginning. A notable point in the film is when Steward 8, our protagonist, argues how the defendant is too smart to have done such a murder, and Steward 10 replies: "Bright? He's a common ignorant slob. He do not even speak good English. "This remark is interesting because what he says reflects his own. This irony is compounded humorous when Steward 11, the German immigrant, correct the grammar of his: 'He * does not * even speak good English. "

A similar case is when Steward 10 holding a long speech about how dangerous immigrants, saying: "They're against us, they hate us, they want to destroy us. They're a danger. "This is again a fascinating remark in the movie because he talks about how dangerous the defendant is, while viewers and everyone else in the jury realizes that Steward 10 is the actual father. He is the one who pollutes society and are a danger to justice. This is an overt dramatization of the incredibly strong prejudices that may lie hidden in the subconscious of ordinary people.

Steward 4
Jury member 4 is an eloquent stockbroker and represents the pure logical form of reasoning that goes on in the action. He encourages others to avoid emotional arguments and instead use rational discussion. He does not change his voice before all the arguments against the accused can be doubted.
Steward 3
Like the Steward 10, the Steward 3:01 of the keenest counterparties to the defendant. He is regarded as the antagonist in the film, and there are different factors that allow us to define him like this. Firstly, he separates himself from the Steward 10 in the way he handles the discussions. He is the first to directly address the protagonist, unlike Steward 10 showing little interest in the protagonist arguments. Second, he is the last of the jury that changes her voice to "not guilty" and he appears thus as "the last hurdle." In addition, he represents everything the protagonist is, loud, opinionated, tempered and influenced by personal insight. We learn early in the action that he has a bad relationship with his own son, that he no longer maintains contact with. This cultivates prejudice he has against the defendant. He believes that the defendant is unquestionably guilty of murder, and does not change the meaning before the end of the movie when he realizes that he is projecting his own feelings for her son, the defendant.

The film is very interesting in terms of structure. We see nothing of the trial or the events leading up to the trial. The estimate we do not know other than some final instructions from the judge, as if seers themselves will make a decision. Through jury members' discussions with each other, viewers learn piecemeal on the matter. While on the surface appears to be about the trial and the jury's goal of being able to choose a verdict, the film focuses also on the men themselves, and their own discoveries.

Furthermore, the film's almost no detail. At no place in the movie the names, neither of jurors, the accused or the witnesses. This allows each of them function as part of a larger allegory of the American society.

In a different way the film is about the United States, and the country's melting pot of different cultures, ideas and thoughts. The jury includes everything from a German immigrant, Jury 11, to a presumably wealthy stockbroker, Steward 4, a man born and raised in poor living conditions, Steward 5 These men represent the vast diversity in the United States, and the different challenges this brings along. This clash will be a big part of the conflicts in the movie. This is also compounded by the high temperature in the room without a working fan. This represents the men heated discussions and fiery temperament. As they try to agree on a verdict, they also learn to work together toward a common goal.

Throughout the film, it is used many rhetorical strategies of the ferently jurors. The protagonist wants to appeal to their emotions when he talks about how the defendant has been bullied and discriminated against throughout his life. Although this has nothing with the trial to do, trying protagonist to appeal to the humanity in them, so that discussion can continue. He builds up a certain authority among viewers because he first appears to be the only one not affected by ignorance, arrogance, racism, or any other characteristic that may affect your judgment. Several members of the jury using logic and reasoning to lay out the evidence in a rational and concrete way. In particular, it is used by Steward 4

At one point in the action, it appears that the jury is divided into three categories. First we Steward 8 and 9, who are fighting against the rest of the group. In addition, we assume that the boy is guilty, but that does not necessarily fighting to convince the other two. This includes Steward 2, 4, 5, 6, 11 and 12 The last three, Steward 3, 7 and 10 seem to be untouched by the arguments of the protagonist. For these, it's not just about changing their opinion about the trial, but also to challenge thoughts and beliefs that lie deep inside them.

Jury member 8 is clearly set up by Rose as the protagonist. He characterized as fair and sympathetic. From the beginning, he takes the matter seriously, unlike many others in the jury, that does not seem to care at all. He votes "not guilty", not because he is convinced of the boy's innocence, but because he is not sure. He wants to discuss the matter. It is undoubtedly meant that he is the one who does the right thing. He is a classic hero, greeted by what appears to be an impossible task: to convince these men.

Further expanding the scope of the film to be about how people make decisions. The different mentalities among men interact in very complex ways. Early in the film we see a group of men, with a clear voice, the one other man. Eventually, however, we see how each of them change their mind in completely different ways. For example, we see that Steward 2 follow the majority opinion, which also reflects his personality, easily influenced by others. We understand that Steward 3 are influenced by their own personal opinions, and Steward 4 appears to be completely dependent on the evidence in the case. We see that the public mind is broken down into individual tanks.

In the middle of the film we have in many ways a reversal of the first part. What makes this part of the film interesting is that Reginald Rose does not create any major discoveries that prove the innocence of the accused. On the contrary, it seems that the arguments of the boy's innocence becomes weaker and weaker.

The fact that it is warm is made clear in this part of the film, as the oppressive heat now being cooled by torrential rain, and the fan in the room now seems. It appears that if the temperature in the room drops, then drops tempers among jurors, and they can now discuss more rationally.

In the last scene of the film we see how Steward 3 is now entirely driven by his own demons to judge the boy in place of his son, whom he referred, has a bad relationship. We see that his decision-making ability in layers peeled away in the final monologue. He mentions the first logical and rational arguments, but it quickly becomes clear that he no longer speaks of the accused, but of his own son. We understand that the personal connections and confusion lies deep inside him. Towards the end he draws his wallet and find a picture where he and his son are together. This is the highlight. Steward 3 breaks down into tears and change his voice, "not guilty". It appears that the film tells us that if we can recognize and see our prejudices, we can defeat them and finally do the right thing.

In the very last scene we see that the jury leaves the room and out into the outside world. This shows that the film was not about judgment and the defendant. If so, we would in the final scene see the judge read the defendant's conviction. However, the highlight either when Steward 3 meets their inner conflicts and defeats them. One can thus say that the film is about a group of men who try to do the right thing, and who eventually succeed.

You can use bias at several levels throughout the movie. In the most obvious sense, the film takes on the racial prejudices. Although the ethnicity of the defendant never revealed in the film, we understand that he is a minority of any kind. We get a close up of the accused in the first scene of the film, which is also the only time we get to see him. These racial prejudices evolving rapidly into a heated discussion in the jury.

In addition comes the jurors into the jury room with preconceived notions and irrational thoughts. 3 Steward create prejudice against the defendant simply because of the age of the boy, something that reminds him of his own estranged son. We also see an interesting example of anti prejudice from Steward 8, in that he basically sympathetic to the defendant, not because of evidence but because he sympathizes but the bad his upbringing.

At the start, we know the circumstances of the action, namely, that a boy is accused of murder, and that his fate will be decided by the jury. We are immediately thrown into a world where the main goal is to determine a young boy's fate.

Throughout the film we see two opposing views on justice. From Steward 8, and the rest of the members who later follows, we see a perspective of justice that favors the defendant, and want to give him a real chance. From 8 Steward's point of view is the boy's bad upbringing, the sloppy, government appointed his lawyer and the jury's quick decision to sentence him guilty, various forms of injustice.

At the same time we see a different view of justice from the other members of the jury, as many believe that the defendant is obviously guilty, and that nothing but the death penalty is unfair directly. This form of justice is based on retribution and revenge. At the same time, because many of them can not explain their choices, appears these jurors that unsympathetic and irrational. On the other hand, manages Steward 6 to articulate his best here, when he says: "Suppose you talk us outta this and the kid really did knife his father?" This is what justifies any guilty verdict against the accused, also allows the protagonist not assigned an omniscient role.

Rose plays the two sides of justice to create contrast and tension between the roles. All the jury wants justice, but how they will achieve it are unclear.

What makes the actual trial in 12 Angry Men very interesting is that we will never know for sure whether the accused is guilty or not. While much of the evidence against the accused is thoroughly compromised by Steward 8, there are still enormous amounts of evidence to suggest that the boy is actually guilty .. It concluded that this evidence is questionable enough that the defendant can not be condemned. We leave the action with a feeling that justice has prevailed over irrationality and prejudice, but as mentioned the truth is never revealed. This doubt about who actually has the "right" permeates the attitudes of jurors and everyone who sees the film.

One against many
The film's first ramp starts as Steward 8 votes unlike the others. This creates an immediate antagonism of the other jurors, and we hear an instant, muttering line from Steward 10: "Boy-oh-boy. There's always one ". We understand quickly that the task for our protagonist is to convince the others, he slowly but surely making. In addition to withstand a larger group to do that which is right, a sign of bravery.

At the end of the film, however, we see a reversal, when all has changed his voice, but Steward 3, which Steward 8 points. He says, "It's eleven to one ... you're alone." This remark highlights a situation of a stubborn man who refuses to do so sensibly. Rose creates contrast between these two scenes to present his own strong point of the film, as well as characterizing the two jurors.

Class Differences
The film presents a wide spectrum of American society. The film juxtaposes one presumably wealthy stockbroker, Steward 4, with which admittedly has lived all his life in poor areas, Steward 5, and all levels of the working classes in between. Most of the men we know nothing about than their profession, but we we still an idea of ​​the socio-economic levels. These men are defined by their profession. This applies in particular Steward 7, who openly express themselves about their own income 28 000 dollars off selling marmalade.

Similarly, ideas about class differences brought into the discussions. Jury 8 mentions immediately poor boy growing up as a possible explanation for the criminal rap sheet, and believes that the boy did not receive an adequate review of the trial, due to his low social status. This creates a doubt about the American justice system is fair across social classes.

The relationship between father and son
It is important to note that the defendant was accused of killing his own father. This father-and-son-relationship eventually becomes very important to how the antagonist, Steward 3, and the protagonist, Steward 8, understands the accused. We learn through action that both fathers. Steward 8 illustrate a somewhat paternal relation to the accused, despite the fact that they neither know each other or have been seen before. He gives him support in a fatherly way and show empathy to the situation he is in.

By Steward 3, however, the defendant compared to the relationship with his own son. The result is that Steward 3 immediately creates prejudice against the boy. The fact that the characters in the film are men in many age groups, amp patriarkalismen.

We note that Rose plays the masculine energy of the room to create archetypal roles. Original title of the film is 12 Angry Men and here is it's definitely something constructive about how precisely men handle issues in a confrontational and often personal way. It also looks competitive instincts, especially between 3 and Steward Steward 8 Father / son relationship has a very important function, because we have a constructive thought about each one of them as potential fathers have confirmed.

No names and almost no specific details used throughout the film. Jurors are simply referred to by number, and the defendant is referred to as "the defendant" or "boy". Although witnesses at trial is nameless, and are called "next door", "the old man", "woman across the street," etc. Except that we understand that it's summer, there is no indication of time or place. It may be the jury at your own lawsuit or even your neighbor. It could be in New York or elsewhere. The roles are not specific individuals, but rather general representatives of the U.S. population. They are ordinary people, and this feeling of anonymity build your social drama in the film.

This is also related to my choice of cover photo. The picture shows jurors, who looks, if not directly into the camera, the observer direction. If we include the number of people in the picture, we get eleven. It shows that the anonymity theme of this film conveys how we all really can be part of this jury, as the twelfth jury member. Jury member who is not in the picture, which by the way is the most prejudice affected the jury, Jury 3, appears to be alone against the rest of the group. In a wider perspective, this represents ourselves. The film tells us that we alone must recognize our prejudices, because they lie deep in our subconscious. It says something that we, as Steward 3 and all others in the jury, the influence of prejudice in everyday life, and we can either recognize or ignore this.

Image and sound
Camera completion operates in conjunction with the film is relatively unique environment. Almost the entire film takes place inside the jury room. Perhaps the most obvious consequence of the limited area that the camera is always close to the characters. By establishing this close intimacy between the camera and the characters, the camera is constantly keen to capture every tiny detail of nuanced facial expressions and reactions.

We also notice that the camera moves relative to the jury members' dynamics. When the jury sits down at the table, the camera still. Similarly, the camera is set in motion as soon as one of them starts to move.

After a brief scene in the courtroom at the estimate, takes the rest of the film, except for the end, the jury room, and we get a scene to establish one long clip. In this scene takes the jury a short break before they start interactions. This introduction to the jury room is an elegant example of the camera's mobility within the framework of the room, as well as the film's use of long, complex clip. In addition to introducing the environment, it also introduces all the characters in the film. While much of the camera work in the film are mostly intense, stationary rings focus on individual characters, this clip is very elegant and thoughtful gestures. The clip maps the jury room's four walls, and connects jurors in their everyday conversations with each other.

It is used minimal sound effects and music in the film. We hear music at the transitions, such as when the jury goes from the courtroom to the jury room, and similarly when the jury leaves the jury room. Besides this, in addition to some shorter crossings at the various referendums being held, the movie musikkløs. The film concentrates on capturing the men's dialogues and the masculine energy of the more or less violent quarrels between them.

This relationship between long-term trailers and music-free scenes is an important factor which highlights the naturalistic feel of the film.

When the jury for the first time enters into the jury room, we get a snapshot and, as mentioned, a long clip, which provides a review of the room. At one end of the room is a wardrobe, at the other end a door into a toilet. Along one wall there are four large windows, and the middle of the room stands a rectangular conference table with twelve chairs.

Rose has made an interesting choice when it comes to seating. Chairman, Steward 1, suggests that they all sit in order of jury numbers, where he sits at one end of the table, and the Steward 2 sitting to his left, etc. This allows the antagonistic characters Steward 3 and 10 sitting relatively Centred around the conference table, which also enhances their arrogance and commitment they have to judge the accused. We see that our protagonist, Steward 8, sits either at one end or the middle of the table. Contrast, the jury his number accidentally made him sit down in the corner. He has involuntarily been assigned a seat that gives him a basic low authority around the table, and thus acquires an immediate sympathy among the viewers as he votes against the rest of the group.

As mentioned, few indications of time and place. We are told that the action takes place in New York, but there are few things, which affirms the setting of this town. We can restrict the environment to the United States, in the most obvious sense because of the language and because of the current sentence to the accused, the death penalty, which you will not find anywhere in the world. If we ignore that the film is in black / white, the jurors smoke indoors, and the fact that all of the jury are men, this is a very timeless film. The themes expressed in the film, especially prejudice topic is as relevant today, if not more.

The film is in many ways a love letter to the American legal system. We has eleven men who jump to conclusions based on prejudice and former erfarninger, challenged by one man's desire for a fair judgment. We see that they are all trying to deal with the two presumably, conflicting objectives to a jury, to punish the guilty and protect the innocent.

While on the surface appears to be about the trial and the jury's goal of being able to choose a verdict, the film focuses also on the men themselves, and their own discoveries. We see that the main task of the jury is to learn to deal with each other and understand themselves.

Through action, we understand how all the different topics being cultivated by the basic idea that prejudices often located deep in the subconscious. The film tells us that prejudice exists in all of us. We can not fail to project them, because prejudice is a product of the human ability to reason and compare, using past experience.

The film also teaches us that if we fail to recognize and see our prejudices, we can rid ourselves of them. We must be critical to important social issues, and learn to know the two sides of the same coin. We live in a world where we all experience different things and serve different experiences. Together, this can make us stronger and weaker.

12 Angry Men 3 9 of 10 on the basis of 1092 Review.