12 Angry Men.A Review Movie Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

12 Angry Men.A - Movie Review sheathThe dialog box does not assume him to be innocent, as the law prescribes. Even the judge drones his boredom during jury instructions. The many ethical dilemmas, values and concepts depicted in this film include 1. Presumed innocence, ethic or legend? 2. Personal prejudice in the jury room. 3. Personal experience in the jury room. 4. Personal agendum in the jury room. 5. Interpersonal group dynamics bullies, opinion leaders, bigots, conformists The film explores the best and worst in human behavior in the setting of the jury room amidst a literal life and expiry decision. This paper explores that treatment. Presumed Innocence Ethic or Myth Eleven of the jurors voted guilty in the first polling without the good of an evidence review. Only juror 81 voted not guilty. The anonymity of nameless jurors reduced audience prejudice, although, juror 8 wore a white suit and juror 32 wore a black suit in keeping with Hollywood symbolism. jurywoman 8 stoo d alone in his conviction, his ethic, that before sending a suspect to the death penalty, the jury had a duty to review the case. Several of the jurors commented they thought the suspect was guilty from archean in the case, indicating an early personal deliberation without listening to the falsifying first. Juror 23 says he cannot charge his reasons into words, just thought the suspect guilty from the word go. (Lumet 1957) Juror 64 says he was convert early (Lumet 1957) when the prosecutor established motive. Juror 75 exclaims no one thought about it twice (Lumet 1957) except juror 8. Clearly, these jurors did not honor their commitment to impartiality prior to deliberations. Although the defense attorney did not aggressively cross examine witnesses, most jurors felt the defense council was competent, mostly by assumption. The assumption of susceptibility logically lead to the conclusion that if there were a defense, it would have been presented. No defense, no rebuttal, no i nnocence. The defense council is never on screen, a cinematic no show. The fact that the boy was accused of killing his father, a man whose position was sympathetic to many on the jury, ironically foreshadowed the juror 8 role in this drama. (Cunningham 1986) Juror 3 said his parenting skills involved making his son a man (Lumet 1957) until his son punched him in the jaw during an argument. Juror 8 raised his kids through love and respect. Juror 8 saw in the defendant an innocent child that never had a chance while the others only saw his shallow guilt. The movie continued through the first act with only juror 8 assuming the defendant was not guilty. The others were too emotional or prejudiced to review the facts. The first act ends with juror 8 making a leap of faith. He challenges the others to make a secret ballot and if all 11 vote guilty, he will too. The votes are counted and a 10-1 split is discovered. The older gentleman, juror 96, decided to bum up juror 8 on principle al though ten jurors did not presume innocence, the young defendant would receive thoughtful deliberation from his jury. Personal Prejudice The jurors demonstrated a varying degree of prejudice, both(prenominal) racial and class based. As the jurors entered the jury room, several conversations revolved around the defendant and his social status. The watchword of evidence brought to light the prejudice and backstory7 of the jurors. In a more benign comment, Juror 48 avers the defendant came from the slums and slums create criminals. Everyone knows that (Lumet 1957). Juror 59 disagrees with this assessment, reviewing his own history and asking for sensitivity to the youths plight. Juror 1010 is a more vehement bigot, spewing stereotype and cursing