In the movie 12 Angry Men, a jury is deliberating over the guilt or innocence of a teenager accused of murdering his father. The lead juror constantly pushes for the panel to consider other possibilities, but it’s clear he’s not going to get anywhere. This scenario is strikingly similar to that of the potential extinction of humans on earth.
In 1957, a group of nine men were all in jail for various crimes. One day, the jailer let them out. They soon realized that they had formed a conspiracy and took revenge on their former cellmates. The men were eventually able to overcome their differences and turn the tables on their attackers.
Contents
Characters of 12 Angry Men 1957
The Accused
A young man, named Henry is accused by a jury of killing the father during an argument between the two. A persistent juror who will not be swayed from his opinion despite being outvoted and shunned by most others in court. He’s pretty insistent on defending himself when all other counsel have spoken up, as he feels that without him there wouldn’t any case at hand to begin with!
Juror #1 (Foreman)
The first juror to speak his mind regarding Henry’s potential guilt or innocence, he feels confident in calling the shots and orchestrating an alliance against all other jurors. As such, he alone has the power of deciding whether to condemn a young man who had killed his father during a heated argument. He’s taken in dictatorial measures when even others did not appreciate him speaking up on matters that did not directly involve them!
Juror #2
A heavy-set farmer whose concerns and reasoning doesn’t quite add up. He feels that he should follow the law, even though large parts of it aren’t exactly fair to him. This shows how laws are essentially supposed to protect small portions of society at large and those who don’t benefit regularly from them often suffer unfair trial and other treatment on a case-by-case basis
Juror #3
A 51-year-old grandfather who believes that Henry is innocent, as he supports his verdict of ‘guilty’ by saying “this boy’s not guilty.” He feels strongly about this and tries to call the other jurors out on their reasoning when they show doubt.
Juror #4
A young shop assistant who initially expresses a desire for justice in our protagonist’s favor but turns into one of the most adamant supporters from day two onward. Eventually he sheds his stubborn ideal when another member of the jury slowly convinces him in Henry’s favor.
Juror #5
An undiagnosed schizophrenic who claims to see things that aren’t there, like a rock breaking a vase. He’s quiet and serious throughout most of his time on trial but starts talking by late into day one where he spouts random theories about how juries should be.
Juror #6
A retired doctor who’s as observant as he is calm. He notices a lot of things going on in the courtroom and tends to be pretty chill despite even seeing something wrong with much that goes on all around him. His verdict feels like it came out of left field, but we can see why he ultimately finds Henry innocent!
Juror 7#
A young woman who briefly brings out our protagonist’s dead father before the trial begins. Her sad, apologetic tone gets her picked up fast by a juror that no doubt feels sympathy for the family she came from. It was obvious this lady knows something about guilt-inducing sooner or later! #8
A kind elderly man who keeps trying to get defensive authorities in charge of Henry’s case on record as he voted ‘guilty’.
Juror 8#
A man that makes up a story about how he got into a cab accident so as to feign ignorance on the incident. He’s quick and knowledgeable, despite his willingness to make things up if need be.
Juror 9#
A quiet young woman who never talks much during trial except for expressing her support for Henry early in day two– when she asks “was the evidence fair?” This lady is liable, though!
Juror 10#
A retired professor who’s greatly interested in the meaning of life. He has a routine that comes out time and again from day to time, getting the giggles with proclamations like “God is always looking down on us”. He was often seen reading lots but we never did find out what he just read before bed.
Juror 11#
A scientist with a direct and logically curious mind who at first in day two of the trial wanted to blame Henry for the ongoing chaos, but later admitted that he was wrong. We’re glad this man peeked away his system ethics when they got bombed!
Juror 12#
A woman who pretended to be very rational at first but is revealed as having a sudden rush of emotions later on. She seemed worried about what was going to happen on the stand, and when nothing came out said that she guessed it wasn’t important enough for lunchtime anyway.
Juror 13# Just our random guy. No reason really why he ended up there…the jury got picked by lottery so technically all these people should have been.
12 Angry Men 1957 Storyline
That “12 Angry Men” story about all the jurors wanting a murderer to be found guilty because they thought that would make them look smart amongst their friends. However, a changed man from the first day of trials due to seeing how callous and moronic some of these people are in reaching for conclusions too fast has given him an insight into just making judgements based on facts is actually important. As he puts it:
This movie plays on the mind of the man, who after hearing all points from both sides ends up having to choose between what he knows is correct and before he knew it was, but with many other uncertainties coming into play which presents itself as an actual problem for him.
A great quote about his situation: As that ticked off juror indignantly answered a question put to them by Mr. Penn: Did you watch the whole thing?
Exposition of 12 Angry Men
This is an overwhelming portion of the movie. The “he told them XYZ” technique (which permeates since about 1942) can be found here for example: We stick with three men who will have to make a final verdict in one day, and for simple reasons: A fellow on the jury had been there overnight; He has once before passed judgment on everyone present and was reasonably sure that he would do so again.
Rising Action
The investigation into the murder of a young girl is dragging on and no one wants to finish their work because they have too much time invested. One tries to observe that others should first use logic as he has been scared by his initial fears but keeps having second thoughts as an ongoing process of whether or not this was right. So, what would everyone else do? His doubt continues until there can be some resolution at hand.
Climax
The most memorable part of the movie. The theme starts to arise during a discussion by one juror who gets restless as he continues on his own trail exploring every angle and detail surrounding this event: Controversy about the film and its methodology.
This movie is full of faulty logic. For example, there isn’t testimony in support or opposition of either a belief that Lee Harvey Oswald on president Kennedy’s behalf did this crime himself. It was also not shown how anyone had any sort of witness proof prior to his death; meaning he could have been sitting here discussing with me how we both shouldn’t believe him if I didn’t hear it.
Falling Action
There isn’t anything ground-breaking that happens in this movie; it’s not the injustice of the case towards Jackie Kennedy, she is perfectly correct to throw a fit until one juror can be removed.
It was clear even before he testified on why creating such suspicion-based paths could never go anywhere as shown when Brad Cooper comes into play on why so many people were being unlawfully murdered: “If I tell him what happened and they kill me…”
Conclusion
I want to believe that there are more just people in this world and thus if we can combine the effort of our people’s skills together regardless where we come from, race or religion it would be a great thing for humanity. But I do not have any evidence nor is turning water into wine something possible anymore so therefore I must continue living my life according to how things currently stand.
12 Angry Men 1957 Review
12 Angry Men 1957 film is nowhere near what it should be. There is no story, character development (with short cameos), nor an ending. We are just supposed to sit back and watch how these men react with the situation they are facing.
This would be a very interesting procedure if there was some kind of understanding that what they witnessed should change their view on life in general but since Brad Cooper has not showed any moral evidence he’s been listening to Taylor or someone else on his behavior towards Dean and Lee – who is doing their job by examining the evidence in front of them (NOT GIVING UP), at least Taylor give it a try, as for Cooper I truly believe he’s not an exceedingly terrible guy but his actions are beyond belief.
Taylor does all she can to help these men turn over main issues pertaining to the case that could help bring justice: cases like motive and innocence/guilt. John Cassavetes provides a few insights into the different men and character perception of these frustrations that they cannot give up in order to determine whether or not Lee was guilty without a doubt. Plus, with so little work actually needing to be done on their behalf by this writer & editor (Meredith-Lambert, who also had no idea what she’s doing), maybe it shouldn’t still fall at her feet as failure?
There is nothing helpful here except hindsight caused by years of experience that knows the most important thing in life is to avoid repeating mistake. I also liked how Brad Cooper had this perfectionist trait during an era where people were worried about mimicking behavior and living their fears that now he’s doing things with panache, so at least I can go my own way without trying to recreate something based on someone else’s image: what you see is what you get.
What People Like About 12 Angry Men 1957
- makes this film such a classic regardless of how
- much it’s been done to improve the quality. I agree there is no denying the fact that our reactions are based on people seeing us from behind and can’t be judged, but you train yourself not to prejudge or discriminate in any way: where do we get all those prejudices? From helpfulness or caring about what other people think by getting into their beds etc. – even pretending like there.
- There is a flawless supporting cast to keep everyone in line and
- make something of the lead man John Henry Martin: best choice for his age and originality. His style gets most of its impact from not knowing what he’s doing like trying to act out identities too much but with real elements that lets us see through him, so you kind of feel yourself letting go through – I totally let myself go when it came time putting down 12 different possible.
What People Like About 12 Angry Men 1957
- It is being able to keep guessing at things that make us wonder how
- such a plain faced man can be so sympathetic and real. That may sound complimenting but it’s not: you look for something about the character in his facial expressions, gestures etc. which are usually much more important than their bizarre style of interaction with others that we don’t actually criticize if they’re as convincing as possible. They want characters to supply what is missing within themselves.
- Even though the film has a more violent feel to it than most, there is hardly anything you can recall and compare it with in this age. There are some gimmicks that worked at one time but no longer stand out like when Brad Cooper’s father threatens him because we all know he was supposed to use an axe; or Martin being hung up on his decision where his colleagues pressure him earlier: should they get into hell or just stick by their witness.
Final Thought
The Angry Young Men was a series of British novels written by John Osborne and first published in 1957. In the mid-1950s, the writers were a group of young men who had grown up during World War II. Many of them were writers themselves, but others had become involved in politics, film and television. The Angry Young Men books are very critical of contemporary society.
At one point in the film, Callaghan hits Mario Bianchi (Philip Dorn) pretty hard with his fist and you get an impression it didn’t bother him. That may be true of a few people but not most of us: that would take unbelievable patience to stay so calm and still faced when another person is actually hitting you – unless your emotion doesn’t carry over from outside as much as perhaps no other situation
FAQs
What Is the Best Way to Watch This Movie?
Watch it on Blu-ray. The film reminds me of To Kill a Mockingbird, which also deals with rape and responsibility. The characters are different in the two films but they have similarities that I found interesting to compare between them: both take place around where I live (Kansas). In contrast to most of the other works by Bill Watterson – 12 angry men are more believable; this makes sense as originally based on something real/true.
Why Did Arthur Kennedy Ignore the Other Members of His Anti-machine Jury?
He ignored them because, by legal definition of the time, he would have to vote for conviction. A conditional verdict was never allowed under British law prior to 1965 when a jury has been impaneled (whereas in this case it wasn’t). In his book “Hanoi Hannah” Robertson is assigned James Can’s character thus.
How Is 12 Angry Men Relevant to Modern Society?
As I write my book “12 Angry Avant-Gardists”, four out of the five jurors are unknown, or recently become so (Leo McKeen died in 2001). Each was an artist, writer and/or film maker. Two have passed away. Richard Beyer — musician who appeared with Jack Lemmon in Of Mice & Men just before his tragic death at age 27 from a drug overdose when on tour with The Bang.
Why Is 12 Angry Men a Good Film?
The reason 12 Angry Men is a great film is that it provides an interesting and suspenseful storyline. The characters are well-developed, and the ending is satisfying. However, it is also a very relevant film. The events of the film happen in a court room, and it highlights how different opinions can lead to different outcomes. The most interesting aspect of 12 Angry Men is that there are so many ways the movie could have ended.
The jury was not going to find guilt, but they were still deciding on the case. The story has multiple endings, which makes it all the more interesting. However, there is one
What Is the Main Storyline of 12 Angry Men?
The main storyline of 12 Angry Men is the trial of a teenager accused of murdering his father. The jury is deliberating over whether or not to find him guilty, and the lead juror constantly pushes for them to consider other possibilities. However, it’s clear he’s not going to get anywhere. This scenario is strikingly similar to that in real life, where different opinions can lead to different outcomes.
Leave a Reply