0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
1K vizualizări3 pagini
Sydney Lumet's 12 Angry Men is a study of how biases can influence jury deliberations and the challenges of overcoming communication gaps between people from diverse backgrounds. The film follows 12 jurors as they debate the guilt or innocence of a defendant. Initially, 11 jurors vote to convict based on circumstantial evidence, but Juror #8 questions their assumptions and argues there is reasonable doubt. Through discussion and debate, some jurors begin to see past their prejudices as Juror #8 methodically makes his case.
Descriere originală:
Analysis of communication barrier of character in 12 angry men.
Sydney Lumet's 12 Angry Men is a study of how biases can influence jury deliberations and the challenges of overcoming communication gaps between people from diverse backgrounds. The film follows 12 jurors as they debate the guilt or innocence of a defendant. Initially, 11 jurors vote to convict based on circumstantial evidence, but Juror #8 questions their assumptions and argues there is reasonable doubt. Through discussion and debate, some jurors begin to see past their prejudices as Juror #8 methodically makes his case.
Sydney Lumet's 12 Angry Men is a study of how biases can influence jury deliberations and the challenges of overcoming communication gaps between people from diverse backgrounds. The film follows 12 jurors as they debate the guilt or innocence of a defendant. Initially, 11 jurors vote to convict based on circumstantial evidence, but Juror #8 questions their assumptions and argues there is reasonable doubt. Through discussion and debate, some jurors begin to see past their prejudices as Juror #8 methodically makes his case.
Adapted from the play of the same name by Reginald Rose, Sydney Lumets 12
Angry Men is a fascinating study of interplay between characters coming from
diverse backgrounds, the prejudices held and the biases discovered; the communication gaps created therein and the art, science and skill involved to overcome them by a persistent, persuasive and dedicated man. There is one undercurrent to all those voting not guilty based largely on circumstantial evidence is that they are unwilling to question their assumptions. In real life, such kind of communication tend to be uninspiring, monotonous and routine and hence have a short shelf-life and dont leave an impression. A brief description of the Juror No 1
Juror No 2
Juror No 3
Juror No 4
Foreman. Though he is methodical and displays some
traits of leadership, he is impatient and is not very good at resolution of conflicts. He gets aggressive needlessly while in a confrontation with Juror 10 and then withdraws from the group for a while. Lacks the objectivity that should be in a leader. He is plain dumb and is incapable to forming an opinion on his own. Either he has no analytical ability or is not sufficiently articulate. He is like a wallflower looking for an opportunity to bloom but a bully like Juror no 3 sitting next to him isnt helping his case at all. Most of the times he is heard speaking is when he is talking one on one with another person and is mostly reticent in the group. His shell is his barriercommunication or otherwise. Lack of interest in the process of the case as he admits he fell asleep and makes a prejudiced comment at the start which should have been a precursor for the rest. Self-denial as he says he has no personal feelings about this case. Lack of self-awareness. Meticulous as he is only one with the written records. He is generally biased and jumps to conclusions without sufficient evidence as shown by him accusing the Juror no 5 of changing the votes. He also behaves in a smug manner void of respect for others which might come from the fact that he has been part of many a juries and probably considers himself a veteran at it. Is inconsistent with the reasoning at multiple points which betray the presence of a ulterior agenda which he is not doing a great job of hiding. Serious person. Not friendly. Refuses the card of Juror 3. Lacks EQ. He displays a startling lack of empathy. He is often sarcastic and has tart remarks to make which may not often go down well. A lot of analytical people like him have to tendency to have overbearing
Juror No 5
Juror No 6
Juror No 7
Juror No 9
Juror No 10
faith in their own analysis, logic and conclusions that
they become blind and unreceptive to any arguments beyond that. This juror is probably an example of that. He is also impatient with the old man when he starts making an argument about how the lady witness might be in the habit of wearing prescription glasses. Eager to make an impression as he walks up to the Juror no 10 to make small talk. He doesnt give a reason why he voted not guilty. He probably is letting his background cloud his judgment prowess. Also because of his background, he has an inferiority complex and he is eager to show that he is not letting his background influence his judgment. Easy to take sides. Refusal to push outside of his comfort zone. He doesnt have a middle ground and will struggle in diplomatic settings. Either he is docile and going with the flow or he is threatening when the Juror no 3 insults Juror no 9 in a scene. He also comes across somewhat patronizing in the way he talks to the old man and some people can take offence to that. Interested in superficial things like weather, fan, and sports tickets. Lack of priority. Also he displays a kind of herd behavior as in he pulls back one who wants to differ. Makes plenty of strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks which will be considered boorish in a formal setup. Out of context extrapolations. He is an obvious sports lover and even all his metaphors come from sports. This can be a major barrier if the other person is not a sports lover and thus is not on the same page. It is evident in a scene between him and Juror no 2 around the beginning of the film. Lacks conviction. He is not very sure of himself to start with. Hesitantly raises his hand as he sees everyone in front voting for guilty (jury no 8 sat behind him) Need a crutch to place his conviction on. As soon he finds one in the form of Henry Fonda, he is willing to stand up or lean over. He probably has problems asserting himself and is likely to be ridden roughshod by a very aggressive person. Impatient and lacks respect for others as is evident from his outburst against the foreman. Obviously racist and classist. He has a tendency to lose temper and start yelling.
Juror No 11
Juror No 12
Juror No 8
He is probably an immigrant and even though he is
better at grammar than some of the guys in the group, he has a pronounced accent and seems somewhat foreign in the group. Though it is an unfortunate situation to be in, it can be often observed in practical life. He also has a tendency to ramble a bi t which might make the audience lose focus and interest. A precise and concise approach will help Inability to dig deep. Thinks prosecution attorney did a stellar job. Not focused at the task in hand as he keeps wandering off to doodle or talk about his ad agency. Lacks conviction, is not cut out for the job as is evident from him changing his vote on three separate occasions. Thoughtful, contemplative. He is the only one who is thinking about the job at the hand at the start of the movie when the attitude of the rest of the group can only be described as borderline flippant at best. Is firm but doesnt get into confrontations even when baited into one but he is quick to jump into action when he sees people playing some game instead of discussing the case. Benefit of doubt. He has no authority over the others when the film starts beyond what he seemingly vests in himself via logical thinking and the presence of a reasonable doubt. This shows that you dont need a formal title to assume the mantle of leadership. Humility He never gets into confrontations. He hardly indulges in small talk and there is a stubborn refusal to talk about anything other than the task at hand i.e the case. Logical deductions. It is pretty tough to argue against logic even if you have biases. He keeps arguing different points but his focus never wavers away from the central point that he wants to prove that there is a presence of reasonable doubt. Demonstration like the diagram of the apartment. He is able to make precise points which make more of a dent as compared to some others who tend to drag a bit. He is compassionate and shows empathy when he is the only one staying back after everything is over offering the Juror 3 his coat.