12 mm caliber

I watched the 1957 version of Twelve Angry Men. 12 Angry Men is a movie that involves a murder case. A young male is on trial for the murder of his father. The young male life is confirmed by twelve jurors. The jurors joined the court room and listened to both sides of the case. They were then locked in a jury room to decide if he was guilty or not. The film highlights a host of social psychological processes. I will focus on three of them: social influence, stereotype and aggression. The first…

Movie Summary: The movie 12 Angry Men is a 1957 American courtroom drama; the synopsis of the film surrounds 12 jury men that must reach a verdict in a murder case. The 12 men presented in the movie play the crucial roles of the jury, as they are sent to begin deliberations in the first-degree murder trial of an inner city 18-year-old Latino teen accused of stabbing his father to death. The premises of the movie takes place in the jury chambers where the 12 all-white jury men must decide…

Twelve Angry Men Analysis Twelve Angry Men (1957), is the gripping, penetrating, and engrossing examination of a diverse group of twelve jurors. They retire to a jury room to do their civic duty and serve up a just verdict for the indigent minority defendant whose life is in the balance. The film is a powerful indictment, denouncement and expose of the trial by jury system. Many of the jurors had stereotypes about kids who grow up in run down neighborhoods and who belong to certain minority…

was his father’s murderer before discussing potential alternatives. In the movie 12 Angry Men it is the lone 8th Juror who holds up the jury by stating that the man may not be guilty. 12 Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose and directed by Sydney Lumet, explores the justice system of 1957 in a seemingly straight-forward murder case. Accused of murdering his father, an 18 year old man from the “slums” is discussed by a 12 man jury about whether or not he committed the crime. If he is proven…

The movie Twelve Angry Men shows off many different ways people might attempt to make an argument. Within these arguments, the jurors slowly begin revealing their personal values and prejudices. “Friedman (2007) theorizes that scapegoats and prejudicial stereotyping is psychologically” (Mandel 2). It’s takes people from many different walks of life and back grounds and displays what happens when they are forced to reach a conclusion. I wrote this last minute, so don’t judge to harshly. Some…

The 1957 movie version of 12 angry men, brings twelve people together with different personalities and experiences to discuss the fate of a young boy that allegedly killed his father. At the very beginning many agree that the boy is guilty except for one man. Juror #8 votes not guilty and pushes to have the evidence talked through. Slowly after reviewing all the evidence carefully the eleven to one vote switched from eleven thinking guilty to eleven thinking not guilty. Each juror brought…

In the film, 12 Angry Men, there was a lot of information that was given out that affected the jurors’. The story takes place in a courtroom where a murder case was in session. The rest of the movie shows the jurors, deciding whether the defendant of the case was guilty or not guilty. The jurors initially wanted to sentence the boy as guilty after hearing testimony of the boy that killed his own father, but there were three other jurors who thought otherwise. Since the boy was from the slums,…

In 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose, the author is able to maintain doubt as to the defendant’s guilt or innocence by never sharing definitive proof of the boy’s innocence. Instead, Rose creates characters that force the reader to question their reasonings. Without controversy and opposing sides, there would be no purpose to the play. Throughout the play, doubt is evident as to the defendant’s guilt due to Juror 8’s lone vote, Juror 3’s strong personal opinions, and the gradual change in views as…

Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, an 18-year-old is on trial for the murder of his farther. After many pieces of evidence were presented, the three that are weak include the one of a kind knife that the boy had used to kill the father, the saying “I’m going to kill you!” and the woman that seen the scene of the killing without her glasses. One piece of evidence that proves the boy’s innocence is the unique knife. The knife was a switchblade that the boy said he got before the crime scene at…

Despite comments from other jurors, "Well, what's there to talk about? Eleven men here agree. Nobody had to think twice about it, except you" (Juror 7, page 12), Juror 8 still stood his ground. He didn't give in to peer pressure by accepting what the other jurors were telling him. Although the other jurors were already convinced of the their verdict before the discussion even began, Juror 8 knew he needed…