Embarking on a journey through the realm of classic cinema can be both enlightening and enriching. Among the treasures of the silver screen, "12 Angry Men" stands as a shining example of storytelling brilliance and thought-provoking narratives. Directed by Sidney Lumet and released in 1957, this timeless film offers students of cinema a masterclass in filmmaking techniques and storytelling prowess. In this blog post, we'll introduce you to the captivating world of "12 Angry Men" and highlight key film elements to watch out for as you unravel the layers of this cinematic gem.
Plot Overview: Set against the backdrop of a tense jury room, "12 Angry Men" follows the deliberations of a diverse group of jurors tasked with determining the fate of a young defendant accused of murder.
Film Elements to Look Out For:
Cinematography and Shot Composition: Take note of the cinematography's role in conveying the emotional tone of the film. Pay attention to camera angles, framing, and shot composition to understand how these elements enhance the storytelling. Observe how close-ups and wide shots are used to emphasize character reactions and highlight pivotal moments.
Lighting and Mood: Analyze the use of lighting to create atmosphere and mood. Notice how changes in lighting reflect shifts in emotion and tension within the jury room. Consider the contrast between well-lit and shadowy scenes to interpret the characters' internal struggles.
Set Design and Symbolism: Delve into the details of the jury room's set design. Look for symbolic elements such as the table, windows, and fan, which carry deeper meanings related to the characters' perspectives, the passage of time, and the stifling environment.
Acting and Characterization: Marvel at the exceptional performances delivered by the cast. Study the nuances of each character's demeanor, facial expressions, and body language. Consider how these traits contribute to the development of individual personalities and the overall dynamics of the group.
Dialogue and Script: The film's screenplay is a testament to meticulous writing. Listen closely to the dialogue and how it reveals the characters' motivations, biases, and evolving viewpoints. Pay attention to the persuasive techniques and logical arguments presented throughout the deliberations.
Soundtrack and Sound Effects: The film's soundtrack and sound effects play a vital role in building tension and emotional resonance. Notice how music and sound cues are strategically placed to amplify key moments or evoke specific emotions.
Editing and Pacing: Explore the film's pacing and editing choices. Observe how the pacing contributes to the tension and suspense, and take note of transitions between scenes. Consider how the rhythm of editing enhances the narrative flow.
Themes and Subtext: Engage with the film's underlying themes, including justice, prejudice, and moral responsibility. Look for subtle subtext and layers of meaning beneath the surface narrative, and contemplate how these themes resonate with contemporary society.
Discuss the following questions in the comments:
- In '12 Angry Men,' the entire narrative unfolds within the confines of a single jury room. How does this limited setting contribute to the overall tension and character dynamics of the film? Can you identify moments where the setting plays a crucial role in shaping the characters' interactions and the progression of the story?
- "The film '12 Angry Men' employs a deliberate pacing that intensifies the drama and the emotional impact of the storyline. How does the pacing of the film help to emphasize the characters' evolving opinions and the shifting power dynamics among the jurors? Can you pinpoint specific scenes where the pacing effectively builds tension and engages the audience?"
- Pick your favorite scene and talk about its film elements and cultural context.
- Finally, Did you like the film? Why/Why Not?
------
Some random trivia:
- Director Sidney Lumet had the actors all stay in the same room for several hours on end and do their lines over and over without filming them. This was to give them a real taste of what it would be like to be cooped up in a room with the same people.
- This film is commonly used in business schools and workshops to illustrate team dynamics and conflict resolution techniques.
- All but three minutes of the film was shot inside the bare and confining, 16'x24' (35 square meters) "jury room".
- Because of the demands of the film's low budget, if the lighting was set up for a shot that took place from one particular angle, all the shots from that same angle had to be filmed then and there. This meant that different sides of the same conversation were sometimes shot several weeks apart.
- Juror #4 is the only juror who does not take off his jacket at any point in the film.
1. Tension was seen in the wanting to get out of the room because it was so hot and had limited room to move. The room being hot was no doubt symbolic of the tension felt by all the men in the room, and when they finally got the fan working the tension was lesser. The forcing of conflicting personalities to be together wasn’t very advantageous adding to the tension. The seating arrangement in the compact room also contributed to the tension and how the characters interacted with each other; Notice how Henry Fonda was close to two of the biggest proponents of a guilty verdict.
ReplyDelete2. As the pace steadily increases more and more people join Fonda’s group, and the smoothness of how characters change their perspectives adds to the tension and drama. You as a member of the audience feel for those jurors who have less power, showing how different jurors have power due to their presence and being slower in pace. In the beginning, when the old man stands with Henry Fonda the dominant players in the room namely Juror number 3 and 10 (the one who was on about the riff raff) are seen; Their strong presence is highlighted by their control of the room. Some key scenes that build tension are the first ballet, where the old man stands with Henry Fonda, the one with the two knives, when they all look away from Juror number nine, but the best one is the stab wound debate where it looks like Fonda may get stabbed.
3. My favorite scene is when the foreigner stands up for himself when the baseball fan wishes to be done, “What right do you have to play with a man’s life?” At roughly an hour and sixteen minutes, there is a tremendous mise en sene in this scene, it begins with the camera at a relatively wide angle to focus on the two men’s perspectives, but everyone is looking at the foreigner (juror 11 I think) causing the audience to focus on him. The cuts also play a major role, the various cuts between the closeups of the two men show that this is a confrontation between them and is more personal to them. Further the use of pan to follow Juror number 11 shows that he is the focus. The sound in this is the rain, but that could be indicative of the pressure weighing down on them, a negative cloud almost.
4. Yes, I loved this film, fascinating how a story could be so well written and so well acted that it could happen all in basically the same room. Furthermore, it provides important commentary on things like morality, parenthood, bias, respect for the elderly, ego, etc. In the end, it is no wonder this is a popular pick in best-of-all-time lists.
ReplyDelete1. The limited setting contributes to the overall tension and character dynamics of the film because they are in an enclosed, hot space where they begin to argue if the kid is guilty or not. Heat is known to make people more irritable and less agreeable; the sweat dripping down their faces and stains on their clothes show how things are literally and figuratively heating up in the room. As night begins to fall it starts to rain and around the same time, they get the fan to start working. The fan and rain are literally and figuratively cooling the room and the jurors, allowing them to think clearly and not make rash decisions. Around 1:33:29 Juror 3 was upset and sitting alone at the table while everyone else had left after the decision was made. Juror 8 was there too and decided to get his coat for him and help him put it on. It had been between them like a barrier and once it was taken away it showed how there was no longer anything in between them creating tension and they can put their differences aside now because I believe that was the first time Juror 8 crossed over to that side of the table. The music in this scene sounded somber and joyful at the same time.
2. The pacing of the film helps to emphasize the characters’ evolving opinions because as it quickens the power dynamic amongst the jurors also begins to shift. From the beginning, Juror 8 believed the boy was not guilty while everyone else thought he was guilty. Throughout the film he continues to defend his argument and as tensions rise higher and higher more jurors slowly begin to switch sides and say the boy is not guilty because of the compelling arguments Juror 8 makes using evidence from the case. As they all begin to say the boy is not guilty Juror 3 begins to lose the power he once had in simply stating the boy is guilty and that is all there is to it; the tension ends up creating a competitive atmosphere. Around 58:31 everyone is gathered around Juror 8 after his demonstration of how long it would've taken the old man to get to the door and everyone is discussing it while Juror 3 is farther from them and the camera chuckling to himself as he listens to them because he is stubborn and does not want to believe anything else anyone else says because in his mind he is right. He is losing his power and Juror 8 is gaining it because more jurors are starting to see his point of view and agree.
3. My favorite scene is around 29:04 when Juror 4 is making a point about the knife being one of a kind and then Juror 8 pulls out an identical blade that he found in a local pawn shop in the same neighborhood. All the jurors in this scene are separated, those who said the boy was guilty are farthest from the camera on the other side of the table while Jurors 8 and 9 who believe he is not guilty are on the other side, closest to the camera. This creates a sense of tension because the shock, disbelief, and anger are evident on their faces, especially with the way Juror 4 looks at Juror 8 and the sweat on their foreheads. After this specific scene, they cut and use closeups of everyone’s faces as they are stating what they think, making their opinions seem louder and showing how divided and tense things still are between them.
4. I liked the film because it was very interesting to see the men come to a consensus considering how at first they could not seem to get along. The 1950s and 1960s were a time when people wanted to create a peaceful and prosperous society after the effects of WWII and the Great Depression and since this film dives into the ideas of morality and respect for others I believe they were attempting to set an example for people to follow to help them acquire problem-solving and teamwork skills.
1. The movie's solo location of the jury room builds and releases tension as the movie progresses. At the beginning of the film, the men are all sweating due to the heat and dysfunctional fan, which represents the men's heated arguments and how they're uncomfortable being in this small room with the each other. However, as it starts to rain and the men turn on the lights, juror 7 finds the fan works if the lights are on. This fan is a visual representation of how the men aren't as heated anymore and are beginning to see eye to eye. A moment of tension in this film that I like is when juror 3 demonstrates the "down and in" stab technique on juror 8. For the entire film, these two are on opposite sides of their decision, so when juror 3 preps to stab juror 8, there is a second or two where the audience might actually think juror 3 will stab juror 8, due to his aggressive nature against those opposing him.
ReplyDelete2. The film's pace decreases to show who has power in that scene. For example, during the scene when juror 8 is explaining how the old man with a limp couldn't walk to the door within 15 seconds, the pace decreases to show that juror 8 has power in this scene, as everyone is watching and listening to him. However, sometimes the decreased pace is used to build tension, like when juror 8 walks to the water cooler after suggesting an anonymous vote, causing the audience to think that due to the decreased pace that the jurors might sentence an innocent man to death.
3. My favorite scene is at the end of the film, when juror 3 rips the photo of his son and breaks down after. I really like this scene, because juror 3 is a very antagonistic character and isn't very likeable, as it appears he's eager to lead an innocent man to his death. However this scene shows that even though he's greatly flawed, he's still very human and broken, which adds to this film's theme of human life. The mise en scene is also great here, as the camera stays in the same spot, just tilting when needed, and lets juror 3's actor, Lee J. Cobb deliver an incredible monologue. The rain behind him adds a level of sadness to juror 3's character, as it visually represents how he tries to turn his back on his feelings and seem strong, since men in this time period had to look and be strong and smart.
4. I really like this movie, as it's never boring or dull, which is an incredible feat for a movie that takes place in one room mostly and consists of no action or actual court room, only the jurors' debates over guilty and not guilty. These characters, the jurors, are greatly fleshed out and we, the audience, can understand them as human beings due to the writing and dialogue which don't bluntly tell you everything about a character, but instead lets the viewer learn more about these characters as if they're actually meeting someone new. The tension, pacing, acting, and writing are all done so incredibly well and all feel so natural and real, not forced like many "jokes" told in big budget studio movies nowadays. I really like the film's theme of human life and how we shouldn't judge someone based on what we think is true. It's not really a question as to why this movie is in the top 10 best movies of all time on IMDB.
ReplyDelete1. The setting of 12 Angry Men sits in a jury room on the hottest day of the year. The fan isn’t working, the windows are hard to move around, and 11 of the 12 men think this is an open-and-shut case. Being in such an uncomfortable environment didn’t make them any more excited to stick around and debate about the verdict. Fast forward to the second intermission the men have, when it starts raining. The rain comes when in when the evening starts. Another crucial change in the setting that happens during this intermission is that Juror 7 checks the fan a second time to find it has started to work now, supposedly for no reason. These two elements work together to tell the audience that the men are ready to get into the details and really talk out their thoughts on the case, as the tension from the heat is gone and the rain/windows have symbolically locked them in the room. With the exception of Juror 4, all the others are affected by the environment, and we see this with how sweaty and uncomfortable they all are. Juror 4 only sweats when he is put on the spot, which is a neat character detail about him that explains his reasonings for believing the defendant is guilty for most of the runtime. Juror 4 is the most fact based one of the group, and the sweat symbolizes his differences from the rest. Also to note, Juror 7 is the only one who messes with the fan, which is for a few reasons. First of all, he’s a sports fan. More importantly, however, he is the most hasty to leave the room as soon as possible, and his verdict changes only with the beliefs of others shifting. These shifts the other characters had were marked by the fan, and Juror 7 followed suit.
2. The film’s pacing starts out with long, drawn out shots that rarely cut. As the film moves on and ideas are challenged, two things happen. The first is that the camera angles gradually shift from facing down to the men, to being eye level, and ending mostly as being under them. The other shift is that the cuts are more frantic and fast. One such example comes from later in the movie, when Juror 4 is being question by Juror 8 about the movies. Juror 8 having the upper hand is shown with how the camera cuts back to him facing up, and the camera cuts themselves are frantic and zoom in on the characters faces, closer and closer. The increased speed of the pacing engages us by putting ourselves in the shoes of the two men relevant to the scene. Juror 4’s struggle to remember the movies from Monday night and his subsequent realization that it disproves his point is conveyed to the audience because of these filmmaking techniques. Juror 4 has the last reasonable arguments for the defendant’s guilt, and they are slowly being chipped away.
3. One of my favorite scenes in the movie is when everybody turns their backs of Juror 10. Firstly, Juror 10’s bigoted perspective on other ethnicities was still a common, or at least semi-common, issue during the times this movie was made (the 1950s). The scene is in one take, where the camera goes from in front of the Juror, all the way to the corner of the room. In the end, when Juror 4 tells him to effectively shut up, he realizes there might be something wrong with his approach; and goes to his unofficial time out corner, right in front of the camera with his back turned to the rest. Juror 5 is the first to stand, and he does so with an angry slam on the table. He was the one who grew up in the slums, and has both an understanding of as well as a connection to the other human beings who are in those environments. Juror 9, being the most empathetic and perceptive of the group, stands up not long after, and sits on the bench. After 10 says “Human life don’t mean as much to them as it does to us.”, 11 stands up immediately. 11 has always been inspired by the ideas of equality and justice, and 10’s words go against that and dehumanize 11. 8, 2, and 6 all get up one after another next, and after seeing what the herd does, the turbulent 12 follows suit. After 10 is told to shut up, 12 is the only one who looks back to see what 10 is doing as he walks to his timeout desk. This once again characterizes 12’s turbulence as a person.
Delete4. I loved this movie, though maybe slightly less than I did The Dark Knight. I think the movie did a lot despite the time it was made in. It was a very well thought out film with tons of details and a group of 12 excellent actors. Every shot you can find some little detail that further expands upon the character of one of the Jurors. An example of these little details is when 8 says to 3 “you didn’t really mean that, did you?” (59:09), Juror 10 is the only one who looks away from 3 and towards 8. One really interesting thing about the movie was that most of the men don’t have any sort of character arc they undergo, with the exceptions of 3 and maybe 10. The film is a lot more about the present moment, and the how these character’s current selves perceive this case. Juror 3 has a catalyst for his own arc he could undergo in some sort of epilogue, where after all that happened in the jury room, he attempts to reconnect with his son. Whether or not juror 10 decided to forgo his racist tendencies is up for debate, thought the meaning of the overall story isn’t affected either way. As for my dad, he enjoyed the film because he likes movies centering around the law, as well as it being the first black-and-white movie he liked in any sort of memory. Oh, and really good acting.
1. The movies single settings/The jury room builds emotion and tension as they don't go anywhere else and are stuck with each other to share their opinions and argue. The AC is a good example as throughout the beginning of the film they are all seen sweating due to having no ac but as the movie continues and opinions are shared, the rain comes in and a fan is turned on, they begin to actually listen to each other and understand one another. An example could be when Juror 2 grabbed a cough drop for one some of the jurors so they could be heard out in a civil manner even though they were arguing.
ReplyDelete2. The slow type of pacing mixed with the confined space really gives the every scene meaning as there is nothing else to pay attention to other than the people. They all get a chance to be heard out. It also shows who has the superiority in the conversation. An example is when Juror 8 was explaining how the old man couldn't have been able to walk the distance to the door in 15 seconds as he is explaining this you can see everyone is listening to him and he has the power.
3. One of my favorite scenes of this movie is when at about 53 minutes into the movie Juror is arguing with Juror 3 and standing up for himself. The mise en scene here is also great, Both of the Jurors are closest to the camera showing that there important but there is also one in the back doing what seems to be pacing as the others watch its very interesting the way its set up and adds a good amount of depth to the scene.
4. I enjoyed the movie it always kept me on my toes and there was never any filler or a dull moment as they always had something to say. Alot of movies lack this I think now. I enjoy the simplicity of the whole thing and all character have a meaning or a importance to the story. The pacing is also great as its pretty notable when it changes and it adds significance to every scene. As the watcher you also get to pick apart the evidence and think for yourself whether the person at stake is guilty or not guilty. The film is very real to the world and how much some people might care about another's life and its no wonder why this movie is so highly rated.
1.The limited setting in this film contributes to the overall tension by the men feeling trapped in a very heated room both emotionally and physically. The fan not working in the jury room causes the room to be heated causing the characters to sweat and the heat is also known to cause anger and making a person more irritable, this can cause the characters to act out even more than they would if it was cooler.In fact the heat is almost and exact reflection on who the characters are themselves. Because the heat seems to affect the more angry or less calm jurors rather than the more calmer ones. In the scene where the votes were 6 to 6 whether the kid was innocent or not one of the men changes his vote to not guilty to break the tie (this takes place at the time stamp 1:15:51). This is due to the setting and how much of a confined space the jury room is and how hot it is in the room so he changes his vote to not be stuck in this confined space and to not feel trapped any longer. Because of this decision it causes more conflict in the film moving the narritive in a way that Juror #8 can keep proving his point.
ReplyDelete2.The pacing of the film helps emphasize the characters evolving opinions because as the movie progresses the power dynamic between the jurors quickly changes. In the beijing of the film Juror 8 was the only one who voted not guilty whereas the rest of the jurors voted guilty but as the film progresses Juror 8 is later able to change the other Jururs minds. An example of when he does this is when Juror 8 demonstrates how the child couldn't have stabbed his father by having juror 3 take the knife and show how he would’ve stabbed someones and made himself the hight of the kid to make it more accurate. Jurror 3 proceeds to move the knife down towards juror 8’s chest Jurour 5 then takes the knife and proceeds to say how the kid would have not done that seeing as the kid knew how to use a knife and that was not the right way to use a switch blade. This then convinces most of the jurors that Juror 8 had a point switching their votes to not guilty. This then switches the power dynamic in the film.
3.My favorite scene in this film was around 1:17:57 to 1:19:15. This scene starts with a close up on juror 10 then proceeds to zoom out as he uses his hankercheife to clean off his sweat from the heat in the room which could also be a representation of his anger about the situation. As the camera zooms out it shows a few on the jurors listening to him yell while others are bored showing one juror putting his head down and another reading a newspaper. As juror 10 proceeds to yell at them the camera continues to zoom out showing the whole juror room each juror one by one stands up turing their back towards juror 10 showing some type of barrier between them and how they will continue to stay stubborn and not listen to what Juror 10 has to say. As all of this is happening Juror 10 is yelling about how the kid grew up in the Slum and how that should be evidence enough that hes guilty and how it is just in his nature. He talks like this because this takes place post great depression and people who lived in the slums were veiwed as bad people solely because of their financial situation and how it was overal just a bad place to live and criminals typically lived there.
4.Yes I liked this film and actually enjoyed it very much. This is because I liked seeing all the characters debunk the case and seeing their opinions change throughout the film. I also like how there was a lot of conflict and many emothions in this film even thought it was only in one setting. Because of the way the film was set up it kept me entertained throught the whole thing without me getting bored.
1. The movie Twelve Angry Men is about a jury made of twelve men who are all irritated with each other and the fact that they are on jury duty. It takes place mostly inside of one location, the very small and cramped jury room where they have to decide if a young man is guilty of murdering his father. The small and cramped room location adds to the tension that is already there because of the situation they are in. This is because the 12 jurors, along with the audience, feel as if they are trapped in a tight and stuffy room with strangers. An example of this is when at 56:10-59:30, juror #8, an average looking white man in his 30’s-40’s, wants to show the unrealistic nature of an old man’s claim about walking to the door to see the kid running down the flight of stairs. Everyone is shoved together and getting slightly mad at each other, and they are in his way as he tries to physically prove how unrealistic the claim is with real timing and analyzing the statement. But to further the settings impact on the characters, they add that it’s a hot summer day, and the air conditioning doesn't work. This starts to make everyone sweat, and because they are all so close to each other, the body heat also heats up the room. So feeling trapped in a space you don’t want to be in, and then feeling hot on top of that makes people irrational and angry. In addition, as Nataly and Nathan pointed out, the heat represents the “heated argument.” Eventually, however, they start to work together, and the room starts to literally and figuratively cool. The rain outside and the fan inside start to physically cool the room, and at the same time, the jurors start to be more willing to listen to the statements against what they believe and hear the reasons the accused may be innocent.
ReplyDelete2. The pacing of the film of the film is slower than a lot of other movies because it wants to stay in a very realistic time frame. They want you to truly feel like an outsider watching a real scene as it is happening, almost like a 13th juror who is just observing as they switch from saying the boy in question is guilty to not guilty. They made sure to not rush the opinion swaying from one to the other too quickly. As each plot point / piece of evidence was presented, there would be another small group of people, whether it was one or three, that would switch sides. They also had breaks between discussions at points to really make it feel natural. These breaks give the 12 jurors and the audience to process the information. It also gives the characters time to show who they really are and how they really feel. Deep down, they all wanted the truth and justice for the boy, but it took longer to break down biases and get over the fact that it was taking a lot of time since they were dealing with a person’s life. Even juror #3 was able to overcome his biases and wanting to kill because he knew that he would be devastated to lose his son permanently.
3. My favorite scene of this movie is from 55:20-59:30. This is my favorite scene because I like analytical problem solving. This is also one my favorites because it showed that despite the historic racial and economic biases at the time, they were able to look past it and give the boy a fair chance at a trial. Even though the accused boy on trial wasn’t from a well-off part of town and wasn’t white, juror #8 was willing to put that aside to give him a chance that they point out wouldn’t be given to him by another jury. The mise-en-scene of the scene has everything and everyone cramped in there. You can tell how cramped the room is because juror #8 walked almost wall-to-wall in the room one way representing only 12 feet, and then he turned and had to walk from one end of the room to the other and back only representing 43 feet. So the room is not much bigger than 12’x21’ (official measurements say 16’x24’). They do this deliberately so that you can see how little room there truly is between the 12 men and the big table taking up most of the room. On the table are a lot of documents showing that they really want to look at the evidence available. Then there is a bench along one of the walls, and a water jug so that they can get water if they are thirsty. The way that it is set up truly shows that they are just in a room that could be used for any meeting in real life and it’s not just an unrealistic set for the movie.
Delete4. Yes, I really enjoyed the movie. I thought it was not going to be super engaging because it was more serious and an older film, but I really enjoyed it. I watched the movie with my family, and while most of my family fell asleep, myself and my dad watched the whole thing and had a good discussion about what the impact of the movie was. Also, the realistic pacing without a bunch of music and sound effects was a good change. I wish more movies had a similar style to what the movie had. The cinematography and editing made it feel like it was all filmed at once, and not a bunch of shots that they compiled together later to make a story. And finally the editing wasn’t too over the top, and I felt very engaged and almost involved in what was going on even though I was just a viewer.
The majority of this movie is spent in a single room there isn’t any crazy story lines or people with superpowers this movie was made to feel grounded in reality there are many imperfections in this film, intentional imperfections that make this film feel like they looked 12 real jurors in a room and they just let them discuss and they just rerecorded it , characters stumble over their word sometimes, they think about what they are going to say mid sentence they interrupt each other, one of the jurors coughs a lot on the first half of the movie. Because this whole movie happens in a single room in focuses heavily on the acting and the quality of the dialog being spoken, it was an interesting decision to show at the beginning of the movie on a single long shot and then the kid being accused of the murder with a close-up a kind of long close up that lingers for a while before they enter the room by the time they are discussing you already forgot how the kid looks like, they never show you the kid again or the actual murder all you see is 12 people trying to decide what happened, by the end of the movie the audience believes that the kid did not commit the crime, but what is great about the movie is that it never clearly confirms if it was him or not
ReplyDeleteSetting this movie in a single room on a very hot day is important because it shows the sense of desperation that the characters are in, they just want to get out because its clear that he murdered him and its very hot and i have tickets for a game and the fan is not working all of those little choices show that the jurors don’t care about the boy they just care about themselves and they just want to get out of that room and go home. But as the movie progresses people get more and more mad because they are tired, and you can clearly see it their shirts and faces are covered in sweat. Sweat is very important in this film,there are many close ups on the characters faces,
The pacing in this movie is really unique it starts slow and then the tension builds and builds and then it has long moments of rest the movie takes long rests in different points in the movie where no one is discussing and its mostly one or two characters talking these moments usually come after they had a heated discussion or after someone changed their vote and then there is tension again, they do this multiple times during the film, a specific scene is when after having a big discussion the main protagonist that we follow goes to the restroom this is one of the only moments where the pacing rests but there is still a bit of tension when people try to convince the juror that the kid is guilty
I really liked the movie it seemed like a boring black and white movie that was just people talking and yes its mostly that , but it was extreamly engaging. This movie is filled with amazing dialogue and acting. This movie feels relaxing sometimes, especially when it starts raining ,there isn’t any crazy plots or any big set pieces it’s just characters talking. And its simple but very good.
Delete1. The premise of 12 Angry Men being contained within one room contributes to the tension and character dynamics in the film by making everything seem close and personal. The idea of having multiple people reside in the same room for an extended amount of time creates a feeling of discomfort. The room is small, whereas there are 12 grown men all needing space. The enclosed and small shape of the room contributes to the tense and uncomfortable atmosphere created by having everything seem extremely close and uncomfortable. The room also contributes to character dynamics by making everything seem personal. With the 12 jurors in a small room, it feels as if there is no space for them to “move”. This makes the characters feel very close, allowing them to feel very intertwined with each other. The table that they share also contributes to the close and personal dynamics of the characters. For example, one scene where the small room setting plays a key role in shaping character interactions and the progression of the story is when one of the jurors decides to map out evidence given by a witness. The witness claimed that he walked out of his apartment within 15 seconds, being able to see the defendant running out of the building. One of the jurors decides to make a model of the apartment in the room to check the validity of the witness's testimony. With this reenactment, the jurors are able to find out that the witness could not have been entirely truthful. This newfound discovery also changes the perspectives of the other jurors to believe that the defendant may be innocent.
ReplyDelete2. The steady, but quick pacing within 12 Angry Men emphasizes the characters' evolving opinions and the shifting power dynamics among the jurors. The film tries to get as much information as possible to the audience but does so in an organized way. In increments, information about the trial is announced to the audience along with the juror's different opinions about the situation. With steady and quick pacing, the audience can clearly see when characters give their opinions along with them. One scene from the movie, when pacing works well to create tension and engage the audience, is when one of the jurors is being asked to defend his reasoning for believing the defendant is guilty. In the defendant's testimony, it was stated the day of the murder, he was at the movies but couldn’t remember the titles of the movies. One of the jurors believes this to be a lie, so another juror starts to question him about movies he has seen in the past. This scene is shot where the other juror questions him quickly hoping to a response out of him. The audience is able to feel the tension building in the scene as answers are trying to be uncovered.
3. My favorite scene is when one of the jurors starts to go on a tangent about how he believes the defendant is guilty of the murder. In the scene, one of the jurors tries to state his opinion that the defendant is guilty. While doing so, he starts bringing up the background of the defendant stating that people like him are never truthful and that within him to be a murderer. As he does this, all of the other jurors turn or step away from the man, as an act to show that they are not listening to him. The scene is set up as just one shot, slowly backing away from the camera as the juror goes on his rant about the defender. As he is talking and the camera is moving away, the audience sees all of the other jurors slowly get away from the table, in a sense removing themselves from the “conversation”. I think this scene is trying to depict that although the jurors may have different opinions about the defendant, the main goal of a juror is to be unbiased and keep a fair opinion. For all of the other jurors, the racial prejudice that the other juror presents is crossing a line that they will not cross, even the most stubborn of jurors.
4. Yes, I did enjoy 12 Angry Men. I actually liked it a lot more than I thought I would. I went into it with an open mind hoping that I would find it amusing and I did. I enjoy law-based shows and movies so the film is extremely entertaining for me. I liked the premise of the entire film being in one room and being shot with a small cast. Having a small cast helped me focus more on each juror and their set beliefs based on the case. I also liked the gradual pacing that “one by one” each juror became convinced that the defendant was potentially not guilty, and as an audience, we were able to see their specific “breaking point” when they changed their mind.
Delete1.
ReplyDeleteThe camera is facing Dent at the scene where he takes Commissioner Gordon's family, presenting the appealing side of his face while the other half is succumbing in the darkness, building suspense on what he will do next. When he covers half of his face, he becomes less violent and simply talks about how he wants Commissioner Gordon to feel the same way he felt when he lost Rachel. However, as Harvey emerges from the shadows and kidnaps Gordan's son, his darker side emerges, and just like his coin, the side that is in good shape symbolizes "good luck," whereas the side that is scratched up and broken means "bad luck" or that the person is "unfortunate." The viewer is left feeling either relieved or intrigued about what will occur next in the few minutes of the movie that are left, thanks to all of these components, including the mise-en-scene.
2.The film's pacing is slower than that of many other films because it wants to stay in a very realistic time frame. They want you to truly feel like an outsider watching a real scene as it is happening, almost like a 13th juror who is just observing as they switch from saying the boy in question is guilty to not guilty. They made sure not to rush the opinion swaying from one to the other too quickly.
3. My favorite part of the movie was 12:45-14:48 because it shows conflict between the characters because they all have different opinions on the defendant. They all know they have a job to do, but that is not the case, they are deliberating to see if a man is guilty of murder but some of them are stubborn and biased without a reasonable doubt, which I think is important to show in situations like this.
4.Yes, I enjoyed and thoroughly enjoyed this film. This is due to the fact that I enjoyed watching all of the characters challenge the case and change their thoughts during the film. I also like how there was so much drama and emotion.
1. There are 12 men in one room who mostly want nothing more than to leave and say the kid is guilty. Although 1 person decides he is not guilty and wants to sit and talk through what really happened. This leads the men to sit and talk in one room for a relatively long time contributing to the tension because it is hot and filled with people who are upset with each other and trying to justify their own points. They have nowhere else to go and nothing else to do but talk to each other, so this intensifies the tension and moves along the character dynamic. Being confined in one room with nothing to do but talk to each other, you are bound to hear the others opinion and rethink yours. This happened to one of the characters, the old man, when the Architect asked everyone to secretly vote. Before 11 of the men voted guilty but now 10 voted guilty. One other person has already been persuaded to see the Architects side. Going back and forth, again, with nothing to do, adds to the stress and anger these men feel, you can start to feel the tension rise and you too feel confined.
ReplyDelete2.The pacing of the film feels rather slow, but it moves the power dynamic among the jurors quite quickly. The pacing of this film helps evolve the characters' opinions because you can see exactly why and understand it because it is moving slowly. In the beginning of the movie one of the jurors goes against what the rest say, and says the young boy is innocent. He then goes on to why he thinks this, he states the evidence given by the court proving why the young man is guilty then counteracts it by showing why this evidence may be faulty. This moves one of the jurors to support the first one and change his opinion, this is the shift in the power dynamics. This scene effectively builds tension and engages the audience because you get to see how the men are persuaded from guilty to not guilty and also keeps you wondering whether or not the man is guilty.
3. My favorite scene starts around 34:00, in this scene one of the jurors is standing up for himself and the other juror is “not guilty”. Everyone else in the room is upset with them and doesn't want to hear another word, I noticed everyone who disagrees is sitting down while the two who agree are standing up. I believe they were trying to show the audience that these two jurors really want to be heard, the rest of them are sitting down clearly tired but these two want to fight. The camera shows the faces of the old man (the one standing up) and 3 other gentlemen's faces (the ones sitting down) I believe showing all their faces as the arguing commenced was purposely done to display the tension rising.
4. This film felt very slow in the beginning so I didn't really care for it at first. Throughout the movie it became more and more interesting to see how the Juror was going to try and prove the boy not guilty. At the same time I could also understand why the others stood strongly firm with their decision of him being guilty. Seeing both sides further contributed to my understanding and interest in the film, so in the end I enjoy it mostly.
1. The storm that occurs for the last 30 minutes of the film contributes to the overall tension in the film. By being confined to a single room, the film’s narrative relies on the character dynamics. There is no outside force contributing to the plot. Little details like the rain can reflect these character dynamics. The rain intensifies and the 12 men have reached their end. At this point, all except juror #4 have taken off their jackets, the ashtrays are filled with cigarettes, and the men are deeply agitated with each other. The storm on the outside reflects the storm they’re facing on the inside. Guiding the progression of the story, the storm outside ends just as the men conclude their “storm.”
ReplyDelete2. The editing along with the pacing work together to intensify the drama. As we get deeper into the film, the dynamics between the characters grow intense. The editing/length of the shots reflect this. The film starts out with wider shots, capturing all the movement in the room. The camera even pans to display everyone mingling around before things get heated. Then the camera starts to focus on the characters with singular, steady shots, and cutting from one shot to the next instead of panning.
3. At 1:33:25, there are two jurors remaining in the room. Juror 8 helps juror 3 put his jacket back on. Juror 8 is then the last one to leave the room; he fought till the end. The camera then pans to the table where the mess of their storm is. All the loose papers and cigarettes lay on the table. The scene feels reflective. It feels like a satisfying conclusion after all the tension built up throughout the film.
4. I did enjoy the film. It had some fascinating elements. I found it interesting how the story was confined to one room and especially the behind the scenes facts like how the actors said their lines over and over without being filmed to give them a taste of what it would actually be like to be cooped up in that room. With the story being confined to that room, it allows for the relationships to be the heart of the story.
1. The limited space inside the jury room brings the 12 jury members closer together and heightens tensions between them. Since they are the only people in there and they have to come to an agreement on whether or not the kid accused of murder is guilty or innocent, they start to argue with one another based on the “facts” presented in the trial. The emotions of some characters are also intensified because of the nature of the trial (murder is a serious thing). The squished and isolated room makes it easier for emotions like anger and frustration to show. Emotions can also cause a character to act in ways best described as rash, impulsive, or crazy. A prime example of this in the movie happens from 0:59:00 - 0:59:30. In this scene, Juror #3 is in an argument with Juror #8 about the fact that he (Juror #3) just wants to see the accused kid dead, as he is being talked to, his emotions start to overpower him visibly; his face starts to twitch in anger while his jaw is clenching. He also starts breathing heavier. As Juror #8 says the line; “You're a sadist”, Juror #3 lunges at him but is held back by the other men. This small scene builds tension by using the emotions of the characters. The primary setting of this film is within two connected rooms; the jury room (being the main one) and the bathroom. Sometimes when a character has heard too much or is overwhelmed, he finds shelter from the arguing in the only other room available; the bathroom.
ReplyDelete2. The pacing of the film is tied to what the men are doing, if they are all sitting around waiting for someone to come out of the bathroom, the pacing is slow and the only thing happening is possibly some small talk. If the pacing is fast, the men are most likely arguing and yelling at one another. Sometimes the camera will also mirror the pace, in the same scene as before from around 0:58:45 - 0:59:29, Juror #8 is questioning the ethics and reasoning for Juror #3 being in the jury. As they continue to argue and Juror #8 antagonizes Juror #3, tension builds. As it builds, the camera starts cutting between their faces swiftly before, as mentioned before, the climax of the scene happens (where Juror #8 lunges forward).
3. (1:17:56 - 1:20:15) In this scene, Juror #10 starts on a racially charged rant, and the other Jurors either stand up and face away from him, or ignore him. The scene is one continuous shot which shows everyone not agreeing with what is being said by Juror #10. This scene is an example of how racist prejudice can affect the legal system. Every other Juror ignoring him shows how ignorant racism is, no one else in the room agrees with what he is saying and they decide to let him know that.
4. I did like the movie, even though it was mostly shot in one room and nothing huge (action-wise) happened, it was still entertaining. The dialogue between the characters was amazing as well as the acting. It is very impressive that all the actors could stay in character for all of the long shots in the movie.
1. At 58:36 juror 3 yells “You're letting him slip through our fingers!” showing his anger and the framing of the camera shows the judgement he is receiving from every other juror listening to him. There is also a lack of color since the movie is only in black and white. Now back to the argument between juror 3 and everyone else, he believes that the defendant is guilty because of the original evidence provided by a witness who saw the suspect running from the crime scene. There was also a lady who heard an argument between the boy's father and the boy.
ReplyDelete2. At the time 1:25:25 The camera zooms into juror 9's face to show the concentration that hew has as he tells his story about another reason the boy might not be guilty. There is no other sound as he tells the story, none other than the rain outside the building they are all in. The framing only allows the viewer to see his face using a prime lens, allowing us to focus on what he has to say.
3. At 1:31:37 there is a silence in the room and a constant change in camera angles between the jurors as juror 3 finishes his rant on why he still believes that the boy is guilty. That silence fills the room and the viewer's mind with unease as everyone has to wait for the next person to make a decision to do something. All these elements in this scene create the mood of suspense and anxiety, since everyone is in anticipation of juror 3 and what he might say next.
4. Yes, I believe that this was a good movie because of the attention to detail on everything and everyone. The constant change in camera angles to show what was going on, the stillness in certain scenes, really helped me get into the movie. The acting was also not bad, as everyone did their part, and they didn't mess up anything that was noticeable to me.
1. The setting of the jury room does create lots of tension and character dynamics throughout the film. A decent number of people both want to promptly claim that the boy’s guilty and move on with their lives, as most of them are highly convinced that he had committed the crime. One of the men had a baseball game that he paid tickets for that he was eager enough to attend to be willing to choose whatever side was winning, as the jury had to reach a uniform decision if they wanted to convict the man or acquit him. As the room literally and figuratively got hotter due the the temperature of the day (hottest in the year I believe) and the rising tension, people started to become irritated that the discussion seemingly was going nowhere and posing “What if?” questions. Many folks started getting uncomfortable in the room and wanted to claim the boy guilty as confirmation bias had taken a firm grasp of them in the courtroom. Because the decision in the courtroom was so unanimous, most of the jurors believed that the decision was a no-brainer, and the fact that some folks were willing to question the accuracy of the conviction and make the process longer than they believed it should’ve been, tensions rose quite dramatically towards the end of the film. Because tensions were often high throughout the film and they were confined to a room to settle the dispute, the debates could even devolve to the level that people were insulting one another and it even nearly got physical, and only didn’t due to the intervention of others. The room most definitely played a role in the development of the debate as tensions rose and patience naturally diminished throughout the course of the movie.
ReplyDelete2. Pacing is most definitely one of the most important aspects of this film, as there are very few cuts in the film. Standard practices that you see in most films are not as apparent here; many conversations that would be deemed unnecessary are in this film, and even moments of silence and thought are included. Because this film is meant to essentially document this entire fictional but realistic debate, the pacing of the discussion helps the audience peer into the raw emotions of the characters. When tensions rise, the pacing gets faster, the characters louder, and movements more erratic. When tensions fall, less is said, the room is quieter, and the pacing slows down to the point that the movie seems almost like a recording of just a bunch of people in a room. We even see the breaks in between the discussions that are held. At first, the pacing seems a bit slow, as tensions are naturally low and just about everybody is convinced that the boy is guilty, until one man claims he’s not. At first, the only reason he does this is because he’s worried that, since he’s the only person that hadn’t voted him guilty, he’s the person solely responsible for whether or not he dies. At this point in time, he has faint doubts that the boy is guilty and believes that they should not simply accuse him the moment they enter the room and that they should use the time to go over all the evidence one last time to make sure they are confident in whatever decision they make. This is the first moment that tension seems to rise, and the more and more the evidence is contradicted, the more and more the tensions rise. Some people feel incredibly confident that the witness testimonies are more than enough to convict the boy, while others seem to be nitpicking the evidence for any falsehoods or improbabilities. These opposing forces create large tensions, and the more and more the evidence seems to be lacking, the more and more the tensions rise and the power dynamic shifts, as those that still believed the boy was guilty felt contradicted and as if those pleading not guilty were trying to twist evidence in such a serious case. The room was one of the primary reasons that the tensions were able to rise so high, as not only did it become hot and uncomfortable, but they had spent a very long time in that room discussing the possibilities in the case.
3. My favorite scene was when the tide of reason started to shift. Immediately, people became hostile. They started making assumptions about who made the ‘not guilty’ private vote. There were a lot of realistic aspects of this conversation, and though not ‘cultural’, the moment did lots to highlight both the characters of the movie and the logical fallacies that people often give way to. A person was assuming another person made the vote due to his similarities to the boy (they both came from the slums), which offended him naturally. An elderly man stood up against the other man and proudly admitted that he was the one that made the vote and that he thought that thinking about the trial, no matter how unsubstantial the evidence may be for giving any leeway to reasonable doubt, was worth spending time on. The man felt offended that time was being ‘wasted’ on giving an assumed murderer the benefit of the doubt. At this moment, he’s blinded by emotion and believes that he is correct, even though it is only natural to ensure that a prosecution is accurate, no matter how awful the deed, before any sentence is to be carried out. As the man gets progressively more belligerent the camera starts to focus on him; he becomes the center of attention of most of the scene.
ReplyDelete4. I thought that, even though the premise was incredibly simple, it was also one of the best films I’ve seen. It very well depicted the reality of people, both regarding their emotions and logical fallacies. The debate often got heated and many strong arguments were often made. Both sides are very well depicted, as the viewer can understand the intentions and dilemmas of both sides; the side pleading not guilty wants to ensure that, if they were to convict a young man of 1st degree murder and sentence him to death, that he was indisputably guilty, but the other side felt that the overanalysis of the information was giving room to unnecessary speculation and only promoted the release of a potential murderer. Both sides ultimately have good intentions, but as the argument progresses, the ‘not guilty’ side eventually pulls through as the potential accuracy of the witness testimonies seems more and more unlikely.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1.The limited setting heights the overall tensions between the 12 jury members. The jury members are stuck in a small, hot room where there's no escape; except the bathroom. As time progresses and the men continue to argue about whether or not the kid being accused of murder is guilty or not the emotions of the characters are intensified because there's literally nowhere for them to escape in order to calm their emotions or clear their head.
ReplyDelete2.The pacing of the movie puts emphasis on the evolving opinions of the jury members on if the kid accused of killing his father is guilty or not because it changes the dynamics between the characters. At first the pacing is slower. But as time progresses and the character continues to argue why they think the verdict or guilt or not guilty, the pacing gets faster. An example (32:35-33:50) As the juror reads the anonymous ballots and he reads a “not guilty” ballot the pacing changes reflecting the sudden, unexpected change in the opinion of the older juror and the changing dynamics between the characters as this sends another juror into a fit of anger.
3.I believe these two scenes reflect how people's perspectives or even personal opinions can affect the legal system. In one scene, (13:50-14:21), the 8th juror thinks about the upbringing of the boy and how that would have affected him growing up. He grew up in a slum without his mother and with an abusive father. In another scene, (1:17:56 - 1:20:15), juror 10 goes on a racist rant. This scene is filmed in a continuous shot, as other jurors turn away from him and ignore him. That scene exemplifies how prejudice affects those who are accused.
4.I think the movie was okay, it was different from anything I’ve watched before. I thought it was creative using the limited setting to develop tension and dynamics between characters, because I’ve never seen one spend almost its entirety in one room. Also I think the plot was entertaining, there were only a few moments I felt a little bored.
1. The tight setting of the jury room keeps the characters close together and forces them to confront the situation and their disagreements together, the lack of respite only adding to the immense tension and weight behind the jurors’ conversations. The movie also takes place during the hottest day of the year, with the heat symbolizing the rising tension between each of the jurors as they argue about the case. The setting is further used to move the plot forward and represent the jurors’ relationships when it begins to rain outside, and the fan is turned on at 1:07:00. As the room cools down, the tension dissipates and each juror grows calmer, representing their willingness to discuss their opinions in a more civilized manner.
ReplyDelete2. The film’s pacing is structured to exhibit how the power dynamic between each juror shifts throughout the movie, with Juror #8 beginning the film as the odd one out who everyone believes is wrong. However, as the film progresses, more characters believe Juror #8’s arguments and the tables begin to turn. Those who believed most that the defendant was guilty went from being in control of the verdict to being outnumbered by the very people who once believed them. The tension that this shifting power dynamic builds is used to great effect throughout the film, especially around 1:13:43, where the jurors debate how the knife was utilized by the defendant, and Juror #3 proposes that he demonstrate on Juror #8. Juror #3 is a firm believer that the defendant is guilty throughout the entire movie, and the pre-established tension between him and Juror #8 makes the viewer genuinely question whether or not Juror #3 will stab him over their differing views.
3. My favorite scene was towards the beginning of the film at 28:35 when Juror #4 questioned Juror #8’s argument about multiple copies of the defendant’s switchblade knife existing. Everybody in the room besides Juror #8 believed that the defendant’s knife was the only one of its kind and that no other knife looked like it. As a response, Juror #8 stands up and takes an exact copy of that knife out of his pocket, slamming it on the table next to the defendant’s supposed murder weapon, the two knives essentially identical to one another. This is my favorite scene because it not only proves that Juror #8’s arguments have some credibility to them, but the pacing of the scene puts you in the exact same position as the other jurors in the room, discrediting Juror #8 at first, only to be completely stunned that he was right.
4. Overall, I loved the film, which was incredibly surprising to me. I normally don’t like or have an interest in older films due to my personal preferences, but this movie was able to captivate and engage me throughout the entire thing. The quality of the writing and the way each piece of testimony is meticulously picked apart due to minor inaccuracies and unrealistic evidence is incredibly compelling and keeps the juror’s arguments interesting and unpredictable. The fact that this movie is able to introduce, characterize, and develop 12 different characters while making them all interact naturally with one another in a single room is nothing short of incredible and is a testament to the power of well-written dialogue.
1. The setting of the jury room creates tension and shapes the characters. The room is small and cramped, it also doesn’t have any windows, it probably made everyone feel trapped or uncomfortable. Because the room is so small it forced everyone to talk and confront each other. For example, I think it was juror 3 that was angry but juror 8 was super calm and collected. So yea I’d say that the small and confined room caused a lot of tension between characters.
ReplyDelete2. The movie's pacing is slow but helps build drama between the jurors. At the beginning of the movie, it seemed like an easy vote but then one of the jurors (I think 8) began challenging the evidence. Then the slow pacing caused juror 3 to have an emotional breakdown. The movie kept dragging on the tension but it helped the film for an overall storyline. It also allows the people watching to understand each character's personality.
3. In the scene where Juror 3 has a major outburst moment the director decided to use multiple different camera angles to show the emotions of the characters and how they were reacting. They also used close up shots of his face to show his anger. As i said earlier the room was small and cramped so all his emotions were just being let out in a small area with many other jurors’. He then describes his relationship with his son isn’t the best. In a cultural context, the film shows the impact of personal biases and how the judicial system works and that there was a need for impartiality.
4. I like the movie because it focuses on everyone’s problems and how not everyone is ok. I also like that it focuses on human nature and how when people get put in particular situations or stressful situations they may act differently. I also found it interesting that the characters reacted in such a way and I want to know the reasoning behind the small windowless room as the setting. Overall I think it was a powerful film and I genuinely enjoyed watching it.
1. As the entire film is primarily shot in one jury room contributes to the overall tension by forcing everyone in the room to come to a unanimous decision of whether the boy was guilty or non guilty progressing the story and showing both sides of the argument. As the people who decided not guilty became greater the debate became more and more heated increasing the tension between them all as there is more contradiction between the two sides, until at the end, they all realize that they can’t prove that the boy is guilty and could truly still be not guilty by being stuck in that room together. It shapes the characters by taking parts of their own life and integrating it into the case such as the one guy having glasses and relating to the old lady or the old Juror guy relating to the witness that was also old.
ReplyDelete2. One Scene was about 30 minutes into the film when Juror 8 revealed a knife just like the one used in the murder along with the scene 43 minutes into the movie when Juror 8 explains that it would’ve been impossible to hear the boy yell he was going to kill his father. This scene builds tension and seems to progress the story by making the other Jurors start to question if they were right or wrong changing their vote soon after. It also engages the audience as completely unexpected and helps the audience start to realize that maybe Juror 8 is onto something. After this scene power seems to shift to Juror 8 as everyone starts to freak out, they start yelling at each other and getting mad at each other because the votes were not unanimous for guilty emphasizing that some of their opinions of this case are changing.
3. One of my favorite scenes was about 43 minutes into the film when Juror 8 used math to realize how the witnesses' stories both contradicted each other if the woman saw the death through the last two train cars, then the old man would not have been able to hear what he thought he heard of the yelling from the boy and the body hitting the floor. It uses film elements such as cutting between people to show the realization of how Juror 8 may actually be right in that moment and heavily influences the characters' thoughts and develops how they see this case. Cultural context that could be used in this scene is them talking about the L train, as someone who doesn’t use trains, it confused me on what an L train was and after looking it up it was just a route of a train but it could require some cultural context to realize that along with the 10 seconds it takes for the train to pass, that varies on the train and the speed of which the train is going which in different places could easily vary.
4. Although I thought at the beginning the film would be really boring as it started of pretty slow I did like the film. I thought that this movie had a solid story and good character development, for this film specifically I thought primarily taking place in one room did work for it as it left some aspects up for imagination such as when they talked about the trial or when they talked about the murder happening. Overall I thought that it was pretty good, I was engaged for most of it and cerious of what would happen next.
1. The limited setting of the jury room contributes to the overall tension and character dynamics of the film by forcing the anxious jurors to remain in each other’s presence as they each become increasingly restless and desperate to reach a verdict. An example of the way the setting shapes the character’s interactions and the progression of the story is how the temperature within the room plays regulates the mood of the jurors. As the men take their initial votes, the room is stifling hot, which only exacerbates their anger at Juror #8 declaring his doubts about the defendant’s guilt. Later on, as #8 is able to make more of the men doubt the facts of the case and switch their votes, it begins pouring rain outside, and shortly after the fan in the room switches on. This cools the room not only literally but figuratively as well, as it represents the lessened stress among the jurors and allows them to begin communicating more effectively.
ReplyDelete2. The film’s pacing works to present how each character’s own internal biases affect the way that they view the case, and how the power dynamics within the room shift as more and more of the jurors shift their votes to “not guilty”. Throughout the deliberation, the juror’s discussions begin shifting from repeating the facts of the case and insisting upon the defendant’s guilt, to characters beginning to ramble off the ideas that are truly influencing their votes- the race and socioeconomic status of the defendant. As Juror #8 disproves more and more of the evidence against the defendant, Jurors #3 and #4 double down, shooting off increasingly prejudiced stereotypes that they feel justify sentencing the defendant for his father’s murder. This all comes together at the climax of the film where all the jurors except #3 have changed their votes to not guilty and he is left in a blinding rage, shouting about the facts of the case before ultimately breaking down and declaring his final vote of not guilty.
3. My favorite scene of the film is the climax at 1:28:47-1:32:24 in which Juror #3 lashes out at the others after Juror #4 switches his vote to not guilty. He questions #4 as to what changed his mind and he simply replies “I have a reasonable doubt now”, which enrages #3. Juror #8 then stands to address #3, telling him that he’s alone in his decision, and asks why he believes so firmly in the defendant’s guilt. Juror #3 then begins to blather on and on about the evidence presented in court and rejects all the points the other men had made to refute it before taking his open wallet and tossing it on the table. A picture of him and his son, smiling with their arms around one another, lands face up on the table. Juror #3 then says, “Rotten kids…you work your life out..” before roughly seizing the photograph and ripping it to shreds. Clutching the pieces in his hands, he lets his head fall into his arms in defeat and murmurs “not guilty”. The character of Juror #3 is an excellent example of how personal bias affects the fairness of legal cases within our court system. While every defendant is entitled to a fair trial by an impartial jury, no such thing exists. Juror #3 was ready to make a decision that would send a young boy to spend the rest of his life behind bars before meeting his end in the seat of the electric chair for the murder of his father because he couldn’t sort out his issues with his own son; just so he could feel vindicated in some way by being able to punish a young boy for the death of his father as he had been emotionally wounded by his own son.
4. I absolutely loved this film. I feel that “12 Angry Men” is a powerful exploration of the faults of our justice system and the way our personal experiences, values, beliefs, and biases influence the way we process information and what we do once we have it. The film also goes a step further by highlighting the ways in which defendants from marginalized communities are unfairly judged. The accused in this film is a young, presumably Hispanic boy from a relatively low-income community, and the jurors have an easier time believing he could have committed the gruesome crime with which he is charged because of these aspects of his identity. This film forces its viewers to think about the prejudices they may hold against others and how treating others differently based on their identity may be causing significant harm to those they interact with.
Delete1. The limited room setting contributes heavily to the overall tension along with the character dynamics of the film. Showing us how the characters truly felt about the case and what type of people they were. With no were to run from the heated arguments happening and the hot setting of the room it only amplified how tense the situation would be, with colliding ideas and ideals all coming to play. at 1:07.08 in the movie the fan finally turns on and show the shifting of how the rest of the characters feels. Truly showing how heated not just the room is but also the arguments that are taking place. Truly showing the tipping point of the characters and the shifting of their thoughts on the case.
ReplyDelete2. The pacing emphasized the characters evolving opinions and shifting power dynamics among the jurors by starting the movie off slow with one person against the rest. Slowly as the movie progresses and gets more heated more and more people bring facts and opinions to light that end to switch the power more and more to one side. At the peak of the movie its 6 against 6 with more and more moving to not guilty as they side less and less with the dominant man and more with the fact man. from 58:47 all the way through 59:00 shows the turn of characters against the "guilty" man. as it all builds to him making his stand and shouting out that everyone is crazy and he is in the right still.
3. my favorite scene by far was at 1:19.53 as itseveryone back turned to the guy talking as they don't value what he's saying and the one character says "I have now sit down and don't open your mouth again". The mise en scene for this scene is so elegant as it not only shows the feelings of the characters and the thoughts of how they feel about this person. But also how no one values what he's saying. They cant bare to watch and listen to him anymore. With the rain and everything in view is truly an amazing scene.
4. I surprisingly really enjoy watching this film. I thought it would be boring and the pacing would be slow. But as I watched it I was drawn into the story and how the characters felt, why there was such a massive amount of tension. And the way it was all in the single room made it was better and the use of the heat and everything just brought it all together for me and I did really enjoy this film.
1. In the movie ‘12 Angry Men,’ the setting of almost the entire film is limited to a single jury room and its respective bathroom. The setting being limited to such a small area permits the characters’ contrasting views to be put against each other easily and shown through the setting. The room's heat ties into how the tension between the characters and their views change. At the start of the movie, outside and inside the jury room is very hot, in tandem with the guilty verdict 11 out of the 12 people in the room possess. However, as time passes and the views of the jury change to a non-guilty verdict, outside it starts storming and eventually the fan, which’s been inoperative up until now, starts blowing cool air into the room. The room’s heat is directly tied to the conflict between the characters and as it cools down the conflict is slowly resolved and the non-guilty verdict overtakes the characters’ previous guilty verdict.
ReplyDelete2. At multiple points throughout the film, the jury takes a vote between themselves, serving as a reflection of the previous argument and exposition into the next argument. Every vote ultimately shows the evolving opinions on the case. More and more of the jury votes non-guilty with each vote that’s held, each character reflecting on every point made and making their opinion expressed to the others. Each vote moves the story forward toward the conclusion, toward the combined non-guilty verdict they all share at the end of the film. For example, the second vote goes from 1 non-guilty verdict to 2. It’s the main turning point for the jury, it demonstrates that the other side of the jury needs to be heard.
3. My favorite scene is at 1:29:40 when everyone is looking at juror number 3 as he yells about how the man is guilty and slowly devolves into reiterating the same 2 points to the group. It’s learned, at that point, that he’s still hurt from the last he saw his son, which was 3 years ago. Juror number 3 puts all his emotions into his guilty verdict and ultimately grows not to blame the man on trial and, in tandem, his son. His final verdict of ‘not guilty’ demonstrates that he’s just a man who’s hurt and that he shouldn’t put his emotions first when deciding whether someone, whom he doesn’t know, lives another day or not. The cinematography emphasizes how everyone else breaks down his outside barriers and reveals his true character. He’s a man who’s kept up a barrier of being a tough guy who doesn’t let anything get to him and this trial is ultimately what breaks that barrier and reveals who he truly is to both the other jurors, but also himself.
4. Overall, I surprisingly did like this movie. I didn’t expect myself to like a movie from 1957, however I did. I really appreciated how well the story was conveyed in such a limited setting and how the characters’ tone toward the ever-developing situation was depicted. Each character had different sets of values and morals which all tied into why I enjoyed the film as a whole.
1.The isolation from the outside world creates tension like no other in the fact that they are forced to confront their own bias and beliefs. It intensifies the pressure in the room becoming palpable as the argument continues. The jurors are faced with difficult decisions and choices to make because of this isolation.
ReplyDelete2.In 12 angry men the pacing solidifies itself as a key role-player in building tension and conflict with dramatic impact and advancing the character development. by carefully controlling the speed that the film 's narrative is driven it allows for a sense of tension while highlighting key details in the narrative and in some of the characters.
3. The knife demonstration scene in "12 angry men" is a masterclass in using film elements to create dramatic tension and create different themes. Through the use of cinematography sound and pacing it creates a illustration of the principle of reasonable doubt in our legal system. It highlights different legal principles as well as adding depth to the narrative and creating relevance to the real world.
4. in conclusion, 12 angry men is not in my opinion a universally appealing film. I believe due to its confined setting and mainly dialogue driven storytelling makes it not for everyone. it's thematic depth and powerful storytelling make it a compelling and interesting story and it is undeniably a significant cultural film. but, whether or not it resonates personally with me and is compelling to me is a different story.
1. The limited setting contributes to the overall tension and character dynamics of the film by forcing the characters to interact with one another. Because the characters have no where else to go and the only way to get out is to deliberate the case, they have no choice but to speak to each other. These interactions push the story forward and propel the tensions. For example, because they are all stuck in the one room, Juror 7 can’t attend the Yankees’ game that evening. After growing tired of waiting, he switches his vote to not guilty just to progress their deliberation. His vote causes conflict with Juror 11 while also progressing the group’s decision towards not guilty, moving the plot forward.
ReplyDelete2. 12 Angry Men’s slow pacing allows for a fully fleshed out development of the juror’s deliberation. The slower pace shows every detail and by doing so emphasizes the characters’ evolving opinions and the shifting power dynamics among the jurors. Many scenes’ pacing contributes to the shifting of power dynamics is them. When Juror 9 explains that the woman who claimed to have witnessed the murder had the same impressions from glasses as Juror 4, meaning that she would have struggled to see the murder, he goes over many meticulous details gives a long description on the importance of this detail, which goes largely uninterrupted compared to earlier long arguments. As more jurors vote not guilty and the jurors who vote guilty lose power, the jurors listen to each other more. Another example is when the jurors vote 11 not guilty to 1 guilty. At the beginning of the film, the other jurors wanter Juror 8 to convince them the defendant wasn’t guilty because he was the only one who voted not guilty. By the end, the jurors now come full circle and ask Juror 3 to prove that the defendant is guilty because now he’s the only one who voted guilty.
3. My favorite scene was towards the very end when Juror 3 is the only one voting guilty and releases his angry to all the other jurors. In the scene, he throws his wallet on the table and out comes a picture of him and his son, which he promptly rips out of anger The scene uses close-ups on the photograph to highlight its importance to the scene. The photo is what truly causes the peak of Juror 3’s rage and frenzy and by showing the photograph instead of just describing it, the audience gets a bigger picture of why it caused him so much distress. In a cultural context, during the 1950s, there was a large spike in juvenile delinquency, something demonstrated by Juror 3 and his son and their estrangement.
4. I went into the film not expecting to enjoy it very much because how entertaining can a 1950s movie about 12 guys arguing over a trial outcome be, but by the end I actually ending up enjoying quite a bit. It’s not one of my favorite movies of all time, but aspects like the characters and the development were well done. All the characters’ interactions add something to the plot and the abundance of little details assisted in the immersion in the world. Another aspect that I enjoyed, which I feel is a strange aspect to notice, is how everything “made sense” for lack of better words; the development of the plot didn’t move do to coincidences. The juror’s didn’t just coincidently notice something later randomly, their revelations had relevance to other things happening at the time.