movie review

Published on December 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 100 | Comments: 0 | Views: 1713
of 20
Download PDF   Embed   Report

movie review of 'In The Name of Father' and 'The Pelican Brief'..

Comments

Content


P a g e | 1

MOVIE REVIEW: 12 ANGRY MEN
Dr. Ram ManoharLohiya
National Law University, Lucknow
2014-2015






Final Draft
On
Topic: ‘Movie Review: 12 Angry Men
In
Subject: English

Submitted to: Submitted by:
Mrs. Alka Singh Shivam Yadav
Asst. Prof. (English) Roll No. 126
1
st
Semester
P a g e | 2

MOVIE REVIEW: 12 ANGRY MEN

Acknowledgement

I would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to my teacher Alka Singh. Without whose
able guidance and support this project would not have been possible. The resources of
my college library as well as the internet have been extremely contributory in the
completion of my project. I want to express my sincere thanks to my parents and
friends for their love, support, co-operation and help during the making of this project.

Thanking You



Shivam Yadav







P a g e | 3

MOVIE REVIEW: 12 ANGRY MEN

Introduction

Twelve men with diverse backgrounds are sequestered in a room and are unable to leave
until a decision, a weighty one that will either condemn a young man to death or set
him free, is made. The twelve strangers are bound to each other, trapped within the
confines of four immovable walls, until the goal is achieved. They melt in the humidity
of middle summer, which is exacerbated by the room's stuffiness and by the stress of
their task. We, the audience, sweat as they grapple with each other and with the
responsibility that is theirs to fulfill.
12 Angry Men is a 1957 American movie directed by Sidney Lumet and is generally
categorized in the drama genre. It happens to be Mr. Lumet’s debut movie and announced
the arrival of one of the most skilled directors in the history of Hollywood, who later
went on to make such tremendous movies as Dog Day Afternoon, The Verdict and And
Justice for All. Generally considered an ‘actor’s director’, Mr. Lumet passed away in 2011,
and was hailed by Roger Ebert in his obituary as ‘a thoughtful director, who gathered
the best collaborators he could find and channeled their resources into a focused vision.’

The above statement by the great critic is perhaps best embodied in 12 Angry Men. The
entire movie is essentially an utterly humanistic portrayal of the workings of a jury, and
how far people’s prejudices and mindsets affect the outcome of a trial. Not content to
frame his movie a mere legal drama, the director approaches it from the perspective of
a social scientist. And it turns out to be a thoroughly intricate sociological experiment
that provides a broad view of the interplay of the political, behavioural and economical
underpinnings of the characters involved. They (the characters) are the driving force.
In my project, I will try to scrutinize these aspects and also attempt to provide an
understanding in the legal processes depicted in 12 Angry Men.
P a g e | 4

MOVIE REVIEW: 12 ANGRY MEN


Table of Contents

Movie: 12 angry men
I. Cast
II. Story
III. Awards
IV. Legal facets
V. Review











P a g e | 5

MOVIE REVIEW: 12 ANGRY MEN


12 ANGRY MEN

 Cast

 Juror #1 Martin Balsam
Born: November 4, 1919 in The Bronx, New York, USA
Died: February 13, 1996 in Rome, Italy
Awards:
1. Won Oscar in the category of 'Best Supporting Actor' for the movie ' A Thousand
Clowns' in the year 1966.
2. Nominated for BAFTA Awards in the year 1976 and 1977 in the category of 'Best
Supporting Actor'. Nominated for Golden Globes, USA in the year 1974 and
Primetime Emmy Awards in the year 1977.
3. Won Laurel Awards in the year 1966 for the movie ' A Thousand Clowns' in the
category of 'Supporting Performance, Male' and also won National Board of Review
Awards, USA for the movie ' The Carpetbaggers' in the category of 'Best Supporting
Actor' in the year 1964.

 Juror #2 John Fiedler
Born: February 3, 1925 in Platteville, Wisconsin, USA
Died: June 25, 2005 in Eaglewood, New Jersey, USA


P a g e | 6

MOVIE REVIEW: 12 ANGRY MEN
 Juror #3 Lee J. Cobb
Born: December 8, 1911 in New York City, New York, USA
Died: February 11, 1976 in Woodland Hills, Los Angeles, California, USA
Awards:
1. Nominated for Oscar twice in the category of 'Best Actor in a Supporting Role' in
1955 for the movie 'On the Waterfront' and in 1959 for the movie 'The Brothers
Karamazov'.
2. Nominated twice for Golden Globe Awards and thrice for Primetime Emmy Awards.
Won 3rd place in Laurel Awards in 1958 and in 1964 and was also nominated in
1961 for the Laurel Awards.

 Juror #4 E. G. Marshall
Born: June 18, 1914 in Owatonna, Minnesota, USA
Died: August 24, 1998 in Bedford, New York, USA
Awards:
1. Won Primetime Emmy Awards in the category of 'Outstanding Continued
Performance by an Actor in a Series (Lead)' for the movie 'The Defenders'
consecutively for the years 1962 and 1963.
2. Nominated for Golden Globes, USA in the year 1964 for the movie 'The Defenders'
in the category of 'Best TV Star Male' and nominated for Cable ACE Awards in the
year 1988 for the movie 'Alfred Hitchcock Presents' in the category of 'Actor in a
Dramatic Series'.

 Juror #5 Jack Klugman
Born: April 27, 1922 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
Died: December 24, 2012 in Woodland Hills, Los Angeles, California, USA
Awards:
1. Won Golden Globe Award in 1974, Golden Cable Award in 1997, Primetime Emmy
Award in the years 1964, 1971 and 1973.
P a g e | 7

MOVIE REVIEW: 12 ANGRY MEN
2. Nominated for BAFTA Award in the year 1970, Golden Globe Award in 1972,
Primetime Emmy Award in the years 1972, 1974, 1975, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980.

 Juror #6 Edward Binns
Born: September 12, 1916 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
Died: December 4, 1990 in Brewster, New York, USA

 Juror #7 Jack Warden
Born: September 18, 1920 in Newark, New Jersey, USA
Died: July 19, 2006 in New York City, New York, USA
Awards:
1. Nominated for Oscar in the years 1976 and 1979. Nominated for BAFTA Awards in
the year 1976, Primetime Emmy Awards in the year 1985 and 1986.
2. Won Primetime Emmy Award in the category of 'Outstanding Performance by an
Actor in a Supporting Role in Drama' for the movie 'Brian's Song' in the year 1972.

 Juror #8 Henry Fonda
Born: May 16, 1905 in Grand Island, Nebraska, USA
Died: August 12, 1982 in Los Angeles, California, USA
Awards:
1. Won Oscar in the year 1982, Honorary Award in 1981, Life Achievement Award in
1978, American movie award in 1982, BAFTA Film Award in 1958, David di
Donatello Award in 1973, Golden Apple Award in 1981, Golden Globe Award in
1982 and 1980, Jussi Award in 1958, Karlovy Vary International Film Award in 1982,
National Board of Review Award in 1981 and Walk of Fame in 1960.
2. Nominated for Oscar in the years 1941 and 1958, BAFTA in 1983, Golden Globes in
1958, Laurel Awards in the years 1963 and 1965, Primetime Emmy Award on the
years 1973, 1975, 1980.

P a g e | 8

MOVIE REVIEW: 12 ANGRY MEN
 Juror #9 Joseph Sweeney
Born: July 26, 1882 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
Died: November 25, 1963 in New York City, New York, USA

 Juror #10 Ed Begley
Born: March 25, 1901 in Hartford, Connecticut, USA
Died: April 28, 1970 in Hollywood, Los Angeles, California, USA
Awards:
1. Won Oscar in the year 1963 for the movie 'Sweet Bird of Youth' in the category of
'Best Actor in a Supporting Role', 3rd place in Laurel Awards in the year 1962 and
2nd place in the year 1965.
2. Nominated for Golden Globes in the year 1963 and for Primetime Award in the
years 156 and 1966.
 Juror #11 George Voskovec
Born: June 19, 1905 in Sázava, Bohemia, Austria-Hungary (now Czech Republic)
Died: July 1, 1981 in Pearblossom, California, USA

 Juror #12 Robert Webber
Born: October 14, 1924 in Santa Ana, California, USA
Died: May 19, 1989 in Malibu, California, USA






P a g e | 9

MOVIE REVIEW: 12 ANGRY MEN
 Story

At the close of a murder trial conducted in a New York City courtroom, the judge
gives the jury its final instructions, reminding them that a guilty verdict will mean an
automatic death sentence for the defendant, a Puerto Rican youth accused of killing his
father. Once in the stiflingly hot jury room, Juror 3, a middle-aged businessman who is
estranged from his own son, loudly proclaims that the boy is guilty and that all ghetto
youths are criminals, while Juror 7, a fast-talking salesman, wants the jury to reach a
decision quickly because he wishes to attend a baseball game that evening. Juror 1, the
foreman, who is a genial high school football coach, conducts a preliminary ballot and,
without hesitation, eleven jurors vote for conviction. Juror 8, a sensitive and thoughtful
architect, casts the only dissenting vote, stating that he has doubts about the case and
wishes to give the boy, who has had a difficult life in the ghetto, a fair hearing. Juror
10, approximately sixty years old and the owner of a garage, gruffly declares that the
architect is a weak-willed "bleeding heart" before launching into a diatribe against slum
dwellers. Wishing to restore calm, Juror 12, a young advertising executive, suggests that
each juror present the reasons behind his verdict as a means of convincing Juror 8. The
salesman, the garage owner and the businessman all suggest that the boy's ethnicity and
class have been enough to convince them he murdered his father, while Juror 2, a shy
and stammering bank clerk, appears to be maintaining his guilty verdict because he feels
intimidated by the more outspoken jurors. Juror 4, a middle-aged and articulate
stockbroker, and Juror 6, a young blue-collar worker, go over the evidence which
determined their verdicts with much detail and thought. The prosecution has presented
two seemingly reliable eyewitnesses, and motivation for the murder was suggested by the
youth's frequent fights with his father. In addition, a shopkeeper identified the murder
weapon as identical to an unusual and ornately carved knife he had sold the boy shortly
before the murder. Finishing his exposition, Juror 4 offhandedly remarks that "everyone
knows slums breed criminals," leading Juror 5, who until this point has remained silent,
to declare with great dignity that he was raised in a slum. After Juror 8 points out
P a g e | 10

MOVIE REVIEW: 12 ANGRY MEN
inconsistencies in the prosecution's case and raises a number of questions, he throws
down a cheap knife he bought near the courthouse which appears almost identical to the
murder weapon. As many of the jurors begin to grow frustrated with the discussion,
Juror 8 suggests that the foreman take a secret ballot from which he will abstain,
promising that if all of them vote guilty this time, he will go along with them on the
final ballot. Now, however, one juror out of the eleven votes "not guilty." Most of the
jurors believe that Juror 5 has changed his mind, but the "not guilty" vote turns out to
be that of Juror 9, an elderly and frail man to whom the jurors have, until now, paid
little attention. After tempers have cooled down, Jurors 8 and 9 point out the
inconsistencies in the prosecution's version of events on the night of the murder, and
Juror 9 is especially convincing when he notes problems with the testimony of a
prosecution witness who, like himself, is elderly. The two men manage to sway Jurors 5
and 11 to their side, for a total of four "not guilty" verdicts. Juror 10 now explodes
with anger over what he views as "nitpicking" and Juror 3 harasses Juror 11, an Eastern
European refugee, for changing his mind. After tempers subside, the weary jury
continues its deliberations and when another ballot is taken, the tally is six to six, with
Jurors 2 and 6 changing their original verdicts. Now at a complete standstill, some of
the jurors want to declare a hung jury, but know that the judge will not accept the
declaration without further deliberations. When Juror 11, who takes his duty as a citizen
very seriously, questions whether all of the jurors have a clear understanding of
"reasonable doubt," the obnoxious Juror 7 makes an angry speech full of anti-immigrant
invective. Next, the newly confident Juror 2 asks how a 5'6" boy could have made a
downward stab wound on a man who stood 6'2", leading Juror 5, who saw many a
knife fight in the tough neighborhood in which he was raised, to convincingly
demonstrate that the boy would most likely have held the knife underhanded, making a
downward wound impossible. The foreman and Juror 12 eventually vote "not guilty," as
does Juror 7, whose lack of concern over the case and desire to do whatever is most
expedient greatly angers Juror 11, the immigrant. When Juror 8 asks the three remaining
jurors to explain their continued insistence on a guilty verdict, Juror 10 makes an angry
speech so full of hate and bigotry that everyone is shocked into silence. Juror 4, earlier
so confident that the boy was guilty, admits he has reasonable doubt when the astute
P a g e | 11

MOVIE REVIEW: 12 ANGRY MEN
Juror 9 suddenly remembers that a female prosecution eyewitness had impressions on the
sides of her nose of the sort left by eyeglasses. In support of their "not guilty" verdicts,
the jurors realize that the witness deceived the court by taking off her glasses prior to
her court appearance and they surmise that she was most likely not wearing them in bed
the night she claimed to have witnessed the murder. Since Juror 10, who remains
separated from the group because of shame over his outburst, has indicated he will
change his vote, Juror 3 now stands alone in his conviction that the boy is guilty and
he becomes increasingly belligerent and stubborn. When a picture of his son, who is
only a few years older than the accused, unexpectedly falls out of his wallet, he
suddenly breaks down into sobs and exclaims that all children are rotten ingrates.
Overcome with emotion and guilt at the memory of his son, who rejected his harsh and
authoritarian manner, he finally whispers "not guilty." As the jurors silently file out of
the jury room, Juror 8 gently hands the distressed man his jacket. On the courthouse
steps, Juror 8 and Juror 9 bid farewell, secure in the knowledge that they helped to
ensure that personal prejudices did not determine the fate of the accused.











P a g e | 12

MOVIE REVIEW: 12 ANGRY MEN
 Awards

12 Angry Men (1957) bagged the following awards:
1. Won Oscar Award in 1958 under the following categories:
i. Best Director- Sidney Lumet
ii. Best Picture- Henry Fonda, Reginald Rose
iii. Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium- Reginald Rose

2. Won BAFTA Award in 1958 and also found place in nominations in the following
categories:
i. Won- Best Foreign Actor- Henry Fonda
ii. Nominated- Best Film from any Source

3. Won awards in Berlin International Film Festival in 1957 under the following categories:
i. Golden Berlin Bear Award-Sidney Lumet
ii. OCIC Award- Sidney Lumet

4. Won Blue Ribbon Award in 1960 under the following category:
i. Best Foreign Language Film- Sidney Lumet

5. Won Bodil Award in 1960 under the following category:
i. Best American Film- Sidney Lumet

6. Nominated for Directors Guild of America Award in 1958 under the following category:
i. Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Motion Pictures-Sidney Lumet
P a g e | 13

MOVIE REVIEW: 12 ANGRY MEN

7. Won Edgar Allan Poe Award in 1958 under the following category:
i. Best Motion Picture- Reginald Rose

8. Nominated for Golden Globes, USA in 1958 under the following categories:
i. Best Motion Picture- Drama
ii. Best Motion Picture Actor- Henry Fonda
iii. Best Motion Picture Director- Sidney Lumet
iv. Best Supporting Actor- Lee J. Cobb

9. Won Italian National Syndicate of Film Journalists in 1958 under the following category:
i. Silver Ribbon Award-Best Foreign Film- Sidney Lumet

10. Won Jussi Awards in 1958 under the following category:
i. Diploma of Merit Award- Foreign Actor-Henry Fonda

11. Won Kinema Junpo Awards in 1960 under the following category:
i. Best Foreign Language Film- Sidney Lumet

12. Won Locarno International Film Festival in 1957 under the following category:
i. Special Mention- Sidney Lumet

13. Won National Board of Review Award in 1957 under the following category:
i. Top Ten Films

P a g e | 14

MOVIE REVIEW: 12 ANGRY MEN
14. Won National Film Preservation Board Award in 2007.

15. Achieved 2nd place in New York Film Critics Circle Awards in 1957under the
followingcategory:
i. Best Director-Sidney Lumet
ii. Best Film

16. Won PGA Hall of Fame- Motion Pictures Awards in 1997.

17. Won Writers Guild of America Award in 1958 under the following category:
i. Best Written American Drama-Reginald Rose















P a g e | 15

MOVIE REVIEW: 12 ANGRY MEN
 Legal Facets

The film exemplifies very primary facets of the American legal system and examines
them in practice:

1) 12 Members of a Jury: The practice of employing 12 members of the general public
to act as a jury can probably be traced back to pre-12th Century England, where even
the Grand Assize ‘required the oaths of at least twelve lawful men’ . However, in those
times, these men were selected by the defendant himself and merely vouched for his
character. The modern explanation for a jury is steeped in the ideal that a person
involved in trial has a right to be judged by his peers or the members of his own
community.

2) The Concept of a Unanimous Jury Verdict: As America is a Federal country, the
practice of jury system varies from state to state. But essentially, the jury must reach a
unanimous verdict in order to either convict or acquit a person charged of a criminal
offence. This concept is closely linked with the principle provided below. The standard
of proof required in criminal cases is very high and therefore, the court must be
absolutely sure of a person’s culpability before it sets a punishment.

3) The principle of ‘beyond a Reasonable Doubt’: This principle was introduced in 17th
century England along with the right against self-incrimination. However, the Irish
Treason Trials during the same period are credited with its original application. Quite
obviously, it says that the guilt of the accused in a criminal case must be proven
beyond a reasonable scope of doubt. In a relatively modern American case of Re V
Winship (1970), it was noted that it would be fundamentally unfair to convict a person
on a lower burden of persuasion than is required by this principle. It is said that this
burden afforded the defendant extraordinary protection against the risk of erroneous
conviction. Although this rule establishes a very high standard, it has become a
uniformly applied principle since its articulation in the 18th century.



P a g e | 16

MOVIE REVIEW: 12 ANGRY MEN

 Review


In form, "12 Angry Men" is a courtroom drama. In purpose, it's a crash course in those
passages of the Constitution that promise defendants a fair trial and the presumption of
innocence. It has a kind of stark simplicity: Apart from a brief setup and a briefer
epilogue, the entire film takes place within a small New York City jury room, on "the
hottest day of the year," as 12 men debate the fate of a young defendant charged with
murdering his father.
The film shows us nothing of the trial itself except for the judge's perfunctory, almost
bored, charge to the jury. His tone of voice indicates the verdict is a foregone
conclusion. We hear neither prosecutor nor defense attorney, and learn of the evidence
only second-hand, as the jurors debate it. Most courtroom movies feel it necessary to
end with a clear-cut verdict. But "12 Angry Men" never states whether the defendant is
innocent or guilty. It is about whether the jury has a reasonable doubt about his guilt.
The principle of reasonable doubt, the belief that a defendant is innocent until proven
guilty, is one of the most enlightened elements of our Constitution, although many
Americans have had difficulty in accepting it. "It's an open and shut case," snaps Juror
No. 3 (Lee J. Cobb) as the jury first gathers in their claustrophobic little room. When
the first ballot is taken, 10 of his fellow jurors agree, and there is only one holdout--
Juror No. 8 (Henry Fonda).
This is a film where tension comes from personality conflict, dialogue and body
language, not action; where the defendant has been glimpsed only in a single brief shot;
where logic, emotion and prejudice struggle to control the field. It is a masterpiece of
stylized realism--the style coming in the way the photography and editing comment on
the bare bones of the content. Released in 1957, when Technicolor and lush production
values were common, "12 Angry Men" was lean and mean. It got ecstatic reviews and a
spread in Life magazine, but was a disappointment at the box office. Over the years it
has found a constituency, however, and in a 2002 Internet Movie Database poll it was
listed 23rd among the best films of all time.
The story is based on a television play by Reginald Rose, later made into a movie by
Sidney Lumet, with Rose and Henry Fonda acting as co-producers and putting up their
own money to finance it. It was Lumet's first feature, although he was much
experienced in TV drama, and the cinematography was by the veteran Boris Kaufman,
whose credits ("On the Waterfront," "Long Day's Journey into Night") show a skill for
tightening the tension in dialogue exchanges.
The cast included only one bankable star, Fonda, but the other 11 actors were among
the best then working in New York, including Martin Balsam, Lee J. Cobb, E. G.
Marshall, Jack Klugman, Jack Warden, Ed Begley and Robert Webber. They smoke, they
sweat, they swear, they sprawl, they stalk, they get angry.
P a g e | 17

MOVIE REVIEW: 12 ANGRY MEN
In a length of only 95 minutes (it sometimes feels as if the movie is shot in real time),
the jurors are all defined in terms of their personalities, backgrounds, occupations,
prejudices and emotional tilts. Evidence is debated so completely that we feel we know
as much as the jury does, especially about the old man who says he heard the murder
and saw the defendant fleeing, and the lady across the street who says she saw it
happen through the windows of a moving L train.
We see the murder weapon, a switch-blade knife, and hear the jurors debate the angle
of the knife wound. We watch as Fonda imitates the shuffling step of the old man, a
stroke victim, to see if he could have gotten to the door in time to see the murderer
fleeing. In its ingenuity, in the way it balances one piece of evidence against another
that seems contradictory, "12 Angry Men" is as meticulous as the summation of an
Agatha Christie thriller.
But it is not about solving the crime. It is about sending a young man to die. The
movie is timely in view of recent revelations that many Death Row convictions are
based on contaminated evidence. "We're talking about somebody's life here," the Fonda
character says. "We can't decide in five minutes. Supposing we're wrong?"
The defendant, when we glimpse him, looks "ethnic" but of no specific group. He could
be Italian, Turkish, Indian, Jewish, Arabic, Mexican. His eyes are ringed with dark
circles, and he looks exhausted and frightened. In the jury room, some jurors make
veiled references to "these people." Finally Juror No. 10 (Ed Begley) begins a racist rant
("You know how these people lie. It's born in them. They don't know what the truth is.
And let me tell you, they don't need any real big reason to kill someone, either...") As
he continues, one juror after another stands up from the jury table and walks away,
turning his back. Even those who think the defendant is guilty can't sit and listen to
Begley's prejudice. The scene is one of the most powerful in the movie.
The vote, which begins as 11-to-1, shifts gradually. Although the movie is clearly in
favor of the Fonda position, not all of those voting "guilty" are portrayed negatively.
One of the key characters is Juror No. 4 (E. G. Marshall), a stockbroker wearing rimless
glasses, who depends on pure logic and tries to avoid emotion altogether. Another Juror
No. 7 (Jack Warden), who has tickets to a baseball game, grows impatient and changes
his vote just to hurry things along. Juror No. 11 (George Voskovec), an immigrant who
speaks with an accent, criticizes him: "Who tells you that you have the right to play
like this with a man's life?" Earlier, No. 11 was attacked as a foreigner: "They come
over and in no time at all they're telling us how to run the show."
The visual strategy of the movie is discussed by Lumet in Making Movies, one of the
most intelligent and informative books ever written about the cinema. In planning the
movie, he says, a "lens plot" occurred to him: To make the room seem smaller as the
story continued, he gradually changed to lenses of longer focal lengths, so that the
backgrounds seemed to close in on the characters.
"In addition," he writes, "I shot the first third of the movie above eye level, shot the
second third at eye level and the last third from below eye level. In that way, toward
the end the ceiling began to appear. Not only were the walls closing in, the ceiling was
as well. The sense of increasing claustrophobia did a lot to raise the tension of the last
P a g e | 18

MOVIE REVIEW: 12 ANGRY MEN
part of the movie." In the film's last shot, he observes, he used a wide-angle lens "to
let us finally breathe."
The movie plays like a textbook for directors interested in how lens choices affect
mood. By gradually lowering his camera, Lumet illustrates another principle of
composition: A higher camera tends to dominate, a lower camera tends to be dominated.
As the film begins we look down on the characters, and the angle suggests they can be
comprehended and mastered. By the end, they loom over us, and we feel overwhelmed
by the force of their passion. Lumet uses closeups rarely, but effectively: One man in
particular--Juror No. 9 (Joseph Sweeney, the oldest man on the jury)--is often seen in
full-frame, because he has a way of cutting to the crucial point and stating the obvious
after it has eluded the others.













P a g e | 19

MOVIE REVIEW: 12 ANGRY MEN
Conclusion

This film is superb, in fact as Shakespeare once said "Its the bees' knees". The film
captivates the audience from the beginning. Each of the twelve jurors are introduced to
us as they are introduced to themselves. The characters are well draw out and individual,
each with his own personality. The tension of the characters draws the audience in from
the start. We imagine that the case is open and shut, 11 me saying guilty and 1 not.
We feel the discomfort of Henry Fonda as the other characters belittle and mock how
he can see any reasonable doubt in the case. But we also share his victories and the
enthusiasm as he proceeds to refute or add doubt to the arguments for guilty and are
captivated and draw in as other jurors begin to see doubt in the proceedings.

The audience can also see the arguments for guilty and wonder if Fonda's character is
correct in saying that he doubts. Yet they also feel the shame of the characters as he
disproves that a previously sound theory is iron tight, joining his side as members of the
jury do.

On top of this they are wonderfully woven in human elements such as the
misconceptions that influence people and the growing tension between different
characters. This is brought to life even more by the amazing performances, Fonda, Lee J
Cobb and Joseph Sweeney are of particular note.






P a g e | 20

MOVIE REVIEW: 12 ANGRY MEN
Bibliography

 Web resources
http://www.rogerebert.com
www.cklawreview.com
http://moviesthatmove.wordpress.com
www.avclub.com
www.imdb.com



Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close