Solved: "Twelve Angry Men" Watch the movie 12 Angry Men, starring Henry Fonda. Review the

“Twelve Angry Men” Watch the movie 12 Angry Men, starring Henry Fonda. Review the movie and its characters. Reflect on how each character is represented and how this affects their viewpoints and arguments. Choose one character to discuss in detail; describe how the character is presented at the beginning, middle, and end of the film; are there any differences? Do they change how their arguments are made or perceived by the other characters?

Expert Answer

The play is set in a New York City Official courtroom jury room in 1957. The play opens to the void jury room, and the Judge’s voice is heard, giving an arrangement of conclusive directions to the members of the jury. We discover this is a murder case and that, if discovered liable, the obligatory sentence for the denounced is capital punishment. After these guidelines, the hearers enter.

The men record in and choose to take a short break before pondering. They whine that the room is hot and without cooling; even the fan doesn’t work. Every one of the legal hearers assume the conspicuous blame of the respondent, whom we learn has been blamed for murdering his dad. In the long run, the twelve take a seat and a vote is taken. The majority of the members of the jury vote “liable,” aside from the eighth Legal hearer, who votes “not liable,” which, because of the prerequisite of a consistent jury, drives them to examine the case.

The members of the jury respond fiercely against this contradicting vote. At last, they choose to circumvent the table, clarifying why they trust the kid to be blameworthy, with expectations of persuading eighth Hearer.

Through this talk we take in the accompanying actualities about the case: an old man living underneath the kid and his dad affirmed that he heard upstairs a battle, the kid yelling, “I’m going to slaughter you,” a body hitting the ground, and after that he saw the kid running down the stairs. The kid guaranteed he had been at the films while his dad was killed, however couldn’t recall the name of the motion pictures or who was in them. A lady living over the road affirmed that she saw the kid murder his dad through the windows of a passing hoisted prepare. The kid had, that night, had a contention with his dad, which brought about the kid’s dad hitting him twice. At last, the kid has a broad rundown of earlier offenses, including endeavoring to slice another youngster with a blade.

There is a solid mobilizing against the respondent. third Hearer looks at him to his own particular child, with whom he was antagonized, and tenth Member of the jury uncovers solid bigot inclinations against the litigant.

At the point when a discourse about the murder weapon, which was recognized as the blade acquired by the respondent, an “exceptional” blade, starts, eighth Member of the jury amazes the others by displaying an indistinguishable blade he had obtained in a pawn shop two pieces from where the kid carried on a couple of evenings earlier, shattering the claim that the blade was so extraordinary and identifiable.

eighth Legal hearer makes a suggestion that the other eleven of them could vote, and if every one of them voted “not blameworthy,” he would not remain solitary and would oblige their liable decision. They consent to this and vote by mystery ticket. The vote is 10 “liable” votes and 1 “not liable” vote, thus the thought proceeds.

Instantly, the members of the jury turn on fifth Hearer, blaming him for having changed his vote out of sensitivity for the kid. ninth Member of the jury stands and confesses to having changed his vote since he’d get a kick out of the chance to listen to the contentions.

eighth Legal hearer raises doubt about the legitimacy of the declaration of the old man living first floor. ninth Member of the jury gives the likelihood that the old man was just vouching for feel imperative. eighth Member of the jury finishes up by saying that regardless of the possibility that he heard him say, “I’m going to murder you,” that could be taken outside of any relevant connection to the issue at hand as only a metaphor. With this fifth Member of the jury changes his vote to “not liable,” and the vote is 9-3 for blameworthy.

After another warmed dialog which brings up the issue of why the kid would have returned home, in the wake of executing his dad, they take another vote. This time, fifth, eighth, ninth, and eleventh vote “not liable,” and the consultation proceeds.

After a short contention, eighth Member of the jury brings into question regardless of whether the ground floor neighbor, an old man who had endured a stroke and could just walk gradually, could have gotten to the way to see the kid rundown the stairs in fifteen seconds, as he had affirmed. eighth Attendant reproduces the floor design of the condo, while second Legal hearer times him, and they presume that he would not have possessed the capacity to achieve his entryway in fifteen seconds.

third Member of the jury responds brutally to this and winds up assaulting eighth Legal hearer, yelling, “God it! I’ll murder him! I’ll murder him.” eighth Member of the jury asks, “You don’t generally mean you’ll slaughter me, isn’t that right?” demonstrating his prior point about how individuals say, “I’ll execute you,” when they don’t generally would not joke about this.

Act II continues in a similar minute we exited off with in Act I. In the wake of everything quiets down, the legal hearers continue consultations. Another vote is taken, and the jury is presently six to six. They enjoy a reprieve. Amid this break, it starts to rain outside. Likewise, they can turn the fan on, chilling the room.

At the point when consultations continue, eighth Attendant endeavors to break separated the declaration of the capturing cop that the litigant was not able name the films that he had asserted to have seen that night. He states that conceivably the respondent just overlooked the names of the movies and who was in them “under awesome passionate misery.”

Upon advance dialog about the switchblade, it ends up plainly sketchy regardless of whether the litigant would have made the cut injury, “down and in,” which would be in opposition as far as anyone is concerned and involvement with how to utilize such a blade.

The hearers take another vote, and it is presently nine to three, everything except third, fourth, and tenth Member of the jury are agreeable to ‘not blameworthy.’ This dispatches tenth Legal hearer in a gigantic extremist rage, which closes with fourth Attendant reproving him once again into his seat.

ninth Member of the jury raises doubt about the observer declaration of the lady living over the road, as she wore glasses yet picked not to wear them in court, raising doubt about regardless of whether she would have been wearing them in bed, when she saw the murder through her window.

Presently, the vote is 11 to 1, and third Legal hearer remains solitary. At to start with, he stands firm, saying that he will be the holdout to make this a hung jury. He dispatches himself into a last monstrous tirade against the kid that dives into jabber. eighth and fourth Members of the jury make a short last request, and third Legal hearer at long last yields, saying “Okay. Not liable.” The Foreman educates the Watch that they have achieved a decision, and the Members of the jury leave the court.

Still stressed from student homework?
Get quality assistance from academic writers!