12 Angry Men
Analysis
Watching the film 12 Angry Men brought up a lot of issues I see happening in the world today. Its a plagiarism of the fear and dread of personal individual fears and desires. For some characters, it was the thought of sending a young man to his death, with know clear way of knowing whether or not he committed the crime he was accused of. For another, it was the discontent feeling against youth, and a personal struggle with his son of a similar age. I found each character had some personal internal dispute that influenced their decision, making the juror close to biased. The camera was edged mostly in close ups and wide shots, at times giving you a deeper look at a characters emotional state, and in others making the group seem distant, and constrained. The main character is played by Henry Fonda, commonly referred to as juror 8. The scene starts with all members of the jury standing around in the room, relaxing, taking off their coats and hanging them up, and smoking cigarettes. Henry Fonda stairs blankly out the window while the rest of the jury get seated and prepare to start debating. This to me says he was anxious about the situation, yet his composed posture and calm state of mind also tells me he was likely feeling courageous, and ready to try his hardest to persuade the other 11 members in a calm, collected confident manner.
The movie is well known for being shot in one room for the majority, with only brief snippets being on the outside, in the court room, or the bathroom. This, coupled with close ups, and extreme close ups, bring out a claustrophobic feeling, giving the impression the characters are trapped inside until finally concluding. The estimated budget for the movie was around 350,000 US Dollars to make, and while initially it wasn't a resounding success, across the years its became a critically acclaimed cult classic, raking in millions. At the time the movie was created, many strong social scenes were changing, with some of the first racial rights groups and movements forming. It was a common thing in the 40's to the early 60's to see different races discriminated in the court room, un-wealthy, non-white people were often dismissed with little thought to the matter, especially Italians, with the roles the mafia had played during the early 40's.
The film had a deep moral standing, with internal conflicts of interest from the minute it started, one of the jurors literally just wanted to get it done and leave, but on the opposite side, Henry Fonda was willing to debate about the value of the accused life, and sways the others to give it a second thought. The films primary antagonist is played by Lee J. Cobb, he was against the idea of the accused being innocent through out the film until the last scenes. His motives were blocked by the judgements he held over his own son. The use of cinematography in this movie is world renowned, from the style of the shots, to the clothing used, Henry Fonda's trademark white suit making it obvious that he is not only the protagonist, but also his moral alignment. To this day the film is critically acclaimed, and marked as a timeless classic, being praised as a master piece by some, for bringing up relative issues for the time period, issues that many find are still every bit as relevant with today times. The underlining moral of the film was that, wealth, race, appearance, and other face values, aren't a reason to accuse somebody, and that accusations are baseless without the correct amount of evidence, a theme that was very unconsidered at the time.
There is a feeling of personal disconnection between each character, while they share aspects of their lives, where they work, what their personalities are like, their families. Whilst all this is discussed, you learn of none of their names or identities, making each juror an enigma. This makes it feel as if the morals and words of Henry Fonda truly did reach them, and cause at least a small reasonable doubt, as if they didn't feel swayed, it would have been perfectly easy to lie to one another out of self interest, but the moral high ground over shadows their opinions and personal beliefs when a life is on the line.
There was a particularly scene outlining the racism aspect, where one of the jurors becomes distressed with the others changing their votes to not guilty, citing that."You know what they are like." And stating that."Their kind are obviously criminals." While not being to specific, it does indicate that either the ethnicity of the accused, or his social status, or wealth are greatly involved in the jurors opinion.
The scene is shot with the rest of the jurors posing around the room, standing still, silent, blankly ignoring the man who frantically yells his racial remarks and words, before silencing him, and telling him to sit back down. This shows that the characters, some of whom looked deeply disgusted, didn't share in his belief, and didn't feel right for changing another humans fate on the whim of his race, showing deep disdain for the jurors opinions. In short, the film has many great techniques, from writing, to visual methods, and has helped shape the world of cinema as it is today, creating many of the great, classic cliches of cinema.
The film garners a heavy three act structure, the exposition being set up within the first thirty-forty minutes, focusing more on character opinions and their life style, opened through dialogue. The conflict of the movie starts off early, with a heavy emphasis on the majority vs the few, as Henry Fonda faces off with every speculation on the accused's behalf. Gradually more and more the other jurors begin to sway towards Fonda's motive, subtle underlying clues of the situation are visualised not only in the characters, but built into the scene as well. The moment the movie begins, all characters complain of the heat and the room, notably a fan one of the jurors tries to switch on appears broken, yet as Fonda begins to sway the majority, the fan turns on. Another incident of this was the weather, whilst others couldn't wait to get out and go about there business, the weather turns to thunder, lightening, and heavy rain as the conflict begins. Towards the end, we hear the arguments of many jurors, one of which being a very fact orientated calculated banker, who was one of the final votes to sway. They cast doubt onto him by pointing out the dimples on the woman's nose suggested she wore glasses. This was the final point that caused the juror to submit to reasonable doubt, wondering what the witness had really seen, and how valid her statement is. This marks the beginning of the final part of the movie, the resolution to the whole situation. The final man to change his vote Lee J Cobb, or the films primary antagonist, struggles against the acceptance of having the tables turned towards him, after a long bitter speech on his stance against the youth, he finally throws his guilty vote aside, leaving no one left voting guilty. The movie concludes with the jurors picking up their belongings and leaving, two pass names, and the movie ends.
This movie visualises what at the time, was a big issue, the acceptance of a growing multicultural society, and the impact it has on some peoples conflicting perspectives. it can still be viewed relative to today's every day life and political standing, suggesting that taking things at face value can sometimes have broader consequences than fist noticed.
Audio Recording
The film had a deep moral standing, with internal conflicts of interest from the minute it started, one of the jurors literally just wanted to get it done and leave, but on the opposite side, Henry Fonda was willing to debate about the value of the accused life, and sways the others to give it a second thought. The films primary antagonist is played by Lee J. Cobb, he was against the idea of the accused being innocent through out the film until the last scenes. His motives were blocked by the judgements he held over his own son. The use of cinematography in this movie is world renowned, from the style of the shots, to the clothing used, Henry Fonda's trademark white suit making it obvious that he is not only the protagonist, but also his moral alignment. To this day the film is critically acclaimed, and marked as a timeless classic, being praised as a master piece by some, for bringing up relative issues for the time period, issues that many find are still every bit as relevant with today times. The underlining moral of the film was that, wealth, race, appearance, and other face values, aren't a reason to accuse somebody, and that accusations are baseless without the correct amount of evidence, a theme that was very unconsidered at the time.
There is a feeling of personal disconnection between each character, while they share aspects of their lives, where they work, what their personalities are like, their families. Whilst all this is discussed, you learn of none of their names or identities, making each juror an enigma. This makes it feel as if the morals and words of Henry Fonda truly did reach them, and cause at least a small reasonable doubt, as if they didn't feel swayed, it would have been perfectly easy to lie to one another out of self interest, but the moral high ground over shadows their opinions and personal beliefs when a life is on the line.
There was a particularly scene outlining the racism aspect, where one of the jurors becomes distressed with the others changing their votes to not guilty, citing that."You know what they are like." And stating that."Their kind are obviously criminals." While not being to specific, it does indicate that either the ethnicity of the accused, or his social status, or wealth are greatly involved in the jurors opinion.
The scene is shot with the rest of the jurors posing around the room, standing still, silent, blankly ignoring the man who frantically yells his racial remarks and words, before silencing him, and telling him to sit back down. This shows that the characters, some of whom looked deeply disgusted, didn't share in his belief, and didn't feel right for changing another humans fate on the whim of his race, showing deep disdain for the jurors opinions. In short, the film has many great techniques, from writing, to visual methods, and has helped shape the world of cinema as it is today, creating many of the great, classic cliches of cinema.
The film garners a heavy three act structure, the exposition being set up within the first thirty-forty minutes, focusing more on character opinions and their life style, opened through dialogue. The conflict of the movie starts off early, with a heavy emphasis on the majority vs the few, as Henry Fonda faces off with every speculation on the accused's behalf. Gradually more and more the other jurors begin to sway towards Fonda's motive, subtle underlying clues of the situation are visualised not only in the characters, but built into the scene as well. The moment the movie begins, all characters complain of the heat and the room, notably a fan one of the jurors tries to switch on appears broken, yet as Fonda begins to sway the majority, the fan turns on. Another incident of this was the weather, whilst others couldn't wait to get out and go about there business, the weather turns to thunder, lightening, and heavy rain as the conflict begins. Towards the end, we hear the arguments of many jurors, one of which being a very fact orientated calculated banker, who was one of the final votes to sway. They cast doubt onto him by pointing out the dimples on the woman's nose suggested she wore glasses. This was the final point that caused the juror to submit to reasonable doubt, wondering what the witness had really seen, and how valid her statement is. This marks the beginning of the final part of the movie, the resolution to the whole situation. The final man to change his vote Lee J Cobb, or the films primary antagonist, struggles against the acceptance of having the tables turned towards him, after a long bitter speech on his stance against the youth, he finally throws his guilty vote aside, leaving no one left voting guilty. The movie concludes with the jurors picking up their belongings and leaving, two pass names, and the movie ends.
This movie visualises what at the time, was a big issue, the acceptance of a growing multicultural society, and the impact it has on some peoples conflicting perspectives. it can still be viewed relative to today's every day life and political standing, suggesting that taking things at face value can sometimes have broader consequences than fist noticed.
Audio Recording
Audio recording software >>
Feedback Session
Ad some pictures and stills from the documentary we watched.
ReplyDeleteAlso you need to post the audio recording from the group discussion and some stills from the movie. Jazz the whole thing up a little. MAKE IT VISUAL.
ReplyDeleteAsk the others to comment here as well. ask them to point out where you've addressed the criteria like they did in the feedback session. then you return the favor for them.
ReplyDelete