The film, 12 Angry Men (1957), is a drama about a jury that was to decide the fate of a teenaged boy who was facing the electric chair for supposedly killing his father with a switchblade knife. The twelve men were locked into a small, claustrophobic jury room on an unbearably hot summer day until they came up with a unanimous decision – either guilty or not guilty. Over the course of the film the votes went from eleven guilty and one not, to a unanimous vote of ‘not guilty’. In the film, there are many different aspects of persuasion that finally lead to a right decision.
Effective persuasions are when Juror eight firstly explains his reasons for voting “not guilty” at the beginning of the play. He effectively persuaded juror nine to vote “not guilty” by explaining that he had some doubts that needed to be discussed. And then, he explains his doubt about the testimony of the old man about being able to hear the boy yell “I’m going to kill you” while the train was going past the window. He does this by discussing the amount of time it takes for a train to pass the window and how loud it is.
Also, he explains his doubt about the old man’s testimony about going to his front door and seeing the boy running down the stairs. He does this by acting out how long it would actually take for the old man to get to his front door. Finally, Juror eight establishes that it is possible that the boy told the truth about the switch knife, by purchasing and bringing in an exact replica of the knife in question. On the other side, there are some Ineffective persuasions. For example, Juror three tries to persuade the other jurors to stay with him by talking about his own son.
Juror ten tries to persuade the other jurors to vote guilty because of his racist views, etc. Pathos, ethos, and logos can be seen through the story. For example, juror eight uses ethos when he tries to explain to juror ten that the old man could not have heard the boy say “I’m going to kill you” to his father. He Explains “There’s something else I’d like to talk about for a minute. I think we’ve proved that the old man couldn’t have heard the boy say “I’m going to kill you,” but supposing… ” he is saying that just because we say something doesn’t mean that were going to do it.
Jurors ten demonstrates pathos in the story when he says “he’s just a common ignorant slob, He don’t even speak good English. ” Juror eleven replies “he doesn’t speak good English” this shows the irony in juror ten’s argument. Juror ten also demonstrates pathos when he is trying to convince the jury that people in general that live in the slums are bad. As we can see from that, he obviously shows great emotion and strong opinion about the people that live in the slums. Logos is used mostly when juror eight convinced the other jurors that the old man could not have moved as swiftly as said in the case because of a previously suffered stroke.
This is a logical view at how the old man could not have gotten to the window to see the boy run out of his home. Though out the entire movie though, there are several instances of ageism and racism. The most prominent example of racism would be the fact that the jurors don’t care too much about this case because the boy is a minority and as said by juror ten “These cases happen so often among them. ” There is a hate against this boy on trial just because the other people in his racial group.
Another instance is the fact that most of men are talking down the older man, juror nine, just because he is old as if he is a senile old man. In fact he is not and he comes up with more evidence that the young boy is innocent than the majority of the men on the jury. A person’ speech affects his credibility. Juror 10 is definitely the most prejudice out of them all. He gives this entire monologue saying “These people lie, they live that way, they are fighting all the time, they can do anything, and not one of them is any good, these people are dangerous and wild. After his speech, juror eight concludes that “Prejudice needs to be left out of this situation. It obscures the truth. ” That statement should have been stated at the beginning of the jury meeting, though this moment was very important. It completely changed the atmosphere and the decisions of every man on the jury. Finally, as we can see from the film that the facts which are higher class controls a lower class is very prominent in “12 Angry Men. ” The capitalist class or “The Elite” includes the power of wealth, which has access to the resources to manufacture or produce products.
The working class on the other hand is individuals that have no power and their hard work is sold to capitalist class to produce these products. The elite have an advantage over the working class in that they keep this class enslaved, so that they have to rely on the elite for income and they can maintain this power position of wealth. These men in the jury are in a higher class than the young man, so in fact they are in control of his fate, making the men the capitalists and the young man the working class.
The film, 12 Angry Men (1957), is a drama about a jury that was to decide the fate of a teenaged boy who was facing the electric chair for supposedly killing his father with a switchblade knife. The twelve men were locked into a small, claustrophobic jury room on an unbearably hot summer day until they came up with a unanimous decision – either guilty or not guilty. Over the course of the film the votes went from eleven guilty and one not, to a unanimous vote of ‘not guilty’. In the film, there are many different aspects of persuasion that finally lead to a right decision.
Effective persuasions are when Juror eight firstly explains his reasons for voting “not guilty” at the beginning of the play. He effectively persuaded juror nine to vote “not guilty” by explaining that he had some doubts that needed to be discussed. And then, he explains his doubt about the testimony of the old man about being able to hear the boy yell “I’m going to kill you” while the train was going past the window. He does this by discussing the amount of time it takes for a train to pass the window and how loud it is.
Also, he explains his doubt about the old man’s testimony about going to his front door and seeing the boy running down the stairs. He does this by acting out how long it would actually take for the old man to get to his front door. Finally, Juror eight establishes that it is possible that the boy told the truth about the switch knife, by purchasing and bringing in an exact replica of the knife in question. On the other side, there are some Ineffective persuasions. For example, Juror three tries to persuade the other jurors to stay with him by talking about his own son.
Juror ten tries to persuade the other jurors to vote guilty because of his racist views, etc. Pathos, ethos, and logos can be seen through the story. For example, juror eight uses ethos when he tries to explain to juror ten that the old man could not have heard the boy say “I’m going to kill you” to his father. He Explains “There’s something else I’d like to talk about for a minute. I think we’ve proved that the old man couldn’t have heard the boy say “I’m going to kill you,” but supposing… ” he is saying that just because we say something doesn’t mean that were going to do it.
Jurors ten demonstrates pathos in the story when he says “he’s just a common ignorant slob, He don’t even speak good English. ” Juror eleven replies “he doesn’t speak good English” this shows the irony in juror ten’s argument. Juror ten also demonstrates pathos when he is trying to convince the jury that people in general that live in the slums are bad. As we can see from that, he obviously shows great emotion and strong opinion about the people that live in the slums. Logos is used mostly when juror eight convinced the other jurors that the old man could not have moved as swiftly as said in the case because of a previously suffered stroke.
This is a logical view at how the old man could not have gotten to the window to see the boy run out of his home. Though out the entire movie though, there are several instances of ageism and racism. The most prominent example of racism would be the fact that the jurors don’t care too much about this case because the boy is a minority and as said by juror ten “These cases happen so often among them. ” There is a hate against this boy on trial just because the other people in his racial group.
Another instance is the fact that most of men are talking down the older man, juror nine, just because he is old as if he is a senile old man. In fact he is not and he comes up with more evidence that the young boy is innocent than the majority of the men on the jury. A person’ speech affects his credibility. Juror 10 is definitely the most prejudice out of them all. He gives this entire monologue saying “These people lie, they live that way, they are fighting all the time, they can do anything, and not one of them is any good, these people are dangerous and wild. After his speech, juror eight concludes that “Prejudice needs to be left out of this situation. It obscures the truth. ”
That statement should have been stated at the beginning of the jury meeting, though this moment was very important. It completely changed the atmosphere and the decisions of every man on the jury. Finally, as we can see from the film that the facts which are higher class controls a lower class is very prominent in “12 Angry Men. ” The capitalist class or “The Elite” includes the power of wealth, which has access to the resources to manufacture or produce products.
The working class on the other hand is individuals that have no power and their hard work is sold to capitalist class to produce these products. The elite have an advantage over the working class in that they keep this class enslaved, so that they have to rely on the elite for income and they can maintain this power position of wealth. These men in the jury are in a higher class than the young man, so in fact they are in control of his fate, making the men the capitalists and the young man the working class.
