Movie Review: 12 Angry Men (Movie Review Sample)

Name Tutor Course Date Movie Review: 12 Angry Men The film 12 Angry Men was made in 1957 by Reginald Rose. It was adapted from the teleplay by Rose Reginald and directed by Sidney Lumet with the sole aim of unearthing some prejudices in a courtroom workgroup in the criminal justice system (Weiler 1). The film tells a story of a 12 men jury who deliberate on the guiltiness of a young boy accused of murder. The entire movie concentrates on the jurors, spending only 3 minutes out of the full 96 minutes outside the jury room. It provides a focused and thorough examination of a diverse group of 12 jurors who are endorsed to deliberate on a murder trial case. Despite their differences, they manage to shed off their biases and reach a unanimous decision (Kavanagh 1). Therefore, the practical application of rational reasoning and logic can overcome inherent prejudices prevalent in the society. The film is an examination of the courtroom dynamics in the United States as it revolves around the perceptions, opinions, reasoning and logic of twelve juror characters entrusted with the duty of pronouncing a verdict. It is a story of an 18-year-old boy from a slum who is alleged to stab his father to death. The prosecution and the defense present their final arguments perfectly well, and a bored judge asks the 12 man jury to decide on the guiltiness of the boy (Lumet et. al. 1). The judge also tells the jury to vote not guilty if there is reasonable doubt that the kid did it. He further informs them that a death sentence would follow a guilty verdict. With the boy’s life at stake, the jurors retire to their room to deliberate on the case. However, it becomes apparent that the jurors find the boy guilty without discussing their verdict in detail. Eleven of them vote “guilty!” but one holdout (juror 8) is convinced of the defendant’s innocence and votes “not guilty.” The dissenting juror tries to convince his colleagues that the case requires close scrutiny to yield a fair verdict (Lumet et. al., 1). The rest of the movie focuses on the jury’s discussion and difficulty to reach a unanimous verdict as required by the constitution. During the deliberations, it is evident that most of the jurors have personal prejudices. Juror 8 avoids such biases and focuses on the evidence which he scrutinizes keenly for reliability and accuracy (Kavanagh 2). Juror 8 uses ethos to appeal to the moral standings of the other jurors and push them to reconsider their decisions as evidenced by this statement “there is a lot at stake, therefore, I will not allow my conscience to go along with the verdict without discussing it” (12 Angry Men). His exemption also infuriates the others who are prejudiced against people from the slum believing that they are liars, wild, and dangerous. He uses logos by to sway the rest of the group from their partial judgment. He appeals to reason that the testimony given by the witnesses was flawed. For example, one of the witnesses, an old lady, claimed to see the boy kill his father through her window despite a passing train (Kavanagh 3). He analyzes the possibilities and makes a logical argument against the flawed evidence. The use of deductive and inductive reasoning in the film cements the appeal to logic. Inductive reasoning uses facts to draw conclusions as employed by juror 8. Deductive reasoning begins with a generalization that the boy is guilty which then construes to a not guilty vote. Additionally, he applies pathos to invoke feelings of pity for the boy who face the death penalty despite being innocent. He states, “Look, this kid’s been kicked around all of his life. You know, born in a slum, mother dead since he was nine. He lived a year and a half in an orphanage while his father was serving a jail term for forgery. That’s not a very happy beginning” (12 Angry Men). Additionally, Juror 8 applies emotional appeal to the opposition. He pushes the other juror to care about fairness, accuracy, and justice to the boy. The juror also employs a rhetorical strategy to convince the other to consider the topic from a different perspective. Most assume that the boy is guilty without any consideration. One of the jurors asks “what’s there to talk about? Eleven men in here...