12 angry men 1997 ending relationship

Group Conflict in the Film 12 Angry Men | ReelRundown

12 angry men 1997 ending relationship

Love & relationships . The first and only West End production was co-presented by its Twelve Angry Men was not exactly forgotten – it remained a popular In the following year, , there was an American television. The characters in Reginald Rose's drama '12 Angry Men' are unnamed He believes that the defendant is absolutely guilty, until the very end of the play. His poor relationship with his own son may have biased his views. The movie Twelve Angry Men begins with an eighteen year old boy from the He has a troubled relationship with his own son that preoccupies his thoughts.

The information contained in the unconscious area is unrecognized, it is often the most difficult to overcome. He levels with the others by openly admitting that he does not know if the boy killed his father and solicits feedback in order to make an accurate decision. The movie illustrates the process of leveling and soliciting feedback which can make all the difference.

The character with the largest hidden window is the boy on trial. One man in particular, Juror 3 Lee J. Cobb has a sizable unconscious area. He has a troubled relationship with his own son that preoccupies his thoughts. This is alluded to in a conversation between juror 7 Jack Warden and himself. The broken relationship with his son preoccupies his thoughts at several times throughout the movie; he is found staring at the picture.

12 angry men 1997 ending relationship

His interpersonal style would be classified as a blabbermouth. He is neither open or receptive. He has his opinion and loves to share it. The net result is a large blind area. He is unwilling or unable to level with the others and is also unreceptive to any feedback.

Most likely the extent of these feelings and the effect it has on his perceptions is unconscious to him. Eventually, he finds himself the only one maintaining a vote of guilty. He feels his sense of reality is in question and it threatens him.

12 angry men 1997 ending relationship

This puts him on the defensive. He bursts, accusing the others of being crazy. His defenses start to crumble as his unconscious emotions become visible to him. By recognizing his unconscious emotions, essentially what he has done is level with himself. Once he did this he realized the anger and frustration with regards to his son has been misdirected toward the accused. Having argued several points, Juror 8 requests another vote, this time by secret ballot.

He proposed that he would abstain from voting, and if the other eleven jurors voted guilty unanimously, then he would acquiesce to their decision.

12 Angry Men () - Plot Summary - IMDb

However, if at least one juror voted "not guilty", then they would continue deliberating. In a secret ballot, Juror 9 is the first to support Juror 8, and not necessarily believing the accused is not guilty, but feeling that Juror 8's points deserve further discussion.

After hearing further deliberations concerning whether one witness actually heard the murder take place, Juror 5 who grew up in a slum changes his vote to "not guilty. Jurors 2 and 6 also decide to vote "not guilty" to tie the vote atJuror 7 who has tickets to a baseball game at 8: When pressed by Juror 11, however, Juror 7 says he believes the defendant is not guilty.

12 angry men 1997 ending relationship

The next people to change their votes are Jurors 12 and 1 when Juror 8 demonstrates that it is unlikely that one witness actually saw the boy flee the scene, making the vote The only dissenters left are Jurors 3, 4, and The remaining jurors are intrigued when Juror 11 proves that although the psychiatric test presented in the case stated that the boy had subconscious desires to kill, tests of such do not prove anything other than what could possibly happen.

Outraged at how the proceedings have gone, Juror 10 proceeds to go onto a bigoted and narrow-minded rage on why hispanic immigrants can't be trusted and are "outbreeding" African-Americans. Juror 10 attempts to leverage this with the other two African-American jurors, which offends the rest of the jury, and as he speaks, Juror 4 responds: And don't open your filthy mouth again.

Twelve Angry Men: Summary & Analysis

After he points this out, Juror 12 changes his vote back to "guilty" to make the vote again. Then Juror 9, after seeing Juror 4 rub his nose which was being irritated by his glassesrealizes that, like Juror 4, the witness who alleged she saw the murder, had impressions in the sides of her nose, indicating that she wore glasses, and likely was not wearing them when she saw the murder.

12 Angry Men - The Value of Human Life

After he points this out, Jurors 12, 10, and 4 all change their vote to "not guilty". Last of all to agree is the rigid Juror 3 who is forced to present his arguments again. He goes off on a tirade, presenting the evidence in haphazard fashion, before coming to what has really been bothering him all along: He begins to weep and says he can feel the knife being plunged into his chest.

Juror 8 points out quietly that the boy is not his son, and Juror 4 pats his arm and says: The final vote is unanimous for acquittal. Jurors 2 and 6 then change their votes, tying the vote at 6—6.

Group Conflict in the Film 12 Angry Men

When a thunderstorm begins, it is likely that Juror 7's baseball game will be cancelled. Juror 4 doubts the alibi of being at the movies, because he could not recall it in much detail. Juror 8 tests how well Juror 4 remembers previous days, which he does, with difficulty.

Juror 2 questions the likelihood that the accused, who was almost a foot shorter than his father, could have inflicted the downward stab wound found in the body. Jurors 3 and 8 then conduct an experiment to see whether a shorter person could stab downwards on a taller person. The experiment proves the possibility but Juror 5 then steps up and demonstrates the correct way to hold and use a switchblade, revealing that anyone skilled with a switchblade as the boy would be would always stab underhanded at an upwards angle against an opponent who was taller than them, as the grip of stabbing downwards would be too awkward and the act of changing hands too time consuming.

Increasingly impatient, Juror 7 changes his vote to hasten the deliberation, which earns him the ire of other jurors especially 11 for voting frivolously; still he insists, unconvincingly, that he actually thinks the defendant is not guilty.

Jurors 12 and 1 then change their votes, leaving only three dissenters: Jurors 3, 4 and Juror 10 then vents a torrent of condemnation of slum people, claiming they are no better than animals who kill for fun.

Most of the others turn their backs to him, with Juror 4 the only one still facing him, telling him to "sit down and don't open your mouth again". Juror 10 then goes and sits in the corner by himself. Juror 8 reminds the rest that personal prejudice can cloud judgments as they retake their seats.

When the remaining "guilty" voters are pressed to explain themselves, Juror 4 states that, despite all the previous evidence, the woman from across the street who saw the killing still stands as solid evidence. Juror 12 then reverts his vote, making the vote 8—4.

12 angry men 1997 ending relationship

Juror 9, seeing Juror 4 rub his nose which is being irritated by his glassesrealizes that the woman who allegedly saw the murder had impressions in the sides of her nose, indicating that she probably wears glasses, but did not wear them in court out of vanity. Other jurors, including Juror 4, confirm that they saw the same thing. Juror 8 adds that she would not have been wearing them while trying to sleep, and points out that, on her own evidence, the attack happened so swiftly that she wouldn't have had time to put them on.