- This topic has 3 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 9 months, 3 weeks ago by
.
- Posts
12 Angry Men movie review and analysis in film criticism course forum for advanced ESL students at LELB Society based on our language immersion program to enjoy learning English with great films every week.
12 Angry Men movie review
In form, “12 Angry Men” is a courtroom drama. In purpose, it’s a crash course in those passages of the Constitution that promise defendants a fair trial and the presumption of innocence. It has a kind of stark simplicity: Apart from a brief setup and a briefer epilogue, the entire film takes place within a small New York City jury room, on “the hottest day of the year,” as 12 men debate the fate of a young defendant charged with murdering his father.
The film shows us nothing of the trial itself except for the judge’s perfunctory, almost bored, charge to the jury. His tone of voice indicates the verdict is a foregone conclusion. We hear neither prosecutor nor defense attorney, and learn of the evidence only second-hand, as the jurors debate it. Most courtroom movies feel it necessary to end with a clear-cut verdict. But “12 Angry Men” never states whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. It is about whether the jury has a reasonable doubt about his guilt.
Source: https://www.rogerebert.com/
12 Angry Men movie trailer
If you cannot see the embedded video below, click here to watch 12 Angry Men movie trailer directly.
12 Angry Men movie analysis
Published in 1954, Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose is a play centering on the deliberation of a jury in a homicide trial. The courtroom drama explores the problems that can beset the American judicial system, from individual arrogance to racism and classism. The entire play takes place within the small, hot jury room, intensifying the tense exchange between the twelve jurors. A much-lauded text, the play has been performed on Broadway and other prominent international stages and has been adapted into multiple feature-length films.
Source: https://www.sparknotes.com/
First of all I would like to say that this movie was one of the best movies I have ever seen. It got my attention from the very first seconds. It was cleverly written. Also, I liked how every single juror member presented different types of personalities.
The movie was set in a single location ( Jury Room), though this feature didn’t make it boring at all. The actings were fabulous as well.12 Angry Men had been in my films collection for a long time, and I was not tempted to watch it. When I watched it for the first time over the last week, I began to appreciate the wisdom and justice sensitivity the film was trying to instill in the viewer. As mentioned in the film, “prejudice obscures the truth” and for this reason, the protagonist was doing his best to combat against injustice.
The main character was so intuitive and smart and was able to modestly convince the other 11 jury members, especially the antagonist, to change their mind about the defendant. The protagonist refused to take it for granted that the convict was guilty simply by relying on insufficient evidence.
Initially, the antagonist and the majority of the jury members were merely offering or using sophistry to obfuscate the truth, fundamentally the antagonist, who was a sadist. However, through critical thinking and inductive reasoning, every piece of evidence against the accused person was successfully falsified.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
