This Blog is a resource tool for the students taking the "FACING HISTORY AND OURSELVES" elective at Westborough High School, Westborough, Massachusetts.
Thursday, October 3, 2013
PERIOD 2: 12 ANGRY MEN
Over the past two days you have watched the film “12 Angry Men.” Please share with the class what you think is the most important message of the film.
20 comments:
Sam Kruse
said...
In the beginning of the movie, I was not very interested. However, as the movie continued I became intrigued with the arguments and the different points made by the defence. What really stood out to me was the fact that Mr. Davis persuaded twelve other men to change their mind. Although, he didn't personally make every point for the defence, he did start a chain reaction. This showed me that one individual can make a large difference. If it wasn't for Mr. Davis, the boy on trial would have died, yet he saved the boy's life.
This movie had a very powerful message. Juror number 8 was not afraid to stand alone against others. Because he raised his hand at the very beginning of the movie and said he just wanted to talk about things, he was able to save somebody's life. He saw through the prejudice of the other jurors and persisted with his opinion of reasonable doubt. The message of this movie is to not be afraid to go against the group. Be independent and be yourself.
The outcome of this movie really shocked me. When I saw that juror number 8 was the only one who voted not guilty and he at first did not have a very strong argument, just "some doubt" I didn't think there was any way he was going to convince the other jurors to join his side. I think the movie really shows how if one person stands up on behalf of someone else it can really make a difference. The boy being tried was not 100% guilty and it would have been unfair to say that he was since there was so much reasonable doubt. Without juror number 8 there would be no question and that boys life would be taken.
When the film first began I found myself to not be truly interested because it had been a black and white film. As the movie progressed and the story began to unravel, I found it had been very realistic. I found myself thinking about what I would decide if I was a juror and how I would defend it. I had agreed with juror 8; in that the son had not been guilty. I noticed a lot of the jurors had looked among the others to decide on the case. I found it interesting to see so many jurors changing their mind after what would be called devils advocate being used. Many jurors had been quiet allowing the "dominant jurors" take over the case. I definitely thought the film did an excellent job on highlighting how important individuality is. The case had been based on another individual's life and the jurors finally realized they need to think for themselves.
When the film first began I found myself to not be truly interested because it had been a black and white film. As the movie progressed and the story began to unravel, I found it had been very realistic. I found myself thinking about what I would decide if I was a juror and how I would defend it. I had agreed with juror 8; in that the son had not been guilty. I noticed a lot of the jurors had looked among the others to decide on the case. I found it interesting to see so many jurors changing their mind after what would be called devils advocate being used. Many jurors had been quiet allowing the "dominant jurors" take over the case. I definitely thought the film did an excellent job on highlighting how important individuality is. The case had been based on another individual's life and the jurors finally realized they need to think for themselves.
12 Angry Men was an interesting movie that portayed the predjudice that can happen in a court of law. If those 12 men did not all come up with an agreement that boy would have been killed for a crime that he did not commit. I thought that it was cool that if just one person stands up, it can make a huge difference if other peoples lives. 12 Angry Men was a great film and I enjoyed watching it.
This movie started kind of slowly at first with them all just arguing and one man disagreeing, but as the movie went on it became very interesting how the one man was able to convince everyone else that there's reasonable doubt. I thought the most important message was to not be afraid to go against the group, thats what juror 8 did and he saved a most likely innocent kids life because he was able to stand up for what he thought even though everyone else was telling him was wrong.
At the beginning of "12 Angry Men," I felt that I would've been easily swayed by the majority vote and would not of be able to stick up for my believe. Mr. Davis was a powerful individual who maintained his identity and morals throughout the discussion on the case. Without having positive reasonable doubt, he still felt the jury should discuss the case further.This one individual sticking to his belief made a difference in the jury's ultimate verdict. He was able to change the jury's opinion despite harsh opposition. After seeing this film, I hope in a similar situation I would do the same.
I think the most important message in this film is that you should never underestimate the power you possess. These men had the responsibility to decide a 19 year old boy's fate. This is not something to be made light of. Another lesson is sensitivity to everyone's cultural backgrounds. That man should not of spoken negatively of less privileged people. It seriously could have cause issues between him and the others in the room as well.
Once the film started I immediately was uninterested because it was in black and white. Once the movie continued I became interested as I realized how relevant it was to our study. The power to go against the majorityis tough which is why most based there decision on what others said except Mr. Davis who stuck to his belief. It was incredible to see what we a people would do to fit in action. I hope if I was placed in the same situation I would stick to my beliefs instead of going along with the majority if what the majority was saying was something I disagreed with.
"12 angry man" was a movie that made me think about the power of the individual. juror number 8 was certain about the case itself. the majority of the men wanted the defendant to go to the chair and die. one against 11 is never easy but the movie illustrated that your environment should dominate your persona nor your decision you make. the movie illustrate you should never let your ground crumble underneath your feet, you are your own person and the movie did a great job illustrating the theme through juror number 8.
I think the message of this film was that the individual has a huge amount of power. Even though Mr. Davis was alone in his belief of "not guilty" at the beginning of the film, he still stood up for what he believed was right (examining all the facts fairly) instead of siding with the group. It showed that going against what a group is thinking can have a great affect on the outcome of the event. Even though we don't know if the defendant was guilty or innocent, Mr. Davis followed his morals and values which enabled him to make an ethical decision. It also helped him enable others to reach the same conclusion.
It is incredible how Mr. Davis was able to convince 11 other men that the boy was innocent. It is hard enough trying to convince one man, never mind a large, stubborn group. I think the main theme of this film is that the opinion of one person, in any given situation, can be incredibly powerful as long as he/she leads by example and persists in proving their point. Mr. Davis easily could have given in, but his courage, fearless attitude and confidence led him to his success in the court house. On another note, I was disappointed that the producer chose to film the entire movie in one room; I think it would have been more interesting had scenes been filmed in the court itself. (With the boy, judge, lawyers etc)
I really enjoyed watching the film 12 Angry Men and it turned out to be a very entertaining movie. This movie highlighted the power and influence of the individual, where Mr. Davis was able to voice his opinion out to the other jury members who voted not guilty. I found it interesting that the other jury members already had a preconceived belief on the trial without really evaluating the real facts. One of the jury members already had a predisposition and it made him prejudice towards the decision but the power of the individual in Mr. Davis allowed him to validate himself and the case. Today, i think more people need to stand up for what they believe in.
I was very interested while watching the film 12 Angry Men. I couldn't believe 11 of the men at first were okay with saying the kid was guilty and having him sent to be killed. I was very happy when Mr. Davis said that he wanted to talk about it. I also couldn't believe how stubborn some of the men were being towards the end when most of them found the kid not guilty. At the end, I was very happy that they came to an agreement on the kid being not guilty.
12 angru men shows the prejudice towards the teen. the teen is only 18 years old and is on trial for being hung considering he is possibly innocent. it is horrible if a teen were to die to a false conviction and its happened before. people should consider all evidence before making the point and taking.sides is wrong
The film 12 Angry Men was quite intriguing as one man stood up for a boy’s life and slowly convinced more jurors to vote not guilty. Although the evidence provided in court makes the boy seem guilty, Mr. Davis wanted to review the case to prevent the wrong decision from being made just so the men could leave quickly. Throughout the film, prejudice was highlighted among a few characters while others were just too stubborn to want to review the case as they wished to send the boy to die just to keep their days moving along. Even after many bitter comments and harsh feelings displayed, all 12 men agreed on the boy’s innocence and left.
Watching twelve angry men was continously interesting. It took alot of bravery to continously stand against the majority in order to preserve what he thought was right. I think this film is important because it shows how a democracy is supposed to act and i believe the most imoortant messege is that life is important no matter whose it is and shouldnt be thrown away at a whim.
Watching "12 Angry Men" was continously interesting and had a few important messeges to share with the people of that time. It showed how there isnt any room or tolerance for prejudice in our world because "all men are created equal." It also shows how a democratic court system is supposed to function which follows along with what I believe is the most important messege which i believe is that Life is the most valuable thing we all have and shouldnt be thrown away on a whim.
The most important message in this film is the concept that people are not guilty in our society until it is proven. Juror 8 was not sure of anything at the beginning of the film, and most of all not sure of the man's guilt. It is interesting that the film never really explained whether he was guilty or not, and left the ending quite ambiguous.
20 comments:
In the beginning of the movie, I was not very interested. However, as the movie continued I became intrigued with the arguments and the different points made by the defence. What really stood out to me was the fact that Mr. Davis persuaded twelve other men to change their mind. Although, he didn't personally make every point for the defence, he did start a chain reaction. This showed me that one individual can make a large difference. If it wasn't for Mr. Davis, the boy on trial would have died, yet he saved the boy's life.
This movie had a very powerful message. Juror number 8 was not afraid to stand alone against others. Because he raised his hand at the very beginning of the movie and said he just wanted to talk about things, he was able to save somebody's life. He saw through the prejudice of the other jurors and persisted with his opinion of reasonable doubt. The message of this movie is to not be afraid to go against the group. Be independent and be yourself.
The outcome of this movie really shocked me. When I saw that juror number 8 was the only one who voted not guilty and he at first did not have a very strong argument, just "some doubt" I didn't think there was any way he was going to convince the other jurors to join his side. I think the movie really shows how if one person stands up on behalf of someone else it can really make a difference. The boy being tried was not 100% guilty and it would have been unfair to say that he was since there was so much reasonable doubt. Without juror number 8 there would be no question and that boys life would be taken.
When the film first began I found myself to not be truly interested because it had been a black and white film. As the movie progressed and the story began to unravel, I found it had been very realistic. I found myself thinking about what I would decide if I was a juror and how I would defend it. I had agreed with juror 8; in that the son had not been guilty. I noticed a lot of the jurors had looked among the others to decide on the case. I found it interesting to see so many jurors changing their mind after what would be called devils advocate being used. Many jurors had been quiet allowing the "dominant jurors" take over the case. I definitely thought the film did an excellent job on highlighting how important individuality is. The case had been based on another individual's life and the jurors finally realized they need to think for themselves.
When the film first began I found myself to not be truly interested because it had been a black and white film. As the movie progressed and the story began to unravel, I found it had been very realistic. I found myself thinking about what I would decide if I was a juror and how I would defend it. I had agreed with juror 8; in that the son had not been guilty. I noticed a lot of the jurors had looked among the others to decide on the case. I found it interesting to see so many jurors changing their mind after what would be called devils advocate being used. Many jurors had been quiet allowing the "dominant jurors" take over the case. I definitely thought the film did an excellent job on highlighting how important individuality is. The case had been based on another individual's life and the jurors finally realized they need to think for themselves.
12 Angry Men was an interesting movie that portayed the predjudice that can happen in a court of law. If those 12 men did not all come up with an agreement that boy would have been killed for a crime that he did not commit. I thought that it was cool that if just one person stands up, it can make a huge difference if other peoples lives. 12 Angry Men was a great film and I enjoyed watching it.
This movie started kind of slowly at first with them all just arguing and one man disagreeing, but as the movie went on it became very interesting how the one man was able to convince everyone else that there's reasonable doubt. I thought the most important message was to not be afraid to go against the group, thats what juror 8 did and he saved a most likely innocent kids life because he was able to stand up for what he thought even though everyone else was telling him was wrong.
At the beginning of "12 Angry Men," I felt that I would've been easily swayed by the majority vote and would not of be able to stick up for my believe. Mr. Davis was a powerful individual who maintained his identity and morals throughout the discussion on the case. Without having positive reasonable doubt, he still felt the jury should discuss the case further.This one individual sticking to his belief made a difference in the jury's ultimate verdict. He was able to change the jury's opinion despite harsh opposition. After seeing this film, I hope in a similar situation I would do the same.
I think the most important message in this film is that you should never underestimate the power you possess. These men had the responsibility to decide a 19 year old boy's fate. This is not something to be made light of. Another lesson is sensitivity to everyone's cultural backgrounds. That man should not of spoken negatively of less privileged people. It seriously could have cause issues between him and the others in the room as well.
Once the film started I immediately was uninterested because it was in black and white. Once the movie continued I became interested as I realized how relevant it was to our study. The power to go against the majorityis tough which is why most based there decision on what others said except Mr. Davis who stuck to his belief. It was incredible to see what we a people would do to fit in action. I hope if I was placed in the same situation I would stick to my beliefs instead of going along with the majority if what the majority was saying was something I disagreed with.
"12 angry man" was a movie that made me think about the power of the individual. juror number 8 was certain about the case itself. the majority of the men wanted the defendant to go to the chair and die. one against 11 is never easy but the movie illustrated that your environment should dominate your persona nor your decision you make. the movie illustrate you should never let your ground crumble underneath your feet, you are your own person and the movie did a great job illustrating the theme through juror number 8.
I think the message of this film was that the individual has a huge amount of power. Even though Mr. Davis was alone in his belief of "not guilty" at the beginning of the film, he still stood up for what he believed was right (examining all the facts fairly) instead of siding with the group. It showed that going against what a group is thinking can have a great affect on the outcome of the event. Even though we don't know if the defendant was guilty or innocent, Mr. Davis followed his morals and values which enabled him to make an ethical decision. It also helped him enable others to reach the same conclusion.
It is incredible how Mr. Davis was able to convince 11 other men that the boy was innocent. It is hard enough trying to convince one man, never mind a large, stubborn group. I think the main theme of this film is that the opinion of one person, in any given situation, can be incredibly powerful as long as he/she leads by example and persists in proving their point. Mr. Davis easily could have given in, but his courage, fearless attitude and confidence led him to his success in the court house. On another note, I was disappointed that the producer chose to film the entire movie in one room; I think it would have been more interesting had scenes been filmed in the court itself. (With the boy, judge, lawyers etc)
I really enjoyed watching the film 12 Angry Men and it turned out to be a very entertaining movie. This movie highlighted the power and influence of the individual, where Mr. Davis was able to voice his opinion out to the other jury members who voted not guilty. I found it interesting that the other jury members already had a preconceived belief on the trial without really evaluating the real facts. One of the jury members already had a predisposition and it made him prejudice towards the decision but the power of the individual in Mr. Davis allowed him to validate himself and the case. Today, i think more people need to stand up for what they believe in.
I was very interested while watching the film 12 Angry Men. I couldn't believe 11 of the men at first were okay with saying the kid was guilty and having him sent to be killed. I was very happy when Mr. Davis said that he wanted to talk about it. I also couldn't believe how stubborn some of the men were being towards the end when most of them found the kid not guilty. At the end, I was very happy that they came to an agreement on the kid being not guilty.
12 angru men shows the prejudice towards the teen. the teen is only 18 years old and is on trial for being hung considering he is possibly innocent. it is horrible if a teen were to die to a false conviction and its happened before. people should consider all evidence before making the point and taking.sides is wrong
The film 12 Angry Men was quite intriguing as one man stood up for a boy’s life and slowly convinced more jurors to vote not guilty. Although the evidence provided in court makes the boy seem guilty, Mr. Davis wanted to review the case to prevent the wrong decision from being made just so the men could leave quickly. Throughout the film, prejudice was highlighted among a few characters while others were just too stubborn to want to review the case as they wished to send the boy to die just to keep their days moving along. Even after many bitter comments and harsh feelings displayed, all 12 men agreed on the boy’s innocence and left.
Watching twelve angry men was continously interesting. It took alot of bravery to continously stand against the majority in order to preserve what he thought was right. I think this film is important because it shows how a democracy is supposed to act and i believe the most imoortant messege is that life is important no matter whose it is and shouldnt be thrown away at a whim.
Watching "12 Angry Men" was continously interesting and had a few important messeges to share with the people of that time. It showed how there isnt any room or tolerance for prejudice in our world because "all men are created equal." It also shows how a democratic court system is supposed to function which follows along with what I believe is the most important messege which i believe is that Life is the most valuable thing we all have and shouldnt be thrown away on a whim.
The most important message in this film is the concept that people are not guilty in our society until it is proven. Juror 8 was not sure of anything at the beginning of the film, and most of all not sure of the man's guilt. It is interesting that the film never really explained whether he was guilty or not, and left the ending quite ambiguous.
Post a Comment