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 6: 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.
24 comments:
Leah Bridge
said...
After watching the movie 12 angry men, I feel the most important message of the story is don't judge a book by its cover. All of the men except one put the boy down as gulity just because of the color of his skin. They didn't care to discuss the case instead, because he was black, they just assumed he was guilty. The one man who took the time to argue his point on why he was not guilty ended up changing the minds of all the other 11 men just by making his point on why he was not guilty excluding race from the explanation. Overall, 12 angry men sends a message of how racist some people can be and how people can let race influence major decsions in ones life.
At the beginning of the film I was not very interested because it seemed like it was going to be a boring, old, black and white film. As the film progress I became more an more interested. I though that this film really showed the importance of individuality as it shows how one jury member goes against the beliefs of eleven other jury members. He does not lets the numbers influence his thoughts and the jury ends up going with his belief; that the boy was not guilty of killing his father. In addition, I felt as though this film showed the importance of not judging a person based on their appearance and living conditions. Many of the eleven jury members that believed the boy was guilty made this argument because the boy was black and came from an area of violence. They should not have made this argument because the color of a person's skin and their living conditions are not what define them. It is the kind of person they are on the inside.
While watching this movie,I was uninterested to know what is going to happen. It appeared to be much more interesting to hear what the jurors thought of the Spanish-American 19 year old boy's conviction. Juror # 3 and 10 reacted much more violently against the vote.Juror #3 compares the boy with his own son, with whom he was estranged. juror # 10 reveals strong racist tendencies against the defendant. At first Mr. Davis' bases his vote more so for the sake of discussion after all, the jurors must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.Then later convinces the other jurors that a "not guilty" verdict might be appropriate.
After watching the film, I think the message is you cant judge somebody based on what "type" of person someone is. At first, all but one of the men voted that the boy was guilty for killing his father. Some of the men even were prejudice against the boy because he grew up in foster care and in a bad neighborhood. They also didn't seem to care enough that it was a person's life at risk, over a bad lawyer who didn't care either to defend him with real evidence.
I think the most important message from this film was the fact that one person can influence a whole lot of others. Mr. Davis didn't even believe that he was innocent, he just thought that it was possible that he was. Through his calm and respectful manner he was able to convince 11 other members, even the most prejudice of the society, that there was at least reasonable doubt. I was shocked that the man that got up and screamed about the kid being guilty changed his mind once everyone turned their backs on him. I was surprised that he actually did change his mind. I was also happy to finally figure out why the other guy took this court case so personal. Overall, this movie went from extremely boring to very intense. It was a good film from my point of view and showed the importance of reasonable doubt in court cases. If people took that term as seriously as Mr. Davis, there would be a lot less convictions.
After watching this suspenseful film, I began to realize that there are many people in this world that make a decision based on their prejudiced and emotional opinions and can't say otherwise. There are also many people that just go with the majority because they are too scared to express themselves against the actions of the majority. But the important message of this movie is to believe your own choices and morals and stick up to them while letting all unimportant things like prejudice and most importantly let your own emotions get in the way. Mr. Davis is a man who did all this and never let the majority stick a finger in his face and says he is wrong and to change his views. Overall, you make and choose your own actions.
To me, the movie Twelve Angry men reflects the fast judgement that many people make. Based on past records and living situations the men were quickly lead to believe that the man was obviously guilty without thinking into it. Each man had different reasons to believe that the man was guilty and juror 10 and 3 based their decisions primarily on prejudice. I found it terrific how 11 men overcame prejudice based on the strong words that juror 8 said. When the video first started the vote was made by bystanders. Most of the people raised their hand for guilty slowly after seeing the majority of people vote guilty. These men were bystanders and would have left the kid to die if it weren't for the proactive juror 8 who fought for what he believed in. Juror 8 had reasonable doubt and support for his not guilty case and would not leave as guilty without reasonable doubt. He was not a perpatrator or bystander, instead he saved a boy ,who could very well be innocent,'s life
When we first started to watch the movie I had never wanted to sleep so badly and I just did not think it was good at all. I felt like it was going to be the biggest waste of my life. But, this class never fails me and by the time the movie was over I was taken aback by how amazing a movie about 12 men sitting in around a table could actually be. This movie analyzed prejudices against people who grew up with not a very fortunate life style. These men were quite to judge because they could just tell by the way he looked that he must've killed his father. I was compelled by the arguments the first juror had I was just astonished at how they all turned around to come to the conclusion that he was not guilty. This movie shows that people often pull on a personal vendetta while making decisions and that you should always consider the facts before jumping to conclusions.
After watching 12 Angry Men, I was really surprised how much I had enjoyed the film. I thought it showed how easy it is to judge someone from their surface. It was clear throughout the movie some of the jurors were not willing to vote him not guilty purely because of what he looked like and the neighborhood he came from. When juror #8 stood up for the boy and slowly got the rest of the men to see his point of view I thought that it showed it only takes one person to speak out for there to be change. Originally it had been 11 to 1 but by the end and his dedication to having a fair and honest trial he convinced 11 people to see it from his side. He did not sit idly by while a boy was to be sent to his death when he believed there was reasonable doubt. He was a perfect example of a resistance.
After watching 12 Angry Men, I feel as though it connects strongly to the individual vs. group idea. Juror #8 was the only one in the entire group that thought that the boy should not be found guilty without review and used his doubt of they boy being guilty to prove all of the other jurors wrong on their original biases against the boy with evidence that could be backed up. Its proof that the individual can turn the group into what they want and its not necessarily the group forming the individual.
I believe that the most important message of this film is that it is ok to go against public opinion even if you stand alone. Juror #8 was the one man who stood alone with his verdict of not guilty.Even though he was the only one he was not willing to change his mind because of everyone else. The life of a young man is in the 12 jurors hands and juror #8 was not going to just vote guilty based on speculation. In the end Juror #8 showed his true intelligence after getting to the bottom all the evidence in the trial. Originally the other 11 jurors based their verdict on prejudice. So bottom line it is okay to be different as long as you stick with your beliefs.
I've seen this movie before, but it still amazes me each time I watch it. The beginning of the film shows just how easy it is to make a decision based on the opinions of others as well as your own prejudices. This makes the actions of Mr. Davis even more brave and important. We talked in class about how hard it is to go against the group, and in such a hostile environment, the fact that Mr. Davis as well as some of the other jurors were able to use logic and real facts to convince those who were so prejudiced is amazing. I think a major lesson is to think for yourself.
I particularly liked this film because I found the plot very intriguing. Being interested in forensics and crime scene investigation, this film really caught my attention because it showed how even the smallest amount of evidence can determine a criminal’s fate. It was very surprising to me that one man with a different opinion than 11 other men was able to change all of their minds and deem the convicted person “Not guilty”. It is shown in the movie that each of the men who originally had supported persecution had done so based on their own prejudice towards black people and towards their own personal relationships, so their arguments were therefore not strong enough for persuasion. I’m glad the film ended the way it did because it demonstrated how true facts and even a little bit of doubt can sway people away from their prejudice minds and allow truly fair trials to take place.
I think the most important message of the film is to simply not base your opinions off of prejudice. In my opinion, all of the characters based their decision off of prejudice at the beginning except for Mr. Davis. Every other character looked at his background with an abusive father, saw his Hispanic (?) heritage, and looked at the testimony from the "witnesses" of the scene. The other Jurors didn't bother looking any deeper. If it wasn't for Mr. Davis, that boy would have been sent to the chair without even a second thought from the jurors. This movie perfectly displays the danger that making a decision based on prejudice can bring on. Because sure enough, by the end of the film, Mr. Davis came up with enough ideas to certainly show a reasonable doubt to the boy being guilty. I really enjoyed this movie, and I enjoyed it's message as well.
After watching this film I think the most important message is to not back down from what you believe is right. In the beginning it seemed like a losing battle for the one juror who believed there was reasonable doubt for this boy's guilt. He refused to give up while the rest of the men tried to get him to rethink his position. This man was the only one who took the time to think through each piece of evidence and not let his prejudices stand in the way of giving the boy a fair chance. Had he backed down from his beliefs he would have sent a possibly innocent boy to his death.
It was hard at first to stay tuned into this movie because, like Mr. Gallagher said, the beginning was kind of boring. When things started to pick up though, I started to become more and more entranced with each suspenseful moment. After watching the entire movie, I've concluded that it's message is that you shouldn't jump the gun in any decision or situation because something as important as someones life could be at stake. Another message that was talked about in class that I strongly agree with was that one person can make a huge difference and /or start a change. This encourages people to fight for what they believe in, even though it may go against everyone else's preferences.
After watching the movie 12 angry men, I was very suprised about the outcome. I thought that it was amazing and very coragous of one guy to go against the crowd. People were not looking at the facts they were only looking at the fact that this boy was black. I was amazed when even the guy who was very certain that this boy was guilty, changed his vote to not guilty. Most of them didnt realize that a young boys entire life was at risk and that they should know all the facts before they go and take someones life away from them.
After watching 12 angry men the last 2 days I think the most important message it to not make a decision based on racial profiling. This is exactly what the men in the film did. The only one that didn't was mr Davis. He was the only one that thought about the boys life and the fact that their decision decided if he lived it not. The message really came through with the way mr Davis fought for it to be not guilty.
I found this film to have many valuable messages. The most important one is that you should never make opinions until you look at both sides of an argument. 11 of the jurors were willing to quickly condemn a 19 year old boy to death after seeing only one side of the issue. This is because his publically appointed lawyer didn’t care about the case or the verdict. This left juror #8 to defend the boy and reveal the other side of the issue. It doesn’t matter what your opinions are when you are deciding someone else’s fate. The only real justice lies in either the truth or lack of it and it is up to every individual to realize that.
I thought 12 Angry Men was a very interesting and surprisingly entertaining film. It is amazing how the movie was filmed in only one room with 12 characters for, I think, at least an hour yet it was entertaining and, in a way, suspenseful. It was really easy for me to feel sympathetic towards Davis because now it is accepted that it is more important to prevent an innocent man from being punished than to prevent a guilty man from walking free. In addition it annoyed me how some of the other jurors were taking the matter so lightly when the life of a boy is on the line and they were just eager to vote whatever and get back to their life.
After watching "12 Angry Men", I believe that the most important message is to listen to what others have to say before forming an opinion. In the movie, the entire jury believed the boy was guilty, except for one man. While the other jurors were frustrated with the man for disagreeing, as they listened to his ideas, they began to see the case from his perspective. While it was difficult for some of the jurors to change their votes, the opinions and points made by one man was able to open the jury up to different ideas. "12 Angry Men" showed how one man can make a difference because, in this case, one man saved the boy from being executed. If the jurors stuck in their ways and did not listen to the ideas of the man, they would have sent a young boy to be killed for a crime he may or may not have committed.
After hearing that 12 angry men was going to be a slow starting movie I was actually surprised when I found myself intrigued by the first couple of scenes. I was very interested in the ways of the court room in that specific time period and how brought to life the court room became during the jury meeting. I was interested in the passion within each man’s voice about the case. Similar to the movie about Mrs. Elliot and her class, I thought this movie showed how much one person can influence a group as well as how convinced the human mind can become. For example, some men were easily convinced by the prejudice view of the number 3. However, after hearing multiple cries and rather strong arguments by the one and only man that voted not guilty in the first vote, the group began to turn and eventually all but one of the men voted not guilty. More importantly, however, was the feeling of inferiority of the last man voting guilty. It showed me how much social pressure can influence the mind of humans and how much social pressure can completely betray one’s own beliefs.
One of the most important messages that can be taken away from 12 Angry Men is that your decision must be soley your own. It should not derive from prejudice, person experience or vendetta. Choosing guilty or not guilty simply because you want to go home is a blatent disregard to your duty and responsibility to someone's life. It is important to keep in mind that your vary action has reproccusions: "an equal and opposite reaction". While to you it may seem like a simple decision, to the affected person, it might mean life or death. Everyone deserves the same chance in court or the time of day to hear their side. Just as you would wish it for yourselves, others want their case to be taken seriously.
24 comments:
After watching the movie 12 angry men, I feel the most important message of the story is don't judge a book by its cover. All of the men except one put the boy down as gulity just because of the color of his skin. They didn't care to discuss the case instead, because he was black, they just assumed he was guilty. The one man who took the time to argue his point on why he was not guilty ended up changing the minds of all the other 11 men just by making his point on why he was not guilty excluding race from the explanation. Overall, 12 angry men sends a message of how racist some people can be and how people can let race influence major decsions in ones life.
At the beginning of the film I was not very interested because it seemed like it was going to be a boring, old, black and white film. As the film progress I became more an more interested. I though that this film really showed the importance of individuality as it shows how one jury member goes against the beliefs of eleven other jury members. He does not lets the numbers influence his thoughts and the jury ends up going with his belief; that the boy was not guilty of killing his father. In addition, I felt as though this film showed the importance of not judging a person based on their appearance and living conditions. Many of the eleven jury members that believed the boy was guilty made this argument because the boy was black and came from an area of violence. They should not have made this argument because the color of a person's skin and their living conditions are not what define them. It is the kind of person they are on the inside.
While watching this movie,I was uninterested to know what is going to happen. It appeared to be much more interesting to hear what the jurors thought of the Spanish-American 19 year old boy's conviction. Juror # 3 and 10 reacted much more violently against the vote.Juror #3 compares the boy with his own son, with whom he was estranged. juror # 10 reveals strong racist tendencies against the defendant. At first Mr. Davis' bases his vote more so for the sake of discussion after all, the jurors must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.Then later convinces the other jurors that a "not guilty" verdict might be appropriate.
After watching the film, I think the message is you cant judge somebody based on what "type" of person someone is. At first, all but one of the men voted that the boy was guilty for killing his father. Some of the men even were prejudice against the boy because he grew up in foster care and in a bad neighborhood. They also didn't seem to care enough that it was a person's life at risk, over a bad lawyer who didn't care either to defend him with real evidence.
I think the most important message from this film was the fact that one person can influence a whole lot of others. Mr. Davis didn't even believe that he was innocent, he just thought that it was possible that he was. Through his calm and respectful manner he was able to convince 11 other members, even the most prejudice of the society, that there was at least reasonable doubt. I was shocked that the man that got up and screamed about the kid being guilty changed his mind once everyone turned their backs on him. I was surprised that he actually did change his mind. I was also happy to finally figure out why the other guy took this court case so personal. Overall, this movie went from extremely boring to very intense. It was a good film from my point of view and showed the importance of reasonable doubt in court cases. If people took that term as seriously as Mr. Davis, there would be a lot less convictions.
After watching this suspenseful film, I began to realize that there are many people in this world that make a decision based on their prejudiced and emotional opinions and can't say otherwise. There are also many people that just go with the majority because they are too scared to express themselves against the actions of the majority. But the important message of this movie is to believe your own choices and morals and stick up to them while letting all unimportant things like prejudice and most importantly let your own emotions get in the way. Mr. Davis is a man who did all this and never let the majority stick a finger in his face and says he is wrong and to change his views. Overall, you make and choose your own actions.
To me, the movie Twelve Angry men reflects the fast judgement that many people make. Based on past records and living situations the men were quickly lead to believe that the man was obviously guilty without thinking into it. Each man had different reasons to believe that the man was guilty and juror 10 and 3 based their decisions primarily on prejudice. I found it terrific how 11 men overcame prejudice based on the strong words that juror 8 said. When the video first started the vote was made by bystanders. Most of the people raised their hand for guilty slowly after seeing the majority of people vote guilty. These men were bystanders and would have left the kid to die if it weren't for the proactive juror 8 who fought for what he believed in. Juror 8 had reasonable doubt and support for his not guilty case and would not leave as guilty without reasonable doubt. He was not a perpatrator or bystander, instead he saved a boy ,who could very well be innocent,'s life
When we first started to watch the movie I had never wanted to sleep so badly and I just did not think it was good at all. I felt like it was going to be the biggest waste of my life. But, this class never fails me and by the time the movie was over I was taken aback by how amazing a movie about 12 men sitting in around a table could actually be. This movie analyzed prejudices against people who grew up with not a very fortunate life style. These men were quite to judge because they could just tell by the way he looked that he must've killed his father. I was compelled by the arguments the first juror had I was just astonished at how they all turned around to come to the conclusion that he was not guilty. This movie shows that people often pull on a personal vendetta while making decisions and that you should always consider the facts before jumping to conclusions.
After watching 12 Angry Men, I was really surprised how much I had enjoyed the film. I thought it showed how easy it is to judge someone from their surface. It was clear throughout the movie some of the jurors were not willing to vote him not guilty purely because of what he looked like and the neighborhood he came from. When juror #8 stood up for the boy and slowly got the rest of the men to see his point of view I thought that it showed it only takes one person to speak out for there to be change. Originally it had been 11 to 1 but by the end and his dedication to having a fair and honest trial he convinced 11 people to see it from his side. He did not sit idly by while a boy was to be sent to his death when he believed there was reasonable doubt. He was a perfect example of a resistance.
After watching 12 Angry Men, I feel as though it connects strongly to the individual vs. group idea. Juror #8 was the only one in the entire group that thought that the boy should not be found guilty without review and used his doubt of they boy being guilty to prove all of the other jurors wrong on their original biases against the boy with evidence that could be backed up. Its proof that the individual can turn the group into what they want and its not necessarily the group forming the individual.
I believe that the most important message of this film is that it is ok to go against public opinion even if you stand alone. Juror #8 was the one man who stood alone with his verdict of not guilty.Even though he was the only one he was not willing to change his mind because of everyone else. The life of a young man is in the 12 jurors hands and juror #8 was not going to just vote guilty based on speculation. In the end Juror #8 showed his true intelligence after getting to the bottom all the evidence in the trial. Originally the other 11 jurors based their verdict on prejudice. So bottom line it is okay to be different as long as you stick with your beliefs.
I've seen this movie before, but it still amazes me each time I watch it. The beginning of the film shows just how easy it is to make a decision based on the opinions of others as well as your own prejudices. This makes the actions of Mr. Davis even more brave and important. We talked in class about how hard it is to go against the group, and in such a hostile environment, the fact that Mr. Davis as well as some of the other jurors were able to use logic and real facts to convince those who were so prejudiced is amazing. I think a major lesson is to think for yourself.
I particularly liked this film because I found the plot very intriguing. Being interested in forensics and crime scene investigation, this film really caught my attention because it showed how even the smallest amount of evidence can determine a criminal’s fate. It was very surprising to me that one man with a different opinion than 11 other men was able to change all of their minds and deem the convicted person “Not guilty”. It is shown in the movie that each of the men who originally had supported persecution had done so based on their own prejudice towards black people and towards their own personal relationships, so their arguments were therefore not strong enough for persuasion. I’m glad the film ended the way it did because it demonstrated how true facts and even a little bit of doubt can sway people away from their prejudice minds and allow truly fair trials to take place.
I think the most important message of the film is to simply not base your opinions off of prejudice. In my opinion, all of the characters based their decision off of prejudice at the beginning except for Mr. Davis. Every other character looked at his background with an abusive father, saw his Hispanic (?) heritage, and looked at the testimony from the "witnesses" of the scene. The other Jurors didn't bother looking any deeper. If it wasn't for Mr. Davis, that boy would have been sent to the chair without even a second thought from the jurors. This movie perfectly displays the danger that making a decision based on prejudice can bring on. Because sure enough, by the end of the film, Mr. Davis came up with enough ideas to certainly show a reasonable doubt to the boy being guilty. I really enjoyed this movie, and I enjoyed it's message as well.
After watching this film I think the most important message is to not back down from what you believe is right. In the beginning it seemed like a losing battle for the one juror who believed there was reasonable doubt for this boy's guilt. He refused to give up while the rest of the men tried to get him to rethink his position. This man was the only one who took the time to think through each piece of evidence and not let his prejudices stand in the way of giving the boy a fair chance. Had he backed down from his beliefs he would have sent a possibly innocent boy to his death.
It was hard at first to stay tuned into this movie because, like Mr. Gallagher said, the beginning was kind of boring. When things started to pick up though, I started to become more and more entranced with each suspenseful moment. After watching the entire movie, I've concluded that it's message is that you shouldn't jump the gun in any decision or situation because something as important as someones life could be at stake. Another message that was talked about in class that I strongly agree with was that one person can make a huge difference and /or start a change. This encourages people to fight for what they believe in, even though it may go against everyone else's preferences.
After watching the movie 12 angry men, I was very suprised about the outcome. I thought that it was amazing and very coragous of one guy to go against the crowd. People were not looking at the facts they were only looking at the fact that this boy was black. I was amazed when even the guy who was very certain that this boy was guilty, changed his vote to not guilty. Most of them didnt realize that a young boys entire life was at risk and that they should know all the facts before they go and take someones life away from them.
After watching 12 angry men the last 2 days I think the most important message it to not make a decision based on racial profiling. This is exactly what the men in the film did. The only one that didn't was mr Davis. He was the only one that thought about the boys life and the fact that their decision decided if he lived it not. The message really came through with the way mr Davis fought for it to be not guilty.
I found this film to have many valuable messages. The most important one is that you should never make opinions until you look at both sides of an argument. 11 of the jurors were willing to quickly condemn a 19 year old boy to death after seeing only one side of the issue. This is because his publically appointed lawyer didn’t care about the case or the verdict. This left juror #8 to defend the boy and reveal the other side of the issue. It doesn’t matter what your opinions are when you are deciding someone else’s fate. The only real justice lies in either the truth or lack of it and it is up to every individual to realize that.
I thought 12 Angry Men was a very interesting and surprisingly entertaining film. It is amazing how the movie was filmed in only one room with 12 characters for, I think, at least an hour yet it was entertaining and, in a way, suspenseful.
It was really easy for me to feel sympathetic towards Davis because now it is accepted that it is more important to prevent an innocent man from being punished than to prevent a guilty man from walking free. In addition it annoyed me how some of the other jurors were taking the matter so lightly when the life of a boy is on the line and they were just eager to vote whatever and get back to their life.
After watching "12 Angry Men", I believe that the most important message is to listen to what others have to say before forming an opinion. In the movie, the entire jury believed the boy was guilty, except for one man. While the other jurors were frustrated with the man for disagreeing, as they listened to his ideas, they began to see the case from his perspective. While it was difficult for some of the jurors to change their votes, the opinions and points made by one man was able to open the jury up to different ideas. "12 Angry Men" showed how one man can make a difference because, in this case, one man saved the boy from being executed. If the jurors stuck in their ways and did not listen to the ideas of the man, they would have sent a young boy to be killed for a crime he may or may not have committed.
After hearing that 12 angry men was going to be a slow starting movie I was actually surprised when I found myself intrigued by the first couple of scenes. I was very interested in the ways of the court room in that specific time period and how brought to life the court room became during the jury meeting. I was interested in the passion within each man’s voice about the case. Similar to the movie about Mrs. Elliot and her class, I thought this movie showed how much one person can influence a group as well as how convinced the human mind can become. For example, some men were easily convinced by the prejudice view of the number 3. However, after hearing multiple cries and rather strong arguments by the one and only man that voted not guilty in the first vote, the group began to turn and eventually all but one of the men voted not guilty. More importantly, however, was the feeling of inferiority of the last man voting guilty. It showed me how much social pressure can influence the mind of humans and how much social pressure can completely betray one’s own beliefs.
I was absent
One of the most important messages that can be taken away from 12 Angry Men is that your decision must be soley your own. It should not derive from prejudice, person experience or vendetta. Choosing guilty or not guilty simply because you want to go home is a blatent disregard to your duty and responsibility to someone's life. It is important to keep in mind that your vary action has reproccusions: "an equal and opposite reaction". While to you it may seem like a simple decision, to the affected person, it might mean life or death. Everyone deserves the same chance in court or the time of day to hear their side. Just as you would wish it for yourselves, others want their case to be taken seriously.
Post a Comment