Difference between revisions of "Twelve Angry Men"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
| − | *[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/quotes Extensive quotes from the movie] showing | + | *[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/quotes Extensive quotes from the movie] showing the tactic by which Juror #8 ([[Henry Fonda]]) establishes doubt in the minds of the other jury members. |
[[category:movies]] | [[category:movies]] | ||
[[category:plays]] | [[category:plays]] | ||
Revision as of 21:38, July 9, 2008
Originally a play by Reginald Rose, two movies have been made based on the script, about a jury in a murder trial. Initially, eleven jurors are ready to convict the defendant but one man wants to talk about it first. The movie follows the process whereby the (initially) lone man persuades his fellow jurors to vote his way by wearing them down through seemingly endless, well-schooled argument: a classic tactic of Communists and Trotskyists.
Interestingly enough, the audience never finds out whether the defendant is guilty; this further stresses "innocence until proven guilty".[1]
The movie illustrates three particulars of justice unique to American democracy:
- the defendant does not have to demonstrate his innocence. He is innocent until proved guilty.
- the verdict must be unanimous, since unanimity guards against a miscarriage of justice.
- the defendant can be convicted only in the absence of reasonable doubt on the part of the jury. [1]
External links
- Extensive quotes from the movie showing the tactic by which Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) establishes doubt in the minds of the other jury members.
- ↑ '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.' (Roger Ebert)