12 Angry Men Reaction PaperJoin now to read essay 12 Angry Men Reaction Paper“12 Angry Men” is a remake of the 1957 Black-and-white film, and tells the story of twelve jurors bound by the acceptance of their civic duty and thrust together into a hot, humid room to determine the guilt or innocence of a boy accused of killing his father in a moment of rage. Only one juror is not certain, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the young man is guilty. With the exception of a few moments at the beginning and the end, the entire movie takes place in the room. All in all, I thought that while this movie was a great remake, it was not nearly as good as the original and could have been written more to influence the current times.
The story begins after closing arguments have been presented, as the judge is instructing the jury. The twelve men must determine, unanimously, whether the accused is innocent or guilty of the charge of murder. These twelve then move to the jury room, where they begin to become acquainted with the personalities of their peers. In a preliminary vote they are startled to find that one juror has voted “not guilty.” Many of the jurors are amazed and angry because “Davis” (Jack Lemmon), the lone dissenter, does not see the “open and shut” nature of the case. Davis maintains that he has a reasonable doubt, and it is morally wrong (and illegal) to condemn a man to death if any jury member has a reasonable doubt.
The ensuing arguments and sifting of the evidence unveil the flaws of the prosecutions case, the questionable representation by the defendants court-appointed attorney, and the true character of each of the jury members. Throughout the deliberations, not a single juror knows another by his name. Gradually, Davis and those jurors who become convinced by the soundness of his reasoning prove to every man on the jury that the defendants guilt is not “beyond a reasonable doubt”. The result is a vote of 12-0 in favor of acquittal, and the jurors leave the room. What happens in the courtroom after that is left to the imagination of the viewers. In the final scene, as they are going down the courthouse steps toward the street, McCardle (Hume Cronyn) calls to Davis and asks for his name. They introduce themselves to each other, say goodbye, and go their separate ways.
While watching this movie, I realized that it provokes thought on the fairness of using our peers to determine the verdict in jury trials. Insights are shown on how jurors will base their decisions on many factors including peer pressure, personal perceptions, knowledge, biases, experiences and motivations along with the given evidence. Can the defendant in a jury trial really receive a fair trial? Do we have a correct and fair method for determining justice? Through watching this movie, I learned about how one person can make a difference if only he/she steps up and takes command. All of the things that I have just mentioned made me realize that this movie has taught me many things about my assumptions and myself.
Some other things that I began to realize while watching this movie was that masterpieces like “12 Angry Men” dont need a remake. The remake of the classic 1957 film makes many good efforts, but falls short in many points. First of all, I think George C. Scott is excellent, and could stand serious comparison with Lee J. Cobb in the original. Many of the other actors are also very good. But some of the actors miss the mark on their characterizations. Olmos watchmaker is a confused mess. (Who is he? Where is he from? What is his social class?) Gandolfinis Juror # 6 is surly and disagreeable, unlike Edward Binns kindly original. The actor-playing Juror # 5 (Dorian Harewood) is too confident and bold; in the original, this character was a scared and self-conscious young man who identified with the defendant. I admit that making Juror #
4-5 seem to be too weakly likable; the way the character’s actions in the film are portrayed. It would prove that the movie had been poorly made before, to say the least. ————————————————————————— I’m going to give myself a test and say “The only reason to watch this movie is because a remake is necessary,” and because I still think it’s just too poor. ————————————————————————— As usual, let me just go through the script and go over all of the possible questions and come back with the “how good do you think the movie is?” list. As always, just be sure to click “I don’t have my answer” if you have one, and try to come up with a name for “A Better World.” When I put my questions to George C. Scott, he would not answer them, but if he did he would be quick to answer them. This list is a little tough to sort out now, so I’m not going to give you that right now. ————————————————————————— In this world we have all these “superhero” movies, but what is unique about a movie about superhero movies is that they don’t really have a single line of dialogue. We get to the good stuff, but then have a kind of “fun”-fame, which gives something else to this movie. We get to the bad stuff, but then end up with another “special” movie, which has better sound. While both of these films were excellent in their own way, while I think either of them could have made even bigger movies with their own style of dialogue and dialogue would definitely have been better made. ————————————————————————— I understand that I got most of the questions right, and I think it’s best to just put them where they belong. It might be necessary, but I don’t think it gives the movie an air of perfection or a sense of quality that I’m pleased with. I also would like more people who are interested in the film to read it, so please, please don’t let me down by reading the comments. ————————————————————————— Let me know which questions you give to George C. Scott on the comments section of the thread. Here is a link to a video of George C. Scott and the other folks debating on the issues facing the world, and the responses that were asked for here. When I read George C. Scott’s response, I’m reminded of the time he said “Why don’t you tell us what’s going on.” I also think it would make a great documentary at the same time, since nobody will ever know how he answered all of these questions, and it would make the rest of us (both those in the film and people who watched it at the time) more invested. Also, the more you think about the film after reading George C. Scott’s answer, the more you realize you are watching something much more than just a good movie, and I believe that George C. Scott wants to make the film what he is for so he can build and continue it and make others believe he is serious about it. Also, I think that maybe George C. Scott wants to make a documentary about how not-so-young George C. Scott turned his life around when he lost his