12 angry men movie Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

12 irate men film - Essay Example The film for designated for three Oscars(Best Director, Best Picture and Best Writing, screenplay dependent on material from another medium) and finds a spot in the rundown ever incredible motion pictures. In 2007, the library of Congress picked â€Å"12 irate men† for conservation in the United States National Film Registry. Here, we examine the elements of the 12 legal hearers and what may have affected them in taking a ruling for or against the denounced. The film starts with the scene in which the appointed authority is seen offering directions to a jury comprising of 12 men of honor. The appointed authority educates the jury that the respondent should take the hot seat whenever demonstrated liable. The jury is additionally taught that their judgment ought to be consistent. The jury at that point moves into the jury room where they get to know different individuals from the jury and start their work. The case which opens up as a straightforward scenario takes a turn when one of hearers (member of the jury #8) chooses to veto the choice of the other eleven attendants. He can persuade different members of the jury that the litigant ought to be cleared as there is question past sensible breaking point scrutinizing the realness of the observers. Be that as it may, different attendants don't follow the member of the jury #8 rapidly. The hearer #8 faces solid contention from different individuals which sets up the film. The jury chose to c ast a ballot 12-0 for quittance and shutting scene shows the twelve attendants leaving the jury space to introduce their discoveries of truth to the court. Hearer #8(Henry Fonda) is the most significant character of the plot as he is the first to veto the choice and question the realness of the observers. Despite the fact that the member of the jury #8 seems both sure and anxious toward the start, as the conversation continues he prevails with regards to causing different legal hearers to have confidence in his contention that there is question past sensible breaking point in announcing the kid as blameworthy of homicide. Member of the jury #9 promptly bolsters the perspective on hearer #8. Member of the jury #5 and #2 likewise follow