12 Angry Men Video Summary

Рет қаралды 51,154

Күн бұрын

Visit us at www.gradesaver... to read the full video transcript and our study guide for this classic story, which includes a full list of characters, themes, and much more.
12 Angry Men is a play written by Reginald Rose and adapted from a 1954 teleplay he wrote to be aired on CBS. Inspired by Rose’s experience serving on a jury in a manslaughter case, the teleplay was later made into a film, directed by Sidney Lumet and starring Henry Fonda. It was later produced for the stage in 1964, and finally adapted for television again in 1957. Indicative of mid-20th century American naturalism, which depended on socially-conscious, psychologically driven realism, 12 Angry Men takes place in real time, and all in one room, during the fraught jury deliberations for a murder trial. Against the backdrop of the Civil Rights Movement, the play’s themes of racial and social inequity were especially poignant at the time of its staging.
Set in 1950s New York City, the play opens on an empty jury room. We hear the voice of a Judge giving Instructions to a jury of twelve men tasked with arriving at a verdict as part of a murder trial. The judge instructs the men that, if found guilty by a unanimous vote, the accused faces a mandatory sentence of the death penalty, and the twelve jurors file into the room.
After a discussion about the room’s hot and stuffy condition, the men begin to deliberate about the case, which involves an 18 year-old boy of color accused of stabbing his father to death. At first, it seems as though the jurors might already have come to a consensus that the defendant is guilty, and the twelve men take a vote. Every juror votes “guilty” except for the 8th juror, who remains undecided.
At first, the jurors react violently against this dissenting vote and ultimately decide to go around the table, explaining why each juror believes the defendant to be guilty. It is through these arguments that we learn the following facts about the case. First, a downstairs neighbor testified that he heard a fight in the room above him, followed by the boy crying, “I’m gonna kill you!” The neighbor then heard a body hit the ground and saw the boy running down the stairs. Second, a woman living across the street from the defendant claims to have witnessed him killing his father through the windows of a passing train.
For his part, the boy claimed he had been at the movies when his father was murdered but couldn’t tell detectives the names of the films. Given his extensive rap sheet of prior offenses, and that he admits to having argued with his father, who struck him earlier in the night, the jurors rally against the defendant. The 3rd and 10th jurors are especially impassioned about their votes, with the 3rd juror likening his own estranged son to the defendant and the 10th juror revealing his racist biases against the boy.
The twelve jurors begin to discuss the murder weapon, a knife that the prosecution introduced as “one-of-a-kind” and therefore as damning evidence against the boy. To everyone’s surprise, the 8th juror suddenly produces the same knife, which he purchased from a pawn shop two blocks from where the boy lived, discrediting it as evidence against the defendant. Nonetheless, the 8th Juror makes a deal with the others: if they reach a unanimous vote of “guilty” aside from him, he will go along with that verdict. The others agree and take a vote. This time, there is another vote of “not guilty.”
Immediately, the jurors accuse the 5th juror of having changed his vote out of sympathy for the boy. But the 9th juror admits that he was the one who changed his vote, and that he’d like to continue hearing out the various arguments. Gaining steam, the 8th Juror then calls into question the testimony of the man who lives downstairs from the boy and his father. He argues that the alleged utterance of “I’m gonna kill you” could be taken out of context. Swayed by this, the 5th juror changes his vote to “not guilty” as well.
Next, the men discuss why the boy might have returned home after killing his father when he could have fled, an argument that wins another changed vote by the 11th juror. Furthermore, the 8th Juror questions whether the neighbor could have actually witnessed the boy running down the stairs, given the size of his apartment and his slow gait. By recreating these circumstances, they find that the neighbor could not have actually reached his door in 15 seconds, as he testified.
Outraged, the 3rd Juror suddenly attacks the 8th Juror, saying, “I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him!” In response, the 8th Juror calmly asks, “You don’t really mean you’ll kill me, do you?”
Continue the full summary at www.gradesaver...

Пікірлер: 31

@MrRufusRToyota Жыл бұрын

I think it’s important to point out that the play really concerns the American judicial system, which is unique in that the jurors are not supposed to focus on guilt or innocence (Juror No. 3’s focus) but instead on whether there’s reasonable doubt (Juror No. 8’s focus). We begin with Juror No. 8 all alone against 11 votes, but following the Court’s instruction and insisting on a search for reasonable doubt; and ends with Juror No. 3 all alone. In the end, whether the defendant actually did it or not is never determined, and he may have; but the jury has found reasonable doubt and gives the verdict of not guilty.

@papichulohomes9818 Жыл бұрын

Supposed to read the entire book and write an essay this video gave me enough info to get me an A on my essay

@GradeSaver Жыл бұрын

Eyy then we did our job!

@Villincisive 10 ай бұрын

im currently doing some holiday homework for this damn book and this video sums it up so nicely

@Saitama-q6i 7 ай бұрын

Bro I got this as my English assessment this year 😂

@capalotvxv4967 3 ай бұрын

@@Villincisive yur but quotes nd shi r needed .

@markrose53 Ай бұрын

You know, one can actually learn something from actually reading

@MUTV2 3 ай бұрын

Watching this on 1.25X speed was helpful, a tip for anyone with adhd lol

@victormv6287 29 күн бұрын

@kaustubh3171 5 күн бұрын

@@victormv6287 seek help

@corydk4834 Жыл бұрын

Please keep making these. Video spark notes don’t do video summaries anymore.

@swankybutters8371 Жыл бұрын

Nice... It's such a good movie...

@alexszerlip7032 Жыл бұрын

Thanks

@ronsterthemonster 8 ай бұрын

*19 yr old

@christopherdaffron8115 11 ай бұрын

I don't think that it was established that the accused kid was black. Yes, the accused kid comes from a very poor neighborhood which is why some of the jurors have a clear bias towards him, but it's not stated in the movie that he was black. This was in the 1950's after all, and I don't think that twelve angry white men would have had a problem talking about a minority between themselves.