USA/CC

Twelve Angry Men
The Deconstruction of a Film Shark

Relevant Links

HOW DO I MANAGE THIS FILM REVIEW?

Use the information below as a guide, not as an example.  The explanations below are offered to help you to approach reading a film, not to help you actually write a review.

1. 1. What is the title of the film? When was it made?  Who directed it?

Find this information on the film box or go to our web site's list of films, where you'll find the director and original release date.

1a. How do you find the release date and the name of the director of a film?

2. What is the film about?  (What is the theme of the film? [What is the film really about?] What are the 5 "w"s of the plot?  What are the key events?)

First, try to describe the theme of the film.  How do you do that? 

Brainstorm five to ten one word descriptions of the film.  (To help with this you might also check the "plot keywords" link at the imdb home page for the film you've watched.)  For Twelve Angry Men, these might be:

2a.  What are the plot keywords at imdb.com?

Then, construct a complex sentence or two (THE TOPIC SENTENCE(S)), which describe the film using the most relevant of these terms.  DO NOT FEEL LIKE YOU HAVE TO USE ALL OF THEM. You're trying to describe what the film is really about.  AVOID LISTING THESE WORDS.

Examples:

1. Twelve Angry Men is a film about a young man accused of murdering his own father, who seeks justice from a jury of men hobbled by their prejudiced views of youth, the poor, and immigrants.

2. Twelve Angry Men is a film about twelve white male jurors who, seemingly overcome by prejudice against a poor, immigrant boy accused of killing his father, have to take a frightful look into the evidence to assess the possibility of "reasonable doubt."

2b. Which one is the best? Why?

The rest of your summary should seek to explain the theme by revealing the most important information from the plot -- THE 5 Ws.  You might brainstorm these before writing them up in a coherent fashion.  For example:
1. Where (does the story place?): New York City.
2. When (does the story take place?): 1957. The time the film was made.
3. Who (are the players in the film): The plot centers around one juror who doesn't believe the boy's defense did a good job of showing that there may be cause for reasonable doubt due to insufficient evidence.  Other jurors hold to the idea that the boy is guilty because of prejudice.
4. What (happens?): One juror focuses on three key  questions on which the entire prosecution hinges. Did the boy really have a motive to kill his own father?  Could the "eyewitness" have really seen the boy? Was the "murder weapon" really the murder weapon? The twelve angry men are convinced by the end that there is "reasonable doubt" and the boy is found not guilty.
5. Why (does it happen?): The key juror, convinces the others that the motive and evidence aren't certain.  By pealing back the evidence presented at the trial, the protagonist shows the other jurors that their belief in guilt was falsely based in prejudice.

2c. In a summary, what essential details should you also include along with the theme statement?

3. What is the central conflict in the film?  What social groups are in conflict?  How is the conflict resolved?

Brainstorm what social groups are represented by the individual characters in the film. For example:

Protagonist  groups                                                        Antagonist groups
(Main character, or "hero")                                                    (Main adversary of the "hero")

Once you've done this, consider what groups are central to the conflict in the film.  Finally, the jury is a representative of the government, and the boy represents all of those accused (falsely or not) by the government.  This key dynamic drives the central conflict of the film.  It's okay to have more than two antagonistic social groups, but you should try hard to identify those most important to the story, and then describe how the conflict gets resolved.  Avoid repeating yourself from question two.

3a. In your opinion, which social groups are most central to the plot?  Why?

4.  In what ways did the director of the film show bias by favoring one group over another?  Explain. Do you believe the director was fair to the groups portrayed in the film? Why or why not? (Fairness is best assessed not by whether you agree with the director but by judging whether the director shows the key social groups as complex.)

For both parts of this question, bias and fairness, you have to explain your arguments with specific examples from the film.  The descriptions below show you only how to approach the question, not how to answer it.

With respect to bias, the key question you must address is:  with which social group does the director want you to sympathize? In Twelve Angry Men, Lumet wants us to sympathize with the "accused." We know this because he shows us a picture of the boy briefly at the beginning and he was portrayed as frail and helpless.  Also, the one juror who takes the side of the boy is shown as very rational, fair and intelligent.  Some of the other jurors are also portrayed as fair and intelligent, but most are portrayed as stubborn, prejudiced, and arrogant. 

4a. So, was he biased? Explain.

With respect to fairness, we have to ask: did the director show the social groups as complex, or in a positive and a negative light? The answer to this question is no and yes. The "accused" are portrayed as victims only.  The "accusers" are portrayed with more complexity.  We get a strong sense from the film that prejudice breeds prejudice, and Lumet does a good job of showing that the biased jurors had some cause to see the world the way they did. 

4b. So, was he fair? Explain. 

5abc. What questions about society or history in the USA did the film raise for you?  What are the answers to those questions? (3 questions and answers)

With this challenge, you are trying to do two things.  First, you are trying to allow the film to teach you something about the real world (what I call the "social world").  Second, you are trying to identify and then investigate what is "real" in the film so that you can attempt to understand the film better. 

In other words, what can the film's subject teach me about the world I live in, and how well has the director portrayed the world I live in?

The first thing you need to do with this significant challenge is make a list of the themes, events, or issues which are found in the real world.  To do that, you must take careful notes while watching the film, and/or watch the film more than once.

For example, in Twelve Angry Men, we saw these real world problems and issues (there were no real events).
1. The problem of "innocent until proven guilty"
2. The problem of "reasonable doubt"
3. The problem of "burden of proof"

Good research relies on target ideas and key words.  These key problems will serve as a launch pad for research. We can start with questions but we should expect to change them, as we uncover more information. 

1. Why are the accused innocent until proven guilty?
2. What does "burden of proof" mean?
3. What is "reasonable doubt"?

5a. QUESTION 1.  Why are the accused innocent until proven guilty

All three of these questions HINGE on the American idea of a JURY TRIAL. When you use keywords for research, ALWAYS start with broad terms first, then as you need to narrow the scope of the words until find compelling information.

Go to google.com, and when you get there, type in the key words "jury trial."  

Notice that some links go to stories and information about a production of that name.  However, one link looks ideal for someone trying to investigate the historical story behind "jury trial."  

FindLaw: US Constitution: Sixth Amendment: Annotations pg. 4 ...
... previous | Annotations p. 4 | next. RIGHT TO TRIAL BY IMPARTIAL JURY. Jury Trial.
By the time the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights were drafted ...

This site gives an answer to the question I asked, but I have to be clever about how to use the information to answer the question. 

Make note of the information and search for new keywords to help guide further open-ended research.  I see the term "Bill of Rights", "Magna Carta", and "The 6th Amendment" to the Constitution, all of which offer me new roads for research.  NOTE THAT THE FINDLAW WEB SITE HAS ITS OWN SEARCH ENGINE AND COULD BE USED TO KEEP INVESTIGATING LEGAL QUESTIONS.

Which way should I go?

5b. QUESTION 2. What does "burden of proof" mean?

I'll choose to stick to my questions and look for "burden of proof."  The problem with these keywords is that they are overused, so when you 'googlize' them you see a lot of sites that use them terms but don't explain them.  BE PATIENT. If you go to the 7th page of hits, you'll find the NOLO LAW DICTIONARY.  BINGO!  This hit explains "burden of proof", and I notice that to explain it, I need to understand the difference between civil and criminal cases so I'll use those links too.

5c. QUESTION 3. What is "reasonable doubt"?

For my third and last question, I notice that "reasonable doubt" is also linked from the "burden of proof" page.  There I see the term "moral certainty" and I decide I will also investigate what that means.

5d. How did you investigate your questions? (Describe your sources. 2 points.

Here, I briefly describe what I've done above.

6. Who do you suppose the director had in mind for his audience?  Why do you suspect this?  Considering the audience, what does the film tell you about society in the USA at the time the film was made? (Use the idea of mass audience, and then question which groups might agree with the basic theme of the film.)

The goal audience for most films is the "mass audience,"  anyone and everyone who will pay money to see it.  But studios and directors usually see a more specific target group, which is generally the people who sympathize with the director's point of view and/or appreciate the messages of the film.  So to answer the first part of this question, you need to connect the film's theme to the point of view of the director and use that connection to discuss audience.

For the second part of the question, sometimes a film has specific historical relevance.  For example, the "Ox Bow Incident" (about mob justice) was made during World War II and speaks to the American view of events in Europe.  "A Raisin in the Sun" and "Nothing, But a Man" are both complex films about the black experience in America and both were made in the early 1960's as the Civil Rights Movement was gaining momentum.  Reality reflects art and art reflects reality. So to do this question well, it would serve you well to discuss with someone knowledgeable the historical circumstances of the time the film was made.  And, since the goal is usually anyone, the theme of the film tells us that the issues in the film are issues for society at the time the film was made.  FEEL FREE TO SPECULATE AND MAKE CONNECTIONS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE ENTIRELY 'CORRECT.'

7.  In what ways did you like the film, and in what ways did you dislike the film?  Explain.

Try to be as specific as you can.  Explain your ideas.  Try to figure out whether you really did like or dislike the film.  Focus on the elements of production:
1. Script
2. Cinematography
3. Music/Sound
Also, be fair.  Consider what the director was trying to do as you try to assess whether s/he was successful.

Grade8 Home Page