Fonda does not think that the defense attorney did a very good job questioning the prosecutions assertions. When he is asked why he thinks that the boy is innocent he responds that he does not necessarily believe that the boy is innocent‚ he just is not certain that he is guilty. He questions the facts as presented in order to establish doubt that the defendant is guilty‚ rather than trying to convince the others that the boy is not guilty. Fonda is similar to Socrates in
Premium 12 Angry Men Jury Not proven
classic. 12 Angry Men‚ starring Henry Fonda‚ E.G. Marshall‚ and Lee Cobb‚ is the story of twelve jurors who determine the fate of a teenage Puerto Rican boy charged with murdering his own father. In the wake of a week-long trial‚ twelve men‚ who remain nameless throughout the movie‚ convene in a small‚ sweltering room in a New York City court building. They begin their deliberation with a preliminary vote. Eleven of the men vote guilty‚ and one‚ Juror #8 (Henry Fonda)‚ votes not guilty. The eleven
Premium Jury 12 Angry Men Henry Fonda
community can be found in John Stinebeck’s novel "The Grapes of Wrath" and the new film presented by John Ford. Although the basic stories deal with the same issues‚ they also are different. In the film‚ Ford’s main character‚ Tom Joad‚ played by Henry Fonda‚ is a man just released from prison who finds his former life style as a simple farmer‚ has been turned upside down by depression‚ natural geological disaster‚ and economic changes. His views on life are manipulated by his prior society. Tom encounters
Free The Grapes of Wrath John Steinbeck Great Depression
deliberating and deciding the fate of a teenage boy accused of murdering his father. Although it seems to the jurors that the boy is unquestionably guilty‚ one juror (Juror 8) speaks out against the comfortable groupthink of the other jurors. Juror 8‚ Henry Fonda‚ approaches the issue from a teamwork point of view‚ and over and over again gains acceptance his views as he calmly and realistically discusses what he believed are inconsistencies in the case. This movie is an excellent example of how one person
Premium Jury Decision theory Decision making
objective law‚ but at the same time glorifies heroic individualism through Juror # 8‚ Henry Fonda. Typecast as another liberal‚ he is a truth-seeking hero‚ who doubts the obvious. Throughout the movie‚ he stresses the idea of "reasonable doubt"‚ and slowly chips away at the jury‚ who represent an all white male society‚ exposing the prejudices and preconceptions that directly influence the other jurors’ snap judgments. So Henry wants to talk the case out. He’s not 100% sure that the guy is guilty. He isn’t
Premium Court Jury Henry Fonda
deliberating a murder trial. An 18 year old has been accused of murdering his father and the jury has retired to determine his fate. The jury performs a preliminary vote and the results came out to be eleven for guilty and one‚ the architect played by Henry Fonda‚ for not-guilty. The rest of the jury then begins to persuade the architect that the accused is actually guilty. Each member of the jury played a key role in the development of the group and the task at hand. The foreman played a major task
Premium Trial Jury Henry Fonda
be there by 6pm! • 08 Mar* – YOUTHSpeak dialogue on budget 2015 – Those who signed up‚ please be there by 12noon! *Applicable to those who signed up. Class on E-learning Week - 10 March • You are to watch the movie “12 Angry Men” featuring Henry Fonda (a black & white movie filmed in 1950s) in your groups. • Submit a reflections on Negotiations from the movie: – How would you frame the legal situation as a matter of negotiation? – Who would you identify as the leader at the start of the movie
Premium Jury Negotiation Henry Fonda
non-guilty. He instead encouraged his fellow jurors to simply discuss the case in an open-minded manner. “I don’t know if I believe (the boy’s story) or not‚ maybe I don’t” (Brown‚ 2000‚ 94; Film‚ 12:40). This non-committal position serves to shield Fonda from much of the hatred typically directed at lone dissenters. Studies have shown that such acquiescences gives subsequent legitimacy (Hollander‚ 1958‚ 113) and lends credit to his emergence as a
Premium Jury Not proven Critical thinking
longer they talked about it‚ the more clear the picture became. The only person that didn’t vote the boy guilty was a man by the name of Henry Fonda. He was an architect‚ a stout man with good posture. He was the “voice of reason” for the sake of making an honest decision. He knew the magnitude of the decision they had to make‚ and wanted to talk it out. Mr. Fonda was rational‚ analytical‚ and became the information and opinion seeker during the proceedings. His characteristics were synonymous with
Premium Henry Fonda Psychology Man
Introduction 12 Angry Men (1957) is one of the most acclaimed feature films of all time. It was produced at a time when the United States was just twelve years out of World War II and “Leave It To Beaver” and “Father Knows Best” broadcast across television airwaves the perfection‚ conformity and affluence of American life that had been generated by the Great War. Additionally‚ this film was listed on the university syllabus as one of three films to see in regard to this course‚ Management 610 – Contexts
Premium 12 Angry Men Jury Management