Debriefing "12 Angry Men"

I hope that you enjoyed our viewing of 12 Angry Men.  As you know, using two and a half class periods to watch a movie is not something that I take lightly.  However, I believe that there are many elements making up this film that make it a great investment of time.  Your only grade related to the movie will be comments that you make on this blog post.  Make your comments thoughtful and after commenting check back to continue the debate/conversation.  Here is a little background on the movie:

From http://plays.about.com/od/plays/a/twelveangry.htm

At the beginning of Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, the jury has just finished listening to six days of trial proceedings. A nineteen-year old man is on trial for the murder of his father. The defendant has a criminal record (and a lot of circumstantial evidence piled against him). The defendant, if found guilty, would receive a mandatory death penalty.

The jury is sent to a hot, crowded room to deliberate. Before any formal discussion, they cast a vote. Eleven of the jurors vote “guilty.” Only one juror votes “not guilty.” That juror, who is known in the script as Juror #8 is the protagonist of the play. As the tempers flare and the arguments begin, the audience learns about each member of the jury. And slowly but surely, Juror #8 guides the others toward a verdict of “Not Guilty.”

 Click here for a list and description of the 12 jurors.

Here are a few questions to discuss and debate:

• Which characters base their decisions on prejudice?
• Does Juror #8, or any other character, exercise “reverse discrimination”?
• Should this trial have been a hung jury? Why / why not?
• What are the most persuasive pieces of evidence in favor of the defense? Or the prosecution?
•  What does the movie teach about the art of persuasion?

Use these questions to stimulate thought and drive the discussion.  I look forward to reading what you have to say.

The commenting will end at the end of Friday, March 9.