-
Day 2: 12 Angry Men
Objective: To create an Inciting Incident that propels us onto this journey and won’t be resolved until the final act.
Watch 1st time for:
Basic scene components — Scene arc, situation, conflict, moving the story forward, entertainment value, and setups/payoffs.Invitation to the journey.
Watch 2nd time for:Challenging Situation·Interesting ActionIntriguing DialogueSomething inside this character needs to go on the journey.
-
11 Replies
-
To create a inciting moment that propels us forward and delays the resolution until act 3 of the story we must set up the scene’s goal within the story’s goal. Start with the scene’s situation of eleven jurors trying to convince the one objection. Then do the action and dialogue in a chain reaction. From a simple argument that intensifies to a heated argument where jurors veer off the facts of the case and insert their own beliefs and attitudes and expose a flaw.Everything sets up the scene’s climax ,and raises the question and curiosity of the second vote. Did anyone’s initial decision change? Did it create any division among the jurors? Always end the scene in a cliffhanger that creates excitement of the next scene.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 11 months ago by Vincent Ovalle.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 11 months ago by
-
A inciting incident is about balance. You spend the large part of Act 1 establishing an equilibrium for the protagonist and their story world. Then you create an inciting incident to throw that equilibrium off balance, either in a subtle way that cascades into an avalanche, or like a lightning bolt shattering the status quo to oblivion. This movie chooses the pebble tossed into the pond approach. One man with a few doubts decides not to raise his hand and launches all twelve of them on a journey of stripping away the artifice of “swift justice” to expose the true thoughts and attitudes behind their decision to throw a man’s life away.
This scene is masterful in that it not only throws that pebble, but it gives the audience a preview of exactly how the ripples are going to unfold. Is this going to be about one man trying to convince eleven others they’re wrong? No, that man has already stated his position. The burden of proof is on those saying “guilty,” and we are going to hear each in turn express their own thoughts and attitudes on the matter. We also get glimpses of some of the prevalent attitudes within the room that will come to bear on the final decision.
The inciting incident in my script is a bit of both. There’s a catastrophe that destroys the status quo, but there are also ripple effects from the initial “lightning strike.” I think I can do a better job at pointing the audience in the direction the ripple effects are going to be taking us and setting up the core conflict that will need to be resolved.
-
This inciting incident is the whole basis of the movie. Why is one guy not voting like the rest of the “angry men?” The conflict is the frustration of the 11 men vs the unshakeable opinion of one guy. The writing shows the gravity of the situation to the one voter versus getting the job over with from the other. It provides an invitation for every man to answer why the voted the way they did. I appreciate how the style of dialogue is different for each character, even though the majority voted the same way, they aren’t the same type of people. The incident also moves the story for the main character to defend his vote.
-
As I watched this scene the thing that stood out to me is, how to create an inciting incident based of dialogue and a situation of high stakes. There is no action in the scene, but the fact that a boys life is on the line based of these 12 mens decision is captivating. It presents us with all the key ingredients to present the inciting incident which takes our main character on a journey.
Is he either going to remain steadfast in his way, or will there be a character change. Will the other 11 jurors remain steadfast, or will they change on their own journey. This is the main objective when going on his journey from Act 1 to Act 3. It is t<font face=”inherit”>o create an Inciting Incident that propels us onto this journey and to </font>stretch<font face=”inherit”> it long enough until it is resolved in the final act.</font>
-
After the provocative opening, came the inciting incident, which was the one hold-out juror’s not guilty vote. This sets up the story question: will the protagonist change the minds of the other 11 jurors, or will they change his mind?
-
This is a very interesting inciting incident. It clearly sets up the journey to Act 3 not only for the protagonist but the other men as well. With the lack of action in the scene, the dialog becomes incredibly important. The writer did a great job of creating not only the stakes (a young man’s life hangs in the balance), but also creating unique characters through their voices. Each of the 12 men have distinct voices that reveal character in just a few words.
In this single scene it sets up the ultimate question, how will the protagonist change the mind of 11 men to save a young man’s life or will the “antagonists” prevail and change the mind of the protagonist.
-
12 Angry Men: Inciting Incident: A Call To Action: Writing Analysis:
Basic Scene Components:
· Scene Arc:
· Starts with eleven votes of guilty to one vote of not guilty.
· Emotions, tension, and suspense is raised with each argumentative statement of why they have one vote for not guilty.
· The scene ends in the climax of truth, the defendant doesn’t have to prove anything, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, so the jury now must decide if the prosecution did their job.
· Situation:
· An 18-year-old young man is accused of killing his father. He says he is not guilty.
· Conflict:
· The jury starts out with eleven guilty votes and one not guilty vote.
· The jury must come to a twelve to zero conclusion, or be a hung jury, which starts the process all over again.
· Moving the story forward:
· The discussion between the jurists moves the story forward.
· It is evident that no one knows the facts that are conclusive evidence.
· The jurists just say, “I just think he’s guilty.” And “You heard the evidence.”
· It is evident that a deep discussion about the evidence needs to happen next.
· Entertainment Value:
· The differing opinions, actions, and emotions of the jurors are engaging to watch; therefore, we are entertained and want to watch more.
· Setups/Payoffs:
· Each attitude in the jurors that talk set up for payoffs as the story goes along.
· Example: One juror called the defendant – people like that.
· Example: Another juror just wants to be done with the trial so he can go to a ball game.
· Example: A third juror keep talking about work and seems preoccupied.
· With twelve jurors there are at least twelve, and more, setups to be paid off as the story rolls along.
Additional Scene Attributes:
· Challenging Situation:
· It is a challenging situation to be the only juror to vote not guilty and suggest further discussion.
· It is challenging to keep your cool, when people are saying things that are prejudiced, or not caring, or claiming you’re wrong.
· It is challenging to think about the other person’s point of view when you think you’ve seen the evidence, you are right and someone – only one – challenges you to examine the facts because a man’s life is on the line.
· Intrigue:
· Many questions arise:
· What is the evidence?
· What did they hear in the court?
· Why was only one man standing for more thought and conversation about the evidence?
· What made the one man give the boy the benefit of the doubt?
· Is there more evidence?
· How will they work this out? It’s not clear at this point.
· Interesting Action:
· The man that voted not guilty stayed still and in his seat.
· The other men moved about nervously.
· One got out of his seat and turned his back on the others while defending his opinion.
· One man diverted the attention by telling stories.
· One man diverted attention by drawing pictures of what he did at work.
· Intriguing Dialogue:
· At the beginning with the 11 to 1 vote: “So what do we do now?”
· “Do you really think he’s innocent?
· “I don’t know.” (He’s telling the truth.)
· “I just want to talk.”
· “It’s just not easy to raise my hand and send a man off to die without talking about it first.”
· “I’m not trying to change your mind.”
· “Do you think you were born with a monopoly on the truth?
· “I just don’t think he’s guilty. I thought it was obvious from the word go. I mean nobody proved otherwise.”
· Nobody must prove otherwise. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution. The defendant doesn’t even have to open his mouth.”
· Tone:
· The tone of the man voting not guilty is one of inquiry, learning and collaboration.
· The tone of the eleven men voting not guilty is one of argument, frustration, anger, confusion, and fed up with the activity.
·
The overall tone of the scene is one of growing disruption of thought, and frustration.
Lures us into the Story:
· Not having set through the trial, we have no way to judge the case, so we are lured into wanting to see the merits of both sides, guilty and not guilty.
· We are interested when different personalities give differing opinions obviously based on personal biases, thoughts, or other concerns.
· We want to see if the young man’s life will be taken by the fact or by the personal faults of the jury.
· Twist at the Conclusion of the Scene:
· When the juror, who voted not guilty, states that the prosecution has the burden of creating a shadow of a doubt and the defendant does not have to open his mouth, he has set in motion the need to examine in detail the facts as presented in the trial.
· The jurors have only begun to do their job.
-
Inciting Incident – 12 men on a jury are voting. It could be simple – they all vote guilty, but then there’d be no story. Instead, 1 man votes not guilty and refuses to change his vote without a discussion first, thus propelling the film on its journey.
The arc in this scene is
– 12 men are in a room voting on a verdict
1 man doesn’t agree
Some of the others express their disapproval
A compromise is reached– The tone of the film is set – suspenseful, character development, dialogue heavy
– The lead character is introduced off the top, as the man who is in disagreement. His character, nature, and disposition are clearly shown here.
– Others’ characters are also coming into light, with some being easier going, while others are quite confrontational. Not all characters have been introduced, but likely the most important ones are.
The scene lures us in – will he change his mind, or will the others be persuaded to change theirs.
The twist at the end of the scene is that the men agree to take the hour and open up about their decisions.
The stakes are set here, and they’re high – a life hangs in their decision.
It leaves us asking many questions: Who is this boy?
What did he do?
What evidence was given
What does everyone feel about the evidence, the boy, being there.
Who are these men? -
What makes this scene great?
- It’s a “contained movie” in that it takes place in a single room, with 12 jurors.
- We never get to see the trial itself, but learn through hearsay, which is kind of how the jury views the evidence as passive witnesses.
- Juror #8 isn’t necessarily convinced the defendant is innocent, but more concerned with doubts he feels that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof. He feels strongly enough about his apprehension that he stands firm despite ridicule and condemnation from the other jurors.
- Its clear from the other jurors’ body language and dialogue that some of them view the trial as a mere inconvenience, something to get over with as quickly as possible so they can get on with their lives, while others are “followers” who voted guilty for various reasons which boil down to “the government is always right” or “go along to get along.”
- There are 12 setups for eventual payoffs of why each juror votes the way they do.
- It has a clear scene arc of “lets see where we all stand” to “okay, its up to us to convince Juror #8 why we are right and he is wrong” (which is actually how the American justice system is supposed to work).
My own inciting incident:
- I’d previously done quite a bit of revision on my inciting incident (its one of my less problematic scenes). I’ve read through it (after reading my fellow classmate’s comments) and made a few minor tweaks. But I’ve got a different scene which is a bleeding hot pile of dog crap that I think applying these skills will help.
What I learned from this assignment?
- It really helped me identify certain ELEMENTS that need to be present in every scene (in this case, the inciting incident since it has so many setups and payoffs).
-
What I learned: I learned that the inciting incident doesn’t have to be some massive action scene: it’s just as powerful to have the depths of one’s convictions deeply challenged.
It is useful for me because my protagonist is currently fueled by intense guilt and anger – but I could layer with an even deeper core of his beliefs in family and civility.Challenging Situation: a majority jury scenario of 11 men against one man
Interesting Action: the honor of one man being willing to stand by his opinion vs 11 others totally convinced he’s guiltyIntriguing Dialogue: There’s great subtext here despite a number of lines OTN – clearly through their attitude – love the “time to get to the ball game” line. – “We heard the facts – you can’t believe anything that they say” – “tell us why, let us know what you’re thinking and we might be able to show you where you’re mixed up.”
Something inside this character needs to go on the journey: He has to confront everyone and stand by his principles – despite the fact that they are all convinced of the kid’s guilt.
-
This is a prime example of a contained movie that relies on dialogue to move the story forward. The inciting incident – 11 vote guilty on the murder conviction, 1 not guilty. Some have strong opinions, others are lackadaisical about the fate of the Young man’s life. Only one person questions the potential innocence of the person on trial, and not that strongly. He’s cool, calm, and collected and he wants to hear from everyone on why they think the Young man is guilty. Will the 11 prevail over the 1? Will the 1 stubbornly hold out? Or, will the 1 sway any of the 11? And, if he does, who will it be? The ones who seem to have little to no interest in the fate of the Young Man, or will it be the strongly opinionated jurists, or the ones who are pissed that he’s making them prolong the inevitable, or will it be the one that feels he’s guilty and doesn’t really want to analyze the merits of the case? So, after the inciting incident, we’re not really sure where the story will go. What will be the final fate of the Young man, because as things look, only one person holds the life of the Young man in check?
We feel the protagonist has the moral high ground and we want to see him prevail. But, will he?
What I learned: One can effectively use dialogue, character personalities, and a critical situation as a means of drawing the audience into the story. Properly used, it can become another tool in the toolbox to advance our story.
Log in to reply.