Day 2: 12 ANGRY MEN

[Carol Kennedy]

LESSON TWO 12 Angry Men

Watch 1st time for:

Basic scene components — Scene arc, situation, conflict, moving the story forward, entertainment value, and setups/payoffs.Invitation to the journey.
Conflict is when they have one person who doesn’t issue a guilty vote
The personalities of the men increase conflict, some confrontational, others unsure.
The urgency to ‘get on with it’ provides conflict to the ‘let’s sit and talk about it a while’.
Feelings about what the boy actually did and who he did it to (father).

Watch 2nd time for:Challenging Situation·Interesting ActionIntriguing DialogueSomething inside this character needs to go on the journey.
Friction between the men who want to ‘get on with it’.
The b/g information on the kids increases the intrigue.
The battle between right/wrong and justice/ injustice
Big stakes; the life of a young boy.

[Ali Jordan]

I’m not seeing a scene posted to watch. Can someone help?

[Adam Kroshus]

I had the same issue yesterday, but when I went online this morning, I was able to watch the scene. I would simply try again.

[Julie Scorziell]

I’m not seeing the scenes posted either and am wondering if I’m missing the instruction component as well?

[Julie Scorziell]

Make sure you log into the Start Course screen/box under Your Courses. The discussion forum doesn’t have everything.

[Ali Jordan]

I got it. I had to open an incognito window to view. Prompted me to watch the whole movie. hahaha.

[Ali Jordan]

This scene is great. Everyone about to vote thinks this is a slam dunk case. They’re all ready to get on with their lives until one guy feels more discussion is warrented. His vote of not guilty throws a monkey wrench into everyone’s plans and the drama begins. That’s the inciting incident in my mind. Temper’s flair and ego’s are tested and it gets much worse. (I ended up watching the whole movie) The conflict is so simple yet brilliant as twelve men are locked in a room leaving the writer ample opportunity for back story and clashing personalities. And what’s at stake? The life of a young man.

[Julie Scorziell]

A. BASIC SCENE COMPONENTS

1. SCENE ARC

The scene starts with a count of jurors voting guilty. Seems like it will be a quick vote until Juror 8 refuses to go with the group. “There’s always one.” Now the jurors start to get agitated with Juror 8 who wants to talk. The other’s don’t want to talk, seem to have prejudged the accused. In the middle of the discussion, Juror 8 raises the stakes by saying they’re voting to take someone’s life in 5 minutes. An argument breaks out over how long they should have to “sit.” Juror 8 gives the kid’s background story, time in an orphanage, a wild angry kid, hit on the head once a day, etc. Then other arguments ensue before they decide to go around the table and talk about why they voted guilty.

2. SITUATION

Jury deliberations in a closed room after a trial about an 18 year old son stabbing his father.

3. CONFLICT

At first, between the Juror 8 who votes not guilty and the 11 guilty jurors, but then other conflicts begin breaking out over time to spend deliberating, are there born liars, what they owe the accused, etc.

4. MOVING THE STORY FORWARD

Going around the table with each man explaining why he voted as he did ultimately moves the group closer to a decision and a better understanding of each man.

5. ENTERTAINMENT VALUE

This is not an action movie, rather a philosophical/thinking/discussion movie.

What’s interesting is how the different jurors think and how someone could decide to send an 18 year old boy to his death in five minutes.

6. SETUPS/PAYOFFS

7. INVITATION TO THE JOURNEY

I’m not sure exactly who is going on this journey. Is it the 11 men who voted guilty? Or the one man who voted not-guilty? Or all of them? Or the justice system?

B. INTRO TO WORLD (Don’t explain, put reader into it)

n/a

C. INTRO TO LEAD CHARACTER

n/a

D. HEIGHTENING THE SCENE

1. Challenging Situation

One man against 11 who want to give the verdict and go to the ball game

2. Intrigue

n/a

3. Interesting Action

n/a

4. Intriguing Dialogue

Seems to be some racial overtones, when the juror says “you can’t trust any of them,” to whom is he referring?

What kind of duty do we owe to other people? Is a fair trial and fast decision enough?

5. Tone

Serious and thoughtful

6. Lures Reader into the Story

Audience wants to know more about the boy, what happened at trial, did the dad die? What type of people would vote so quickly to send the boy to his death.

7. Twist at the Conclusion of the Scene

8. Something inside the character needs to go on the journey

If it’s the 11 men who need to go on the journey, it seems like they need to learn there is more to sending a man to his death than just feeling like he’s guilty, listening to their gut, or relying on stereotypes. The scene also shows the power of one man to slow down and possibly change the direction of a group.

[Adam Kroshus]

The inciting incident involves Henry Fonda not voting guilty while all other jurors voted guilty. It leads to the beginning of a robust discussion about why people voted guilty or not guilty. Specifically, why does Fonda believe the defendant is not guilty? I have not seen the movie, but I sense the story is that debate. You begin to see how some people are convinced while others are unsure about the defendant’s guilt. Their true personalities begin to show as the discussion unfolds.

[John Woodward]

12 ANGRY MEN

Initially, 11 jurors for guilty and 1 wants to deliberate. Most of the 11 seem disinterested in talking. Eventually a few of the jurors indicate they are willing to talk (deliberate). This is the inciting incident that compels the story to the end.

Situation: Twelve jurors discuss murder case in the jury room.

Conflict: 11 are ready to convict and not very interested in talking as Juror 8 would like to do.

Moving the story forward: The story is moved forward by introducing the conflict, the setting, the stakes, the characters and their personalities and points of view.

Entertainment value: Conflict and a murder trial are inherently entertaining in that the audience becomes engaged by the high stakes for the victim’s family and the accused murderer.

Setups/payoffs: The situation, basic issue of the case, the initial positions of the jurors, and personalities are all set up. Payoffs likely to come later in the story. An immediate payoff is that the group decides to talk when they didn’t think there was a need initially.

Invitation to the journey: The details of the case, introduction to the characters and their thoughts are an invitation to the journey.

Watch 2nd time for:

Challenging Situation: 12 Jurors disagree about how to proceed to a verdict in a murder trial. Personality types, opinions of guilt, and the way to proceed all contribute to the Challenging Situation.

Interesting Action and Intriguing Dialogue: When the stakes are high as is the case in a murder trial, debate alone is interesting. A change of point of view and a clash of personalities and positions are both intriguing and interesting.

Something inside this character needs to go on the journey: Juror 8 is compelled to go on the journey by his moral values, sense of fairness, desire to be thorough, and his concern that a mistake might send an innocent person to prison for life.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 1 month ago by  John Woodward.
• This reply was modified 2 years, 1 month ago by  John Woodward.

[Rich Goldstein]

This scene great from a writing perspective due to using specific dialogue throughout to tease out the personalities of the jurors. It’s not difficult to glean how most of them think and how prejudice plays a part in their decision making. Some of their attire and attitudes speak to their professions and backgrounds.

The scene arc begins with twelve men who don’t know each other well being locked in a room on ‘the hottest day of the year’ to decide the fate of an accused murderer. The setting provides the first discomfort. To top it off, by all means this is an open and shut case, yet one of the men delivers a preliminary vote of not guilty, opposing the other eleven jurors. Some are surprised and some are angry. Almost all demand to know why, and are not satisfied with his response of ‘not being sure’ and ‘just wanting to talk it out’. Rather than rush to a decision he wants to digest the situation and not make a mistake about it.

A battle is about to begin, with eleven jurors intent on trying to convince the one outlier why they’re right and he’s wrong.

In this premise the stakes are high – life or death of a teenager – and the dilemma of the moral code of one man challenging the majority sets this story into action.

[Roddy Blelloch]

Scene arc: from majority who believe in guilt to the creation of doubt – did the prosecution prove it?

Conflict: 11 jurors must convince one man that he is wrong.

2nd Watch: The challenging situation shifts from the one juror having to explain his belief to the majority having to face their hasty decision and explain themselves. The majority is suddenly thrust into taking their civil responsibility seriously and actually examining the evidence.

[Christine Young]

Challenging situation: 11 men vote guilty and 1 man votes not guilty.

Interesting action: For me this is a character study and how each person comes to their decision. The tension develops when Henry Fonda’s character is the lone hold out and when he suggests that they talk about the case, he is met with resistance from the men around the table.

Intriguing Dialogue: Fonda brings up the kid’s upbringing. Ed Begley cuts him off and makes a sweeping statement about knowing what “they’re like”. He then is cut off by Joseph Sweeney who takes him down a notch. Jack Warden taking offense that his voting for guilty was a rush to judgement. John Fiedler saying “I don’t know” as. to why he voted for guilty.

<font face=”inherit”>Something inside this character needs to go on the journey: Fonda’s character feels the moral obligation to consider everything and then discuss it because the fate of the 18 year old </font>defendant’s life is at stake.