Day 2: 12 Angry Men

[Mary Emmick]

The scene opens as one man is standing at the head of a table and asks if the defendant is guilty or not guilty. 11 men raise their hands indicating guilty; one man (Henry Fonda character) indicates the defendant is not guilty. We realize this is a jury deliberation. The setup is that there is disagreement with the decision. The Henry Fonda character thinks deciding in 5 minutes isn’t long enough to make a decision that could send this troubled 18- year- old away to die. He wants an hour. The man wearing glasses suggests that all those who think he’s guilty share why they think this is so. It’s a challenging situation as the Fonda character is outnumbered and we know we probably won’t know the ending until the last act.

From a writing perspective, what makes this scene great is that we want to know what happens next and how the decision of this one differing juror will take the story.

I looked over my opening scene in the thriller I am writing and realize I need to create an inciting incident that propels us on my character’s journey and won’t be resolved until the final act. The scene was 4 minutes 42 seconds and I think my opening scene of two pages needs to be longer.

[William Whalen]

William Whelan – Inciting Incident/Call to Adventure #1 – 12 Angry Men

What I learned rewriting my scene is to have an inciting incident which propels the story forward.

· Scene Arc: The scene goes from one hold out juror to another juror stating the need to discuss verdict to each juror having to articulate the reason for their verdict.

· Situation: Jurors voting guilty/not guilty in a death penalty case.

· Conflict: One hold-out juror in death penalty case.

· Moving the story forward: The scene goes from one juror wanting to discuss the case to two jurors to every juror verbalizing their decision.

· Entertainment value: Constant tension and conflict between hold-out juror and the other jurors.

· Setup/payoff: The setup is the hold-out juror the only one wanting to discuss their verdict to all jurors having to verbalize the reason for their verdict.

· Challenging: One juror against eleven.

· Interesting Action: The courage of the hold-out juror not giving in and forcing the of the jurors to discuss the reasoning for their verdict.

· Interesting dialogue: “Guess we talk”, “We’re talking about someone’s life”, “Do you think you were born with a monopoly on the truth.”.

· Something inside the character needs to go on the journey: The hold-out juror needs to see the judicial process run its course and there not be a rush to judgement.

[juan solanas]

It’s a great starting for a story: a jury on a way to condemn To death a 18 years guy who have a very complicate childhood. 11 on 12 vote agains him after few min talk and one is oppose. Those 12 jurys have very different personalities, different ages and social positions… On the decision they will take, there is a person live on the line. It’s a strong beginning with a powerful conflict to solve.

The scene arc: we begin with almost a death condemn 11 agains 1 and at the end we start to see that the discutions about to convince the one who disagree make emerge others opinions and may change the global balance.

[Claudia Wolfkind]

Scene arc… A jury takes its first vote and 11 men vote guilty, one does not. The hold out asks the men to give it an hour before sending the young man to his death.

A Jury is deliberating the guilt of an 18-year-old kid whether he murdered his father.

Conflict: Henry Fonda is the lone man holding out of a guilty verdict. All the others think he’s crazy for not seeing his guilt right away.

Setup/payoff…. Reveal of the character’s thoughts, psyche’s, discrimination as we go through the journey of going around the table and seeing Fonda’s reaction as well.

12 Angry Men — The first Vote

Second Watch:

Challenging Situation – an angry young man from the wrong side of the tracks is on trial for the murder of his father. One man votes not guilty leading the rest to slowly expose their thoughts, discriminations, prejudices and weaknesses.

Interesting Action: Fonda doesn’t get angry, he calmly states he “doesn’t know” if the boy is guilty, he just wants to “talk about it for a while.” …. Before sending the boy to his death. This leads the other characters to question him, others get angry.

Intriguing Dialogue: Fonda is the every man, kind and gentle in ways, yet strong of character. He can see beyond the basic circumstances but his dialogue is calm and questioning. It pulls out the other character’s personalities. “Suppose we get it wrong” “How long is it supposed to take?” (to vote to send someone to death. “They are all born liars”

Journey – Fonda’s character needs to go on a journey… he’s not ready to send this kid to his death…. He’s not convinced he’s guilty. He’s willing to stand up to all the rest if he needs to until he’s sure, one way or the other.

[Deb Johnson]

What makes this scene great…

The situation is 12 men deliberating a case in the jury room. We did not see the trial and must learn the facts through these men – from their perspective.

The main conflict is quickly established at the first vote – one against eleven.

One man disagrees with the others – says he doesn’t know if the boy is guilty or not – but wants to talk about it. This angers three other jurors who argue that it’s obvious the boy is guilty.

This “hung” jury is not complacent and willing to go along with him. We can see by the first three men who challenge him that this is going to be a bumpy ride.

Setups/Payoffs – I think the first three to challenge him are the last three to finally capitulate. The man who admits he just wants to get this over with so he can see a ball game… the man who is racist/prejudiced and finally – the man who has a personal vendetta. The things they say in the first scene pay off later.

Invitation to the journey – the character of Henry Fonda is reasonable and friendly. The old man who sits next to him becomes his supporting character. We like them both and are willing to go along and see what the others might have to say.

Something inside this character needs to go on the journey… Fonda’s character sees this kid as someone who’s been beaten down all his life – he has sympathy/empathy for him. It’s not easy to condemn this boy without giving him a fair shake. He isn’t sure of his guilt or innocence, but he wants to at least talk it through before condemning him. The fact that the other jurors all vote guilty – gives Fonda a reason to pursue it even further. “Let’s just talk about it.”

[Mary Dietz]

The conflict of the jury vote is established in just a few seconds. The backstory of the kid is revealed, giving reason for the pause. The hold-out juror adds intrigue by denying the others a definitive answer. He wants an hour to talk–an indication that the rest of the movie will continue to ponder the answer to the question. There are 12 perspectives to follow and it is established in this scene that 11 of them intend to prove the lone voter wrong. The Fonda character reminds them that it’s the job of the prosecution to prove guilt. Who will speak for the defense?

The questions raised by the 11 help propel the story forward because they are not immediately answered; they set the stage for more deliberation. The challenge of the situation is that no one will be able to leave until there is consensus, and those seemingly unwilling to change their minds will prolong the process.

The arc of the scene moves from seeming certainty to uncertainty, causing the necessity of the journey to end the conflict.

[Isti Madarasz]

The scene is interesting because it is based on a familiar situation – the jury decides on the convict – but it takes us, the viewer, into the room we never see. We always only see the jurors in the jury box, but now we get a glimpse behind the scenes. That in itself is exciting. At first glance, the case seems clear-cut, and when asked who thinks the defendant is guilty, some hands immediately go up in the air, then others, some slower, some hesitant, some visibly looking at the others and voting that way – but that’s still only 11. Someone hasn’t raised their hand. I really like that they don’t simply state that someone disagrees, but they take that vote, too: who votes that he is innocent. And that’s where it gets complicated, this is the inciting incident: Henry Fonda’s character doesn’t say he thinks he’s innocent, he says he can’t say he’s guilty. So they should talk about it. And that starts the whole film, because the whole story is about the jurors talking.

[Jenifer Stockdale]

Scene Mastery – Lesson 2 – 12 Angry Men

What I learned doing this lessons is that banter with underlying tension is extremely important for setting up an interesting scene. I think the hold out of what someone believes is good “I just want t talk” – it sets up for the eleven convincing the one, instead of the one convincing the eleven that ultimately happens.

<ul type=”disc”>