Day 9 Assignments

[Eric Humble]

Eric Humble’s 12 Angry Men Analysis

What I learned doing this assignment is: This was eye-opening in seeing how clearly the Old Ways were challenged for each of the characters. The Old Ways were set up very clearly right at the beginning and reinforced throughout the movie – and it was interesting to see how some of the characters, after having their own Old Ways challenged, then became Change Agents for some of the other characters. The movie accrued its Profound power in the ways that we recognized the Old Ways in the characters and saw how they were being challenged, causing us to reflect on our own Old Ways.

• Assumption of guilt – Juror 2 can’t put into words why he thinks the defendant’s guilty, just has a feeling; Juror 7 points to the kid’s

Challenge:

-Juror 8 reminds him it’s on the prosecution to prove he’s guilty.

–

• Just want this over – tickets to ballgame

Challenge:

-Juror 9 challenges Juror 7 – it’s only one night

-Juror 8 confronts him – what difference does it make if we get sore throats here or at the ballgame?

-Juror 11 gives a speech about how the jury system is their responsibility – and something that makes democracy strong

• Not caring

Challenge:

-Juror 8 calls another vote – and Juror 9 changes his vote to side with 8

-Juror 8 notices that two of the others are playing tic-tac-toe while he’s trying to make his case

• Prejudice – “serves them right;” “you know what these people are like;”

Challenge:

-Juror 8 puts the defendant’s life in context – born in a slum

-Juror 9 stands up to him when he starts a racist rant

-Juror 7 believes the witness; Juror 8 points out that the witness is one of “them,” too – calling into focus 7’s prejudice

-Juror 5 brings up that he’s from a slum, and Juror 11 sticks up for him when he comments that he understands this kind of sensitivity

-Juror 3v assumes Juror 5 is the one who changed his vote to not guilty – only to discover it was Juror 9

• Not looking beneath the surface

Challenge:

-Juror 9 profiles the old man on the witness stand

-Juror 8 calls into question whether “I’ll kill you” was sincere – and causes Juror 5 to change his vote

-Juror 11 questions why the kid came back home – and whether he was panicked or not

• Assuming the evidence is not questionable – “these are facts; you can’t refute facts”

-Witness swore she saw the stabbing occur through the passing el train

Challenge:

-Juror 8 assesses that the witnesses couldn’t be accurate because the old man couldn’t have heard the shout over the sound of the el train

-Juror 8 demonstrates that the old man couldn’t have made it to the front door as fast as he said he did

• Assuming the witnesses were accurate

Challenge:

-Juror 8 calls into question the possibility that the witnesses were wrong – and forces Juror 12 to admit he can’t prove the witnesses were accurate

-Juror 3, in the heat of the moment, undercuts his own argument by admitting the old man was confused and couldn’t be sure about anything

-Juror 10 can’t remember the names of the movies he saw under light questioning, undercutting his own assertion that the kid should have been able to remember them under a grilling from the police

• Assuming the Defense Attorney did his job

Challenge:

-Juror 8 doesn’t think the lawyer was competent

-Juror 8 brings up that the lawyer was court-appointed and wasn’t motivated to be thorough

• Assuming the case is completely logical

Challenge:

-Juror 4 doesn’t believe the knife was lost – Juror 8 produces a duplicate knife he bought two blocks from the kid’s house

Assumption of guilt – “stop these kids before they start any trouble”

Challenge:

-Juror 5 brings up that he was raised in a slum

Assumption of innocence

Challenge:

Juror 6 confronts Juror 8; “What if you talk us all out of this and the kid really did knife his old man?”

Detachment – “lucky to get a murder case;” more interesting

Challenge:

Project their own personal problems onto the case – Juror 3 disgusted by his son “not being a man,” then being resentful his son doesn’t talk to him

Challenge:

-Juror 6 threatens Juror 3 over his lack of respect for the old man, the same thing he accused his son of doing to himself

-Juror 3 claims he wants to be the executioner – then blurts out that he’ll kill Juror 8, which Juror 8 reminds him that he doesn’t mean

[Eric Humble]

Eric Humble’s Old Ways/Challenge Chart

What I learned doing this assignment: I really feel like my story is taking on depth and meaning with this assignment. Between analyzing 12 Angry Men and thinking through ways to challenge my protagonist, I’m getting a strong idea of the journey and the ways in which I can make my Profound Truth come through without the story seeming “preachy.” I can’t wait to see where we go from here!

Old Ways/Challenge Chart

Old Ways:

-Hyperfocused on success

Challenge:

-The cook he’s setting up is honored by the President of Moldova when he hears the cook is here. The man’s a hero in his home country, even though he’s just a working man. Monetary success and power isn’t everything.

-Refuses to take sides – only out for himself

Challenge:

-Russian President beats one of his aides to a pulp then demands Raf cook him something special

-Natalia warns him that no matter what he says, the Russian president will take Moldova

–Won’t propose to his pregnant girlfriend

Challenge:

-POTUS claims the most important deal he made was marrying his wife. He was a law clerk who viewed this as a pipe dream before her. Never would have achieved his potential otherwise.

-Intimidated by the successful people he cooks for

Challenge:

-Leiber reveals that he studied cooking —started out the same as Raf.

-Raf comments on the ordinary fears and hang ups of the people at the table…they’re just people. Petty, squabbling, insecure. You don’t make deals with policy. You make them by outplaying your opponent, chess or poker style.

-Powerless in the big things — you can’t change their minds. They’re going to do what they’re going to do.

Challenge:

-Natalia rallies the cooks to push back against Leiber’s schedule for one of the courses… and he concedes.

-Only looks out for himself.

Challenge:

-The Russian aide is bleeding and Raf is supposed to get back to the kitchen. Has to leave… even as the man is begging for help. He goes back him—to find him gone, just his blood remaining.

-Backstabs, betrays, whatever it takes to get ahead

Challenge:

-Joseph betrays him—let’s the NATO security chief in… it positions him well for these people to owe him. He feels what he’s done to others.