Lesson 9

[Deb Johnson]

Deb’s 12 Angry Men Analysis

What I learned… All the Old Ways were presented clearly and then, one by one, refuted. Not necessarily in order and all at once – but in a roundabout way – that came back to challenge the assumptions. The last pillar to fall was the man with a personal vendetta against his own son – but it took the clarity of the other arguments to make way for this last and most stubborn. Also – the matter of racism was tough – and was addressed throughout the entire movie.

Assumption of guilt: 11 men were confident as the evidence was presented in court that the man was guilty. “an open and shut case”.

Challenge: what does “reasonable doubt” mean? “Let’s stay and talk it out… don’t rush” Could the evidence as presented be wrong? “No man can declare a man guilty unless, they are sure.”

Just want this over: “tickets to ball game” – considered a waste of time to debate.

Challenge: “We’re talking about a person’s life… let’s sit for an hour.”

Not caring: “I’ll lose my voice.” And then 6 changes his vote so he can leave.

Challenge: “lose your voice here or at the ballgame – it only takes a second (to examine the evidence).

“What if it was you on trial?”

“You can’t play like this with a man’s life, have the guts to vote your conscience.”

Prejudice: racist comments: “that’s the way they are.” “they’re no good”, “they’re dangerous.”

Challenge: You believe the witness who is “that kind” but you don’t believe the accused.

(all turn away to reject the racism) “now sit down and don’t open your mouth again.”

“Personal prejudice obscures the truth.”

Facts should determine the case – not the race/class of the accused.

“We have nothing to gain or lose by deciding – don’t make it personal.”

Not looking beneath the surface: taking testimony at face value, assuming the man was guilty because of his rough upbringing – a delinquent, abused by his father… “violence is a way of life.”

Challenge: One of the jurors lived in a slum… and he did not follow a path of violence.

Assuming the evidence is not questionable: The knife was unique; the stab wound was plausible.

The accused, at the time of questioning couldn’t remember the names of the movies.

Challenge: Davis produced an identical knife with little effort. Juror showed how a switchblade was used – different from the way the murder was committed.

The juror was questioned in the same manner and couldn’t remember the details of the movie he saw – and he wasn’t under duress.

Assuming the witnesses were accurate: Woman saw the murder, identified the man. Old man heard the murder and saw the man.

Challenge: Both witnesses were discredited; proved woman wore glasses and couldn’t see, also proved old man couldn’t have heard and was too slow to get to the door in time.

Assuming the Defense Attorney did his job: they had more confidence in the prosecutor than they did in the defense attorney.

Challenge: maybe he didn’t do a good job – why didn’t he try harder? He was court-appointed and maybe he didn’t care because it wouldn’t help his career.

Assuming the case is completely logical: 11 men assumed this.

Challenge: Could the witness/evidence be wrong? “This isn’t an exact science.”

Deb’s Old Ways Challenge Chart

What I learned… This was a good exercise to flesh out all my “old ways.” It was helpful to watch “12 Angry Men” to first see how the Old Ways were presented and challenged. What I came up with are more like arguments and rebuttals, so, it will be interesting to see how I will shape these into my story with concrete images.

Old: Narcissism: my behavior is an expression of myself and does not affect those around me. There are no consequences.

Challenge: What we do/don’t do impacts the lives of those around us.

Old: My happiness is everything.

Challenge: Happiness is elusive and not guaranteed.

Old: It is enough to be a good person and live a moral life and do good works.

Challenge: What constitutes good? What is your measure of morality and do you really meet that standard? What happens when you fail to live up to that standard – who will pardon you?

Old: To get what I want, I must appease the higher powers with my thoughts, words, and actions.

Challenge: Our lives are not what we make it – and we can’t manipulate a god – just like we can’t control the weather.

Old: The things of this world are enough and satisfy all my needs – if I can just obtain them.

Challenge: This world is not enough. Something is wrong – something is missing. We will never be satisfied with the things the world can offer.

Old: To maintain my belief in God and my success in this world, I must live a double life – acknowledging God to get what I want, but doing what pleases me with no regard for God’s will.

Challenge: We cannot be our own god and give lip service to the true God. We must constantly put to death our own will.

Old: If I give up my wants, needs, and will, I will lead a dull, unfulfilled life, and then I will die.

Challenge: It’s in losing your life that you find true life.

Old: I do not sin; therefore, I do not need to be forgiven.

Challenge: We all fall short – are wretched and unworthy of anything good and need forgiveness. It is the most precious treasure and worth more than all the wealth this world can hold.

[Gordie Cowan]

Wow. Really good.

[Deb Johnson]

Thanks, Gordie.

[Sunil Pappu]

Sunil Pappu’s 12 Angry Men Analysis (9A)

“What I learned doing this assignment is… the old ways are carefully assigned to each of the twelve jurors and then each of them is challenged to shift their assumptions, belief, values etc.”

Juror 1: Foreman

Old Ways

The assistant baseball coach, who thinks the foreman’s duties are a thankless job and it’s frustrating to organize everyone.

Challenge

The loud yelling juror tells him to stop trying to make up rules and shut up. He is ready to give up his responsibility and asks other jurors to assume the role of the foreman. Some of them calm him down and tell him he’s doing a good job. He feels valued and conducts the arguments in an organized fashion taking consent from everyone as he goes along

Juror 2: New kid

Old Ways

He is quiet and underconfident. This is his first jury duty and he’s excited to be there.

Challenge

He makes notes and on the surface, the boy looks guilty. The Loud Juror picks on him and tells him to shut it.

He speaks up eventually about the knife wound’s angle, which leads to a few changes in votes. He feels vindicated when in the end the Juror next to him is the only one left to change his vote and says there is other evidence to consider, he reminds him that he said: “you can throw out all the other stuff”

Juror 3: The loudmouth

Old Ways:

He assumes the boy is guilty because he wants to take out his anger on his estranged son this boy and punish him instead. He makes it a contest.

Challenge:

He keeps yelling at everyone and even threatens to kill Juror 8 and calls him a sadist and a self-appointed avenger.

He is the only one left standing while everyone asks him to state his arguments and he breaks down and changes his vote to not guilty.

Juror 4: Slum boy

Old Ways:

He grew up in the slums and worked hard but feels out of place in the room

Challenge:

He is insulted by the racist and he defends his working class background. He shares his knowledge of using a switchblade and proves that the boy couldn’t have made the wounds on the victim.

Juror 5: The Stockbroker

Old Ways:

He is certain that the witness testimonials were accurate

Challenge:

He is put on the spot when he cannot recall the lead actors in the movie he watched three days ago when he was relaxed and not under duress.

Juror 6: The Worker

Old Ways:

He’s happy to miss his shift. Doesn’t care about the case. Would rather be here than at work

Challenge:

He is asked if this was him in the chair would he dismiss it?

Juror 7: The ballgame fan

Old Ways:

He just wants it over with so he can get to the ballgame that he has two tickets to.

Challenge:

He is challenged by the watchmaker who tells him to be a man and give his verdict as not guilty only if he’s convinced, he’s not guilty and not because you don’t care.

Juror 8: The Architect

Old Ways:

He votes not guilty while everyone else finds the boy guilty.

He wants to talk it out

He asks for exhibits – the knife and apartment plan

Challenge:

He is threatened and insulted for wasting everyone’s time.

Everyone tries to convince him to change his vote.

He produces a replica and raises suspicions of everyone; he recreates the walk and times it

Juror 9: The Old Man

Old Ways:

He assumes the witnesses were accurate but feels no one wants to hear from an old unimportant man.

Challenge:

He asks the broker about the lines by his nose and recalls the witness who had the same marks and how she was dressed to look younger in court.

He also points out that the old man probably wanted attention.

Juror 10: The racist

Old Ways:

He thinks the boy got a fair trial and now he is guilty.

He goes on a rant about how all of them are violent and should be locked up

Challenge:

He is confronted by the facts which he dismisses saying for that kind of boy the facts don’t matter in this case.

Everyone stands up one by one and turn their backs to him while he speaks in protest. The stockbroker calmly tells him: I have listened and now you sit down and don’t open your mouth again.

Juror 11: The watchmaker

Old Ways:

He wants to be agreeable. He assumes the evidence is unquestionable.

Ballgame fan mocks him saying what are you so polite about?

Challenge:

He changes his vote when the recreation of the walk is timed more than 40 seconds.

He says the same reason you’re not. It’s the way I was brought up. He tells the ballgame fan what kind of a man are you? He challenges him to stand by his vote with conviction not to get out of it.

Juror 12: Ad Man

Old Ways:

He is obsessed with himself and he just doesn’t care about the case.

Changes his vote easily when confronted.

Challenge:

He is asked what if this was you would you care? He changes his vote and decides he wants to talk some more.

The loudmouth rattles him asking why he’s going along, and he fumbles to answer and changes his vote to guilty when he cannot fathom an argument.

[Sunil Pappu]

Sunil Pappu’s Old Ways Challenge Chart (9B)

“What I learned doing this assignment is…to identify the old ways and find a way to challenge them to shift them to the new ways”

SHINICHI – THE DISCIPLE: OLD WAYS CHALLENGE CHART

Old Ways:

Shinichi buys into the war propaganda of the state and tries to enlist.

Challenges:

His parents refuse to allow it, and he’s detected with tuberculosis.

Old Ways:

Schools are converted to munitions factories. Shinichi joins a factory.

Challenges:

Schools are bombed and they lose the war.

Old Ways:

Youth are enlisted including Shinichi’s elder brother.

Challenges:

Watches a helpless US pilot beaten to death on the streets. Mother’s reaction to the incident. Loses his brother to the war. The grief of his mother.

Old Ways:

Warmongers proclaim it is a “just war”

Challenges:

Air raids and bombings that destroy homes and devastating atomic bombings.

Old Ways:

warmongers turned pacifists overnight.

Challenges:

Angered by the spiritual void and betrayal, people take to the streets.

Old Ways:

Nation faces food shortage and high inflation and occupation forces.

Challenges:

People starve with insufficient rations and occupation forces on the streets trying to keep order face the wrath.

Old Ways:

Youth question the meaning and purpose of life while schools are closed.

Challenges:

They enroll in a correspondence course by Toda.

Old Ways:

Mistrust fraudulent intellectuals and politicians who sang praises of war and drove large numbers of youth to their deaths.

Challenges:

Politicians turn pacifists to escape the punishment from the occupation forces.

Old Ways:

Shinichi feels helpless and lost.

Challenges:

Encounters Toda whom he can trust but he still has self-doubt.

[Robert Kerr]

Bob Kerr: Shifting Belief Systems

What I learned in this lesson was the opportunity to use both dialogue and movement to express the shifting from “The Old Ways” to the challenge of “The New Ways”. Perhaps the greatest example of this was when the 10 men rose to shun the juror spouting prejudice towards the end of the process. Shunning is such a powerful tool to express opposition to behavior.

Assignment One:

The Old Ways – It was an all male jury.

This is challenged throughout the process. The constant reference to empathy as a weakness by the juror, who clearly was speaking about the traits stereotypical referenced to women, as a sign of weakness.

The Old Way : Assumption of Guilt

This is challenged as the primary reason that the process takes a deep dive into the evidence when 11 of the jurors were ready to declare a GUILTY verdict within fifteen minutes of being in the jury room.

The Old Way: Patriarchy is always right.

This is challenged by lines of dialogue such as; ” Can’t refute the facts”, “The entire boys story is flimsy”. When the first secret ballot is cast, the old man changes his vote to “Not Guilty” to stand with the one lone dissenting vote.

The Old Way: Respect for your Elders

This is challenged when the juror tells the story that he had a fight with his kid and his kid his him. He then admits that he hasn’t seen his son in two years.

The Old Way: The Court Appointed Defense Lawyer was competent:

This challenged multiple times as the jury very methodically dissect both testimony, physical reality and the obvious tell tale observations of the witnesses.

[Robert Kerr]

Bob Kerr: Shifting Belief systems

Assignment #2

“23 Days”

OLD WAYS:

Freshman can compete on a varsity level

CHALLENGE:

The freshman agreed to play against #9 Arkansas even with the threat their senior year eligibility could be lost.

OLD WAYS:

Grief is paralyzing

CHALLENGE:

Despite the raw emotions of a week of funerals of their teammates, the remaining members of the football team are locked in and focused on preparing for a game against the #9 team, Arkansas

OLD WAYS

The opponent is a mortal enemy and unworthy of your respect.

CHALLENGE:

The Arkansas fans both supported and praised the WSU team for showing up and playing the game.

OLD WAYS:

Young men can’t and won’t accept responsibility.

CHALLENGE:

The players, most of whom were 18 and 19 year old young men, grew up and started making adult choices and adult commitments following the tragic plane crash that killed their teammates and head coach.

OLD WAYS:

Sometimes there are too many obstacles to continue. Best to cut your losses and wait till next year.

CHALLENGE:

Despite spending a week going to funerals, then not having enough equipment to practice in full gear, the players and coaches were focused on preparing for, and competing against, the # 9 Arkansas team.

[Sharon Axcell]

Sharon’s 12 Angry Men Analysis

What I learned doing this assignment is… that it can be quite ‘on the nose’ as long as it’s delivered well, and in context. And there are many ways in which to do it!

Old Ways

– Challenges

Setup from the judge – blah blah blah – he sets the tone right from the start.

The accused is young, of no particular origin (I don’t think!)

All in their suits and blazers, even tho it’s hot. Crazy people….!

Open and shut case like this one

– New blood with first time jury service

– Being put on the spot for their own opinions and justification

Sales/ business – can’t help himself – totally not involved in the proceedings – focus and interest elsewhere

– Forced to engage and pay attention – but I don’t think this guy really changes

One guy just wants to get outta there – encourages a vote

– Clarity that they’re deciding about someone’s life, and they shouldn’t make a snap decision

Order with the numbers around the table, ballot, tries to accommodate everyone’s approach; Show you where you’re mixed up. We decided to do things a certain way, I think we ought to stick to that way. Very defensive – removes himself from the discussion.

– One guy presses to hear what the dissenter has to say

– More and more others step in to change the approach – and he is more amenable to it

Maybe it serves him right – the father

– Receives a new perspective of the kid’s perspective rather than the older generations

– Direct challenge from the guy who was defending the older chap

One guy helping the older chap – who also directly challenges the loudmouth.

“Boy oh boy there’s always one.” “You can twist the facts any way you like”

– Calls into question their ‘making it personal’

– The one guy wanted to ensure they had a discussion – consider it’s about someone’s life

– Checking they understand the term ‘reasonable doubt’

“These people” are born liars – racism. People born in slums grow up as slummers in society. Bad breeding.

– If you don’t believe the boy’s story, how come you believe the woman’s? She’s one of ‘them’, isn’t she?

– Someone in the room points out they were brought up in the same kind of environment

– The main guy said he put himself in the shoes of the boy – could they be wrong?? Questioned everything.

He was guilty from the word go, and no-one proved otherwise, someone saw him do it; the entire story was flimsy

– Didn’t have to prove otherwise, burden is on the prosecution

– Accused of being what he is – You wouldn’t really kill me, would you? Showing his true thoughts and feelings

– The racist guy is shamed by the others when he does his outburst. (Prejudice always obscures the truth.)

The facts – take them how they want them to be

– Challenged by undermining their ‘fact-ness’ with doubts, alternative explanations

o A woman saw him – through a passing L-train

o The kid had motivation – no, he’s used to violence, nothing new

o He’s a kid brought up in a bad environment – my kid hit me, I hit him, and I haven’t seen him for two years (someone in the room)

o The whole knife thing – then the other guy bought the same knife, pulling into doubt the undoubtedness

o More depth and detailed thinking

o Looking deeper at the individuals who were testifying, understanding them

o “That’s not the knife, don’t you remember?!”

o The loudmouth argues himself into a corner – re: the old man, “He was confused, how can he be positive about anything?!”

o Testing them with literal activities, walking, remembering, own experiences with the knife

Peer pressure resulted in a guilty conviction – apart from one guy. All try to convince the single guy in their own way.

– Secret ballot – people could say what they actually thought

– Then they shift the persecution to each other

– One guy offered support to continue the conversation when they weren’t 100% convinced

– Then it starts going the other way – ‘there’s room for doubt’

[Sharon Axcell]

Sharon’s Old Ways Challenge ‘Chart’

What I learned doing this assignment is that… although I had much of the story elements in the script already, this has allowed me to add a whole new number of layers. #Exciting

– Maverick approach

o Multiple, inconclusive results – but then realises that it’s down to her approach

o The rat – knows it gets the results every time through perseverance

o Uses a non-maverick approach on something really simple – like opening a can of beans – and then applies it to the rest of her work

o The overarching approach to the time machine without considering the consequences in depth

– Keeps options open

o Challenged through overwhelm – gets nothing done. Forced to choose something for a while, and then stick to it

o Makes no progress on anything in particular – realises that she’s going to be here forever! She doesn’t have the time – unless she makes it. And even then, her body will expire before she commits to something in particular

– Scattergun, random approach – see what sticks

o She lets something continue after she’d given up on it – and it makes progress unexpectedly. She should have had the conviction in her beliefs.

o Not enough resources – including time to do it all.

o Exponential graph of return over time – perhaps she does it herself

– Reactive

o The only way her machine will work is if she plans it

o Something about food/ drink

o Or something she wants the rat to do which she has to plan for

o Collecting water/ growing food/ receiving/ ordering food

o Running out of money – she needs to plan way(s) to get more

o Clarity that this is actually about saving the world, and she shouldn’t be making any snap decisions

o Her immediate response to the black hole which doesn’t result in good results…!

– Doesn’t believe it will work

o Things work more and more when she doesn’t expect it to

o She follows her heart on one particular challenge rather than what the results say – then she realises later on that the stats appeared good, but would have petered out whereas her intuition gave the right result

o She time travels unexpectedly when Omega chucks her in

– Entitled – handed things on a plate

o Her experiences of herself take those away more and more

o Realises that, even tho she’s travelled back in time, she still doesn’t have the means to actually do it herself (yet) – she’s got to WORK for it. She’s seen a vision of the future. It’s real. It’s her job to make it real.

– Degrading/ diminutive – puts people down

o Has to admit that someone else’s research provides the breakthrough for her own attempts – doesn’t realise that it’s her own, rebadged with someone else’s name! But it makes her more humble at the time.

– Follows head, not heart

o Follows the stats/ results, but doesn’t get the results. Then follows intuition, gets the results

o Put on the spot when the results are very similar and showing nothing new – she needs to follow her gut

– Rebelling against the ‘flow’

o Doesn’t want to use this basement – why is she here? Then she discovers the chamber, and reverses her decision

o Decides to not use the batteries – but then has to as it causes more problems.

o Finds over time that she’s trusting her intuition more than she used to

– Believes in freedom, free will

o Argues with herself – realises that even that is pre-ordained based on who she is, and hence the decisions she makes! So if she learns creativity and positivity, then that’s what she’ll get

o Realises that intuition isn’t really ‘free will’, but her connection to the ‘truth’ of what’s required of her

– Blinkered

o

– Gives up easily – uncommitted

o Silver cannisters – leaves them in the corridor for a while…? “It’s too hard!” But if she wants the battery power, she’s going to have to move them

o Gets distracted with other opportunities – but keeps getting drawn back to the time machine. (Literally!) The Black Hole brings her back every time.

o She CAN’T give up on getting rid of the black hole – and taking up her responsibility for it

– Takes the easy route

o Uses cheap materials, does the minimum possible – but it results more often in failure rather than success

– Removes herself from picking up the responsibility for things

o There is no-one else that can help – apart from herself

o Anyone else will bring her harm – and the world harm

– Doesn’t believe that it’s her that’s meant to do this – she’s here for something else

o It can only be her in that time, that place, that situation – because SHE created it

o And all the positive stuff she did as Sigma/ Omega in the 20 years post Kappa

– Doesn’t believe that she’ll make it – she can’t. It’s not her that’s meant to do this

o Someone else fails in their activities, that she thought would indeed make it

o She has a dream/ vision that gives her the answer(s) to a particular challenge she’s having

[Mary Albanese]

Mary Albanese’s “Old Ways/Challenge” chart

What I learned: Besides the very cool way to create doubt and challenges without the protagonist using angry conflict, I learned that even in a one location/one scene script, you can still clearly structure your acts by the emotional content, which I have included in my old ways/challenge chart. Also, I got to see some really great ways to use visual images to subconsciously insert your profound truth even more.

OLD WAYS CHALLENGE

We START with an OPENING PROFOUND IMAGE – On the courthouse above the marble pillars

etched into the stone is the phrase “JUSTICE – THE FIRMEST PILLAR.”

“open and shut case” No challenge yet. This is all before the inciting incident.

“slap tough kids down”

“We’ve got things to do”

“this is dull”

“get out quick: ball game”

“Kid kills father. That’s it.”

———————————————-INCITING INCIDENT – FIRST VOTE. One person says “NOT QUILTY”

NOW cracks begin in the GUILTY vote.

“We don’t owe him a thing” “I don’t know. Let’s talk about it first.”

“He is a born liar” “I’m not trying to change your mind. But isn’t a life worth a few words?

“It’s our job to convince this gentleman” (agreeing that there is something worth talking about)

“I just think he’s guilty.” (Admitting it’s a hunch, not based on evidence.)

“Make a man out of (son) (revealing that he is basing this case not on facts but on his personal

Hit me in the jaw.” relationship with his son)

“I grew up in the slum” Inference – is guilt based on association or on truth?

“I have questions.”

“Defense not thorough.”

“Knife NOT unique!” Hmmm. Interesting. Possible… Doubt creeping in.

Let’s vote again. If nobody joins his NOT-GUILTY vote, he will drop it.

<br clear=”ALL”>

BIG SUSPENSE. What will happen??? END OF ACT 1

———-ACT 2. NEW VOTE shows one man HAS JOINED him. Now we are in the new world of possibilities.

“guilty where he belongs” “Probably guilty but I want to hear more.”

“It isn’t easy to stand alone to the ridicule of others.”

“It’s possible.”

“Old man testified for attention? To mean something?”

“Why would a murderer shout out his murderous intention?”

“Lawyer made a good case” “Lawyers aren’t infallible.”

“Old man heard words DURING the El train crossing?’

“Why would murderer come back three hours later?”

“He panicked? But left no fingerprints? Doesn’t make sense.”

“Witnesses can make mistakes.”

Mad at his son “Don’t make it personal!”

“Old man RAN? With a limp?

“He was confused – how could he be positive about anything?”

“You don’t really mean YOU’LL KILL ME, do you?”

“We have a responsibility. Not a personal thing.”

“You CAN twist facts.

“room for doubt. Lots of details never came out.”

Time for a new vote – END OF ACT 2

<br clear=”ALL”>

——ACT 3 – New VOTE REVEALS an EVEN 6 to 6 split!!! ——————————————

Switchblade stabs up, not down.

“You are playing with a man’s life for baseball tickets???”

“Have the guts to do what you think is right”

“These people lie. Dangerous!” PROFOUND ACTION: All the men stand up and refuse to look at him.

“Prejudice obscures truth.”

New vote shows 9 have reasonable doubt.

One man goes back and forth, unsure.

Wait! The witness woman wears glasses! How could she see?

“This is not a contest.”

Now the vote is 11 to one.

Angriest man goes nuts.

Rips up his son’s photo “Here’s my evidence. Rotten kids! They tear your heart out.” He bawls his eyes out, and finally realizes he is mad at his son, not the accused. He sputters out: “Not guilty.”

<br clear=”ALL”>

PROFOUND IMAGES AT THE END: Now that they have left the room with their unanimous not guilty verdict, the empty table with all their leavings displays evidence of all their different personalities displayed – the drawings, the doodles – all of them so different. Yet all came to the same conclusion of reasonable doubt.

PROFOUND IMAGE AT THE END: Henry Fonda, the white knight of the group, walks out in his white suit against the dull gray and black of the rainy night.

[Susan]

Assignment 9.1

Susan McClary’s 12 Angry Men Challenge Analysis

What I learned doing this assignment:
I feel like I wanted to learn this with a more subtle film where everything wasn’t so obvious. I’ve had enough of watching totally predictable films, in which I know exactly what is going to happen when. I want to be surprised, and I’d like to make things be there so the audience is not fooled, but is also surprised.

Watch the movie 12 ANGRY MEN. As you do, fill in the Old Ways you see; using the chart, make a list of Old Ways for the movie — habits, assumptions, filters of perception, beliefs, social values, rules, etc. – and the Challenges presented to those Old Ways.

Old Ways: Assumption of Guilt, New Ways actually dissecting the presented information

Old Ways: Just want this over, New Ways taking time to give the defendent the benefit of the doubt

Old Ways: Not caring, New Ways: making other people’s lives meaningful

Old Ways: Prejudice, New Ways: Seeing people as individuals

Old Ways: Not looking beneath the surface, New Ways: taking apart the so-called facts

Old Ways: Assuming evidence is reliable, New Ways: checking if the evidence makes any sense and if it is even possible

Old Ways: Assuming accurate winesses, New Ways: questioning if the witnesses could have seen, heard what they say they did

Old Ways: Assuming Defense did it’s job, New Ways: Asking why the defense left so many little things out and did not object to prosecution

Old Ways: Assuming case is completely logical, New Ways: Pulling apart case bit by bit in a timely order and asking whether or not this makes sense.

[Susan]

Assignment 9.2 Old Ways

Subject line: Susan McClary’s Old Ways Challenge Chart

What I learned in this assignment:
I have a far way to go to create many old ways set ups in each scene and new ways reveals that are surprising and not totally obvious.

2) Using the chart, make a list of Old Ways for your story — habits, assumptions, filters of perception, beliefs, social values, rules, etc. for your story.

GG feels out of place in society… doesn’t seem to fit in with any generation and their values, Allows others to steam roll him/bully him, is a mirror for others negative self reflections, hopelessly apologetic, has trouble talking to women, sees himself through other’s eyes, sticks to him tech life, people assume techies are geeks and anti-social, GG bewildered about himself and other’s needs and feelings, doesn’t see his true self, or other’s true selves, people close to him see him as a blungler (not true in professional tech world), GG doesn’t stand up for himself, He’s the “little” brother, never had a pet and doesn’t understand them. Thinks he can find everything online.

3) Fill in any ideas you have for ways to challenge each of the Old Ways.

GG gets fed up with people haranguing him. People keep pushing his buttons forcing him to change. Pets keep pushing his buttons forcing him to change. Fear that cute kitten might die. X-girlfriend tosses him out of his own house and he has to stick up for himself. Tries a Pet “psychic.” Annoying neighbor, trying to get menagerie to stop “disturbing’ her. GG gets big responsibility put on him to care for brother’s menagerie of pets

[ray Moore]

Ray’s 12 Angry Men Analysis

What I learned doing this assignment is how to present old ways to connect with the audience. Then present things that challenge the old in order to bring about a change in the audience.

Old Ways Challenges

Assume guilt Only one “Not Guilty”

Peer pressure Plead not guilty if there is a shadow of doubt

Trust investigator Question if witness really heard the boy’s voice

Trust lawyer Could the witness make it to the door to see the boy

Trust witness Could the witness see past the traveling train cars without glasses

Knife coincidence Shows his matching knife

[ray Moore]

Ray’s Old Ways Challenge Chart

What I learned doing this assignment is how to push the story by challenging old ways of doing things.

Old Ways Challenge

1. Cannot start business without husband Focus on studying the Bible to renew faith in God

2. Can’t raise a child Adopts Ava and helps her through a tough time

3. Children don’t like me Tries to build rapport with the boy

4. Always done things on her own Trust in God and the dolls

5. Life is over after death of husband Creates a new life with her business and Ava

[Gordie Cowan]

ASSIGNMENT 1

Gordie’s 12 Angry Men Analysis (Assignment 1)

What I learned: Generally, I identified the old ways and the challenges to them.

I did not assign or attribute specific “old ways” to specific individual jurors. Instead, I offer thoughts on each juror’s principal character traits or character faults, below.

That said I believe most but Fonda as Juror No.8, start off sharing the same or similar “old ways” derived generally from two regrettable notions: One: the most assertive in the group espoused the Kid’s guilt right up front, making it an immediate uphill battle to convince anyone of the Kid’s innocence. Two: the struggle with the uncertainty of facts that form the basis of whether a young man lives or dies. Uncertainty is the root of the “old ways” for all who quickly vote to convict.

From this uncertainty many of the jurors have their respective methods of bending or massaging the facts or over-generalizing the facts when attempting to alleviate their uncertainty. Their methods of doing so are their “old ways.” It’s not “glossing over.” Rather, they each have their methods of justifying why their theses are right even when it all doesn’t necessarily fit the evidence. Put another way, each has his own way of fitting a round peg in a square hole while justifying their methodology of doing so.

Some take offense to being challenged. Some take it further by expressing it with vivid outbursts of outrage or anger while attempting to suppress a challenge. But generally, the “old ways” are really based on each juror’s deepest uncertainty of the facts while simultaneously justifying a position that demands no less than certainty, for “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.

What follows are my generalized thoughts on the jurors’ character traits, at least as I see it, and a few of the challenges that changed them. Some challenges remained ineffective, such as, but one example, the competence of the defense lawyer. Here goes.

1. Martin Balsam – quick to be compliant; wants to get along so he can accomplish his job as foreman.

2. John Fielder – needs time to feel comfortable in the process. Looks for guidance.

3. Lee J. Cobb – condescending; bullies his way to results; stubborn; intolerant of others who challenge his views; is prejudiced against adolescents and young adults that stems from his failed relationship with his own son whose age approximates that of the accused. There is no challenge that would sway him. In fact, he’s the final hold out and relents only because he doesn’t want to be alone in the vote and is ultimately heartbroken about how he’s bullied his own boy out of his life.

4. E.G. Marshall – stockbroker; intelligent; observant; rational; smug; sees himself in a higher class to that of the accused and many in the jury room. Makes up his mind early on the briefest of facts but which clearly point to the kid’s guilt. He remains unbending against a flood of evidence that contradicts his opinions until he is given additional facts that compete with what he does and uses on a daily basis – his glasses. And as a rational person he ultimately accepts the challenges given him on the woman’s use of glasses and bends to rational discussion.

5. Jack Klugman – timid; poor (“I’ve lived in a slum all my life”) and offended by statements that cast the accused kid as being poor; not willing to be alone in a vote; is empathetic to the accused kid. The challenge most influential for him is the use of the switchblade knife.

6. Edward Binns – blue collar worker; the enforcer in the room. The knife challenge works with him.

7. Jack Warden – salesman; has somewhere to go (the ball game) and can’t be bothered with determining the fate of an accused man. The challenge to him is to embarrass him into conducting his civic duty as a juror.

8. Henry Fonda – architect; charismatic; calm; compassionate. Takes his time in rationally examining the evidence, bringing respectful challenges to those who do not do so. Challenged best by No.4 who, now a minority among the jurors who believe the Kid is guilty, relies on the woman’s testimony who “saw it” happen.

9. Joseph Sweeney – empathetic; compassionate; easily changes his vote so as to hear the whole story and also to support Juror 8. And offers the challenge of the eyewitness woman who must wear glasses but likely did not when momentarily glimpsing the crime without them.

10. Ed Begley – horribly prejudiced; condescending; self-righteous; In his mind’s eye, the accused kid is guilty by association for being from the ethnic/class type for which No.10 hates. He will say and do anything to see the accused hang because of who he is rather than based on facts. “They’re all guilty.” Just goes with the flow after being ignored by all for his prejudicial remarks.

11. George Vosovek – European immigrant who is pleased to be there to be an integral part of an American jury. He is persuaded by all of the challenges.

12. Robert Weber – in advertising; snobbish; disconnected with the process; ultimately goes with the flow evidenced by his changing his vote back and forth.

P.S. I really liked this movie.

[Gordie Cowan]

Gordie’s Challenge Chart (Assignment 2)

What I learned is to ferret out the “old ways” that envelope the story behind TMS (abbreviation of title) and find ways to challenge them. The two principal “old ways,” follow.

Old Way

Jess faces life-threatening missions to save a culture marked for extinction, to avoid owning-up to what fears him the most – his past.

Challenges

Each nightly frightful mission while never knowing if he’d survive it for the next.

Augie asking, “Why are you here away from family?”

His returning thought of never having apologized to family.

His returning thought of never having been a “real dad” to the son he never knew.

Augie later asking, “You never told me, what makes you tick?”

Reflecting on his guilt of not telling his family who had been his employer and what he really did for a living.

By necessity, slowly letting Augie into the inner circle of gun running.

His reflecting guilt over not being honest with Father Tony when running guns on

humanitarian flights.

His finally conveying to Augie who is real employer had been until recently.

His finally telling Augie what he had done to cause him to flee from family.

Augie conveying to Jess, to seek forgiveness from others you must first seek forgiveness from yourself.

The capture of Father Tony.

The final mission that could truly “even the stakes” but could mark him a “fugitive of justice,” forever.

Old Way

Jess’s finding convenient extramarital love affairs where a hurtful breakup is ultimately inevitable.

Challenges

Guilt from reliving his prior unfaithfulness and reflecting on his current state and his current extramarital affair.

Augie’s inquiry over why he, Jess, has not invited his wife to spend a bit of time together while he is afar for so long.

Greta, his current girlfriend, conveying by action, not by words, her love for Jess

Greta being level-headed with their affair, conveying to Jess that to return home he must forego this final mission to prevent his becoming a wanted fugitive (for reasons not explained here) which would forever preclude his return home.