Lesson 9 Assignments

[Erin Ziccarelli]

Erin Ziccarelli’s 12 Angry Men Analysis

What I learned from doing this assignment is: these “old ways” (habits, assumptions, filters of perception, beliefs, social values, rules) are much deeper ways of giving each character a unique voice. There’s much more opportunity than surface-level characteristics (i.e. how a character likes their coffee).

Old ways for 12 Angry Men (challenges bulleted)

Assumption of guilt: “we don’t owe him a thing,” he got a fair trial

· The odds are “a million to one” – the knife is the same as the one the boy used

· Every time they revote – one or more juror “falls”

· All jurors (except Henry Fonda) assume the boy is guilty because of their beliefs, social values, and backgrounds

Just want this over: one juror takes forever to get into the room, Juror #7 has tickets to a baseball game

· Juror changes his vote to not guilty because of the baseball game – the immigrant juror questions the man’s reasons

· They’re quick to “assume the worst” and want the debate to be done, they all think they’re right (habit)

Not caring: one of the jurors fell asleep during the trial, talking about the stock market and their other jobs, networking

· The first vote for “not guilty” made by the timid/older juror

· The immigrant juror’s speech about democracy in America

Prejudice: discussing the neighborhood where the kid is from, they’re “born liars”

· The kid “don’t even speak good English” to “doesn’t even speak good English”

· “This kids a liar – I know all about them”…”These people are dangerous” –

Not looking beneath the surface

· Henry Fonda putting himself in the kid’s place – he wants them to reevaluate the witnesses

· First vote round – one is changed

· The Swedish guy makes a list and presents his questions – why did he come back home?

· Second vote round – several more votes changed

· “How can he be possible about anything?”

· “Kill him!” “You don’t really mean that.”

· Third vote round (out loud) – more votes changed…6 to 6

· Fifth vote (raising their hands)…vote is 9 to 3

· Prejudice keeps the truth from coming out – gambling on probabilities (they have reasonable doubt – no jury can declare a man guilty unless it’s sure)

· The other jurors start to stick up for Henry Fonda, the last juror is left

· Lee Cobbs’ rant and personal bias exposed – he votes not guilty

Assuming the evidence is not questionable

· Two eyewitnesses, the knife that “fell through a hole in his pocket,” the boy went to the movies

· Discussion about the elevator train – time it takes for the train to move and how they heard his voice over the noise

· Apartment diagram – where the guy’s bedroom was located and how he got to the window fast enough to see the boy running down the stairs

· The movies and the stars in the movies that the boy saw – the one juror can’t remember a movie that he saw a few nights ago or the stars

· Switchblade – the direction of the stab wound shouldn’t have been down, it should have been up (without switching hands)

· The eyeglasses – the witness wore eyeglasses and wasn’t wearing them at the time of the killing (at night, after she was asleep)

Assuming the witnesses were accurate

· Henry Fonda saying that “people make mistakes”….the trial rides on two witnesses

· In act 3 – the woman’s unshakable testimony

Assuming the Defense Attorney did his job

· The kid’s lawyer doesn’t even believe his client….he didn’t even rip the defense attorney to pieces

Assuming the case is completely logical

· First time going around the table – the people who speak have flimsy reasonings for their vote, they’re a little arrogant

[Bonny Millard]

I am supposed to be getting lesson emails? I’m not receiving anything.

[Lincoln Hoppe]

Lincoln’s 12 Angry Men Analysis

What I learned from this lesson is the gradual and shifting levels that can happen over the course of the film that can take us from certainlty to doubt or one way to a new way in believable fashion by not having it happen all at once. Also, the polar opposites are dramatic and make us feel like we’ve made a journey

Old Ways, New Ways

He’s guilty – The evidence is irrefutable -new ways reasonable doubt, is it possible he didn’t do it

They’re all the same – Those who come from the slums are trash – New way – Not everyone is the same – I came from the slums, I’m not trash

Certainty of guilt – new way – too clean ‘ Everyone seemed so positive I began to feel funny. Nothing is that positive

Certainty of guilt – the 2 witnesses were the entire case, they could be wrong. People make mistakes.

The DA had no evidence to defend him – Why didn’t the kid’s lawyer bring it up. New Way – I thought the lawyer wasn’t doing his job. He was missing things.

He’s guilty – New way – I put myself in the boys place

Evidence – The knife is unique and iron clad evidence – New ways – here’s the same knife! Possiblitly of reasonable doubt

Prejudice – I know his kind – New way – put yourself in the boys place

Certainty – He’s guilty! I can feel the knife going in – New way – He’s not your son, another man is on trial… not your son

He’s guilty – the witnesses are irrefutable – New way – poking holes in the witnesses one by one

Shut and closed case – New way – looking at the smaller pieces to examine and cross examine them

[Lincoln Hoppe]

Assignment 2

Lincoln’s Old Ways Challenge Chart

What I learned doing this assignment: belief systems power our actions. So a character makes choices based on their belief systems, which is why the changing belief system can so entirely bring a change to our main character.

Old ways –

Angelo thinks life will be better if he keeps his head down and stays in line

New Ways – you can’t get what you want that way

Old way

Don’t mess with dad

New Way

What I want is valid and worth following my own path

Old way

Dad is right

New Way

Dad is right for dad, not for me

Old Way

I have a pre-set path to follow

New Way

I can create my own path

Old way

I am weak

New Way

I am powerful when I choose to use my strengths

Old way

Living to please others

New way

Live and choose to do the most good

Old way

What’s good for the world is not good for me

New Way

I can do good for the world by using my gifts

Old Way for Devin

If we keep someone in line, we get what we want

New way

If we push someone, we can push them into their own choice and action which can backfire

Old Way

Choice is scary

New Way

Choice is exciting

Old way

Risk is scary

New way

Risk is exciting

Old way

I can’t get things I want

New way

I am powerful enough to pursue what I want

[Wayne Petitto]

Wayne’s 12 Angry Men Analysis

What I learned doing this assignment are some ways to challenge a character’s current beliefs to cause a shift in their belief system.
12 Angry Men was a great study in challenging individual’s old ways, causing them to shift those ways. I’ll outline each Juror below with some of the highlights.

J-8 (Fonda) Is the one who challenges the other 11. He begins with a plea for the poor, beaten, scared 18-year-old kid to be given more careful consideration before sentencing him to death. The most dramatic challenge comes when J-3 (Cobb) believes the murder weapon, an apparently unique switch blade, is indisputable evidence. J-8 challenges him by producing one just like it that he bought just blocks from the defendant’s home. This however does not change him, (see, J-3 below).

J-1 (Balsam) is the young man placed in the leadership position to get deliberations done. He is very ‘laissez-faire’, and generally went along with the crowd. He was challenged when another juror called him “a kid.” From that moment on he increasingly became a stronger leader. He himself was not convinced of reasonable doubt until the facts were challenged and discredited.

J-2 (Fiedler) simply believed guilt was obvious with no alternative explanation. However, as the facts are challenged and great doubt is disparaged over each, he changes on the 4th vote.

J-3 (Cobb) Was the most antagonist juror who we learn alienated his own son by attempting to beat him into becoming “a man.” As the story progresses, we learn his own son left him 2-years earlier at 16-years-old (making him coincidentally the same age as the accused). He is stanch in his belief that the defendant is guilty, however near the end, when he is the only one still holding a guilty vote, he self-destructs, as it becomes obvious that he’s taking out his own guilt and regret for his own son projected onto the defendant. At that point he breaks down and acquiesces the final “not guilty” vote.

J-4 (E.G.Marshal) A stoic stock broker, is calculative believing guilt was well established. As each fact is dispelled he remains unconvinced of possible innocence. He becomes challenged when J-8 questions him about movies he saw and the actors, and if he’d be able to think of those things had he been just arrested for the murder of his father lying dead in the next room. He has said he doesn’t sweat, yet the questioning made him sweat not even under duress.

J-5 (Klugman) A successful man who became challenged to recall his youth growing up very poor, forcing him to consider the possibility of innocence.

J-6 (Binns) Was a working stiff who was never called upon to make decisions only follow orders. He was going along with the crowd until he was challenged to make his own decision.

J-7 (Waldon) a hot shot sports enthusiast who just wanted to get to the game, and voted whatever would get it done. The kid’s life was meaningless to him. When he changes to “Not Guilty” following the majority “just to get out,” he’s confronted by the Eastern European Immigrant (J-11) who values democracy and the responsibility of voting. After being lectured, J-7 appears sincere in his “Not Guilty” vote.

J-9 (Sweeney) is an intelligent old gentleman, slow to follow the crowd in the first show of hands. He was the first to challenge the testimony of a lame old man who’d never been important, thus might have just wanted to be important. He considered the young boy’s life, and was first to change his vote.

J-10 (Begley) A cranky old fart with a bad cold, who’s prejudice toward the defendant’s race, ethnicity, and youth, become more and more obvious until his extremely prejudice rant causes the other jurors to literally turn their backs on him. When the mildest mannered of them all (J-4) challenges him saying, “sit down and don’t open your mouth again,” he begins to realize the error of his old ways.

J-11 (Voskovec) an Eastern European Immigrant, was generally convinced by what originally seemed like overwhelming evidence. However, he was challenged by the prejudice of other jurors toward “foreigners” and reconsidered his vote on the 3rd round.

J-12 (Webber) was a sales exec who was sold on the boy’s guilt until the disparities of evidence and the dynamics in the meeting challenged the lack of veracity of the evidence. When he finally declared, “People make mistakes, this is not an exact science,” he sold himself that there is reasonable doubt.

[Wayne Petitto]

Wayne’s Old Ways Challenge Chart

What I learned doing this assignment is a direct way to develop my main characters’ arcs with challenges to their old ways for the transformation process.

Jeannie’s
Old Ways: How Challenged:
Too confrontational Does not want to hurt Peter
Distrusts Men Discovers Peter is a virgin
Impatient Peter needs her patience
Is a Tom Boy Peter puts her in ladylike positions

Peter’s
Old Ways: How Challenged:
Non-confrontational Must address differences with Jeannie
Super critical Doesn’t want to offend/lose Jeannie
Catholic Doctrine Is threatened with excommunication
Guilt Complex Discovers his past killing Joan of Arc
Fear of attractive women Falling for Jeannie