Power of Speech in 12 Angry Men

EN P.

Order the writing of a tailor-made Film studies Presentation

Free quote online

Presentation Format .docx

Power of Speech in 12 Angry Men

Download

Read an extract

Themes

Power of speech, Twelve Angry Men, Sidney Lumet, closed room, tense setting, juror #8, rational logos, calm speech, juror #10, force, blind force, social stereotypes, class contempt, refutation by absurdity, silence, Jean-Paul Sartre, hell is others, gaze of others, impotence of strong speech, juror #3, manifestations of anger, close-ups, staging, rationality, justice, expression of justice, speech can be powerless, calm rationality, logos rational, irrational speech, impulsivity, philosophical context, character confrontation, decision making, parricide trial, jury deliberation, film analysis, directorial techniques, cinematography, character development, psychological tension, dramatic effect, argumentation, counterargument, persuasion, conviction, doubt, critical thinking, analytical reasoning, emotional intelligence, conflict resolution, narrative storytelling, visual storytelling, cinematic representation, dramatic representation, thematic exploration, social commentary, judicial system, trial by jury, legal drama, courtroom drama.

Reader
Abstract
Extract

Abstract

Analysis of how Sidney Lumet stages the power of speech in a tense closed setting in his 1957 film 12 Angry Men.

Extract

[...] - Grand oral HLP How is the power of speech staged in 12 Angry Men by Sidney Lumet? In Twelve Angry Men, A 1957 film directed by Sidney Lumet, twelve jurors are locked in a room to decide the fate of a young man accused of parricide. While unanimity seems to be in favor of condemning him and wishing the case to be settled quickly, one juror opposes the verdict, not because he is convinced of the accused's innocence, but because he doubts, a doubt that he will share through the power of speech alone. [...]

[...] The power of speech is embodied in particular in juror who shows that the true power lies in the ability to make one think, to sow doubt. Thus, the film shows how speech can be powerless in the face of the calm rationality of the expression of justice and rationality. Characters may agitate, driven by sad passions or clichés, but they only collide with the inflexibility of juror calm demeanor and the staging illustrates well the power of logos rational in the face of irrational speech and impulsivity. [...]

[...] For example, at 1:00:00, it is clear that he addresses juror very violently. The latter is an old man who no longer feels able to defend himself but who had the courage of his convictions and voted against the guilt of the young man when juror took the risk of not voting. The close-ups on juror and his manifestations of anger represent a beautiful way for the director to stage the impotence of a thunderous word. There is something paradoxical about such a demonstration of vigor proving ineffective. [...]

[...] We can see that the speech he unfolds is based on social stereotypes rooted in class contempt. Where juror #10 seems to be effectively demonstrating force, juror remains calmly in his place and pronounces very few phrases, refuting the argumentation by advancing that the testimony on which juror #10 relies comes from a person of the same social class as the accused and therefore should not be worth more than that of the accused according to the social stereotypes on which juror #10 relies. [...]

docx