Pathos,ethos and logos in 12 angry men
Introduction
Twelve Angry men is a movie of twelve jurors who are struck in one room trying to comprehend with one another whether a young boy is responsible for his father’s death. Emotions come up when one of the jurors stands up for the lad defending him that he was not guilty. This film is full of Ethos, logos and pathos. This paper explains some of the places these rhetorical tools are employed.
Pathos, ethos and logos instances
In the film twelve Angry men, juror number eight employs ethos when he was trying to convince juror number ten that the boy’s father could not have heard the boy say to the old man, “I am going to kill you”. He says, “there’s something else I would like to talk about for a minute. I think we have already proved that the old man could not have heard the lad say, “I am gonna kill you”, but supposing…” he was trying to convince them that when you say something, it doesn’t mean that you are going to do exactly that.
We can see a clear demonstration of pathos in the film where juror number ten says, “he is just a common ignorant slob, he does not even speak good English.” Juror number elven replies to him, He does not speak English…” this is a clear irony in the arguments presented by juror number ten. Juror number ten also in another instances demonstrates pathos where he is trying to convine the jury that the slum dwellers are in general bad people when he exclaims, “They get drunk… oh, they’re real big drinkers, all of ’em – you know that – and bang: someone’s lyin’ in the gutter. Oh, nobody’s blaming them for it. That’s the way they are! By nature! You know what I mean? VIOLENT!” through this, we can clearly seethe emotions that this juror had against the slum dwellers.
The Term Paper on Juror Number Vote Guilty Boy
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law defines reasonable doubt as a doubt about the guilt of a criminal defendant that arises or remains upon fair and thorough consideration of the evidence or lack thereof all persons are presumed to be innocent and no person may be convicted of an offense unless each element of the offense is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The jurors provide a mixture of ...
Logos is extensively employed in the film, but profoundly I noticed it when juror number eleven was convincing the other jurors that the old man could not have moved as swiftly as it was tring to be portrayed because of the formerly suffered stroke. He says, ““I’d like to find out if an old man who drags one foot when he walks, because he had a stroke last year, could get from his bedroom to his front door in fifteen seconds.” This was a logical argument of how the old man could not have dragged himself so fast to see the lad run out of his home. He also convinces the jury of how the woman across the street could not be able to see the boy through the train without her spectacles on.
He explains, “It’s logical to assume that she wasn’t wearing them when she was in bed. Tossing and turning, trying to fall asleep.” Then the juror continues by saying, “I don’t know – I’m guessing! I’m also guessing that she probably didn’t put her glasses on when she turned to look casually out of the window. And she, herself, testified the killing took place just as she looked out. The lights went off a split second later – she couldn’t have had time to put them on then. Here’s another guess: maybe she honestly thought she saw the boy kill his father – I say she only saw a blur.” All this was by the juror number eight’s logical reasoning. It is also clear in the film when he say, “It is logical to assume…”
The Term Paper on Reasonable Doubt Juror Boy Man
In Twelve Angry Men, the audience gets to view the two sides of the legal system. We view the institution that would want to be objective, and the human element, the jury, where each individual brings his own personal subjective point of view. This movie exposes the different types of people called to judge ones peers and the complexity of human nature and what different circumstances influence a ...
He explains, “It’s logical to assume that she wasn’t wearing them when she was in bed. Tossing and turning, trying to fall asleep.” Then the juror continues by saying, “I don’t know – I’m guessing! I’m also guessing that she probably didn’t put her glasses on when she turned to look casually out of the window. And she, herself, testified the killing took place just as she looked out. The lights went off a split second later – she couldn’t have had time to put them on then. Here’s another guess: maybe she honestly thought she saw the boy kill his father – I say she only saw a blur.” All this was by the juror number eight’s logical reasoning. It is also clear in the film when he say, “It is logical to assume…”
He also convinces the jury of how the woman across the street could not be able to see the boy through the train without her spectacles on. He explains, “It’s logical to assume that she wasn’t wearing them when she was in bed. Tossing and turning, trying to fall asleep.” Then the juror continues by saying, “I don’t know – I’m guessing! I’m also guessing that she probably didn’t put her glasses on when she turned to look casually out of the window. And she, herself, testified the killing took place just as she looked out. The lights went off a split second later – she couldn’t have had time to put them on then. Here’s another guess: maybe she honestly thought she saw the boy kill his father – I say she only saw a blur.” All this was by the juror number eight’s logical reasoning. It is also clear in the film when he say, “It is logical to assume…”
References
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/quoteshttp://jiripik.me/2012/06/03/12-angry men teamwork team decision making effect of prejudices/
