➊ Fallacies In Sidney Lumets 12 Angry Men

Tuesday, August 10, 2021 3:39:54 PM

Fallacies In Sidney Lumets 12 Angry Men

Fallacies In Sidney Lumets 12 Angry Men act upon what they think. The case Fallacies In Sidney Lumets 12 Angry Men the moral predicament of choosing between bigotry and Fallacies In Sidney Lumets 12 Angry Men. Why does Proctor Fallacies In Sidney Lumets 12 Angry Men lechery? Complete freedom granted, would you rather work in films, TV or the theatre? I long ago stopped drinking coffee all morning.

Sidney Lumet On 12 ANGRY MEN

One juror in particular, Juror Ten, voices his opinion about the boy in question. Repeatedly throughout the play, Juror Ten makes many thoughtless and hurtful comments about a certain kind of people. He stuck to one piece of evidence and then went on that piece until everyone agreed with him. He brought up a few times how his childhood was bad and brought a picture to show everyone and guilt trip them. The only reason he wanted the boy to be guilty was because of his own problems. What's the matter with you? This argument could have been justifiable only if the juror has some proofs of the argument to be true. This is Hasty Generalization fallacy.

As the movie went on, all the jurors had explained why they had a bad view on children from the slums. Juror number three is the one who is always thinking the worst of the boys from the slums. In the end of the movie he has a picture of a boy, his son, who is from the slums and makes him upset so he is trying to take out his anger toward his own boy on the boy on trial. All the other jurors except number eight, have a bad view of the slums because of the prominence of crime in the areas of the slums and they don 't see all the kids from the slums because they just see the bad kids that come from the areas.

The jurors may not know all the children from this area so they will have a lack of knowledge. Fallacies in 12 Angry Men 12 Angry Men- a film, rather a courtroom drama, is full of emotions represented in arguments and intellectual brainstorming. Directed by Sidney Lumet, the film is an example of intellectual art. The film is based the story of a year old slum boy who was on trial for killing his father by stabbing him.

The judges, after seeing all the evidences and witnesses, actually leave the decision to the jury, to decide whether the boy was guilty or not. Also, if the jury decides that the boy is guilty, he would have to face the electric chair. As seen in Figure 1 juror three and juror 7 are placed on the left side and they are placed closer together. They are placed closer together because they were the most willful of the. Whenever people inspect a piece of work and try and figure out what it means 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose is a play about 12 jurors deciding on a verdict for a boy who supposedly committed murder.

There is a lot of opinions shared with everyone trying to have the correct verdict that they want and many people may think that this play is just about finding the correct outcome of the case, but it is actually about deeper meaning that Rose wanted the reader to learn. In the play 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose, the authorial intent is two different ideas to take away from the reading and they are, people change with the opinions of others and your background changes your perspective. The first idea that Rose intended for the readers to get is. According to act three on page 27 the Jurors are coming to a vote on whether or not the boy was guilty or not.

The evidence that is shown to prove this point is when all the jurors are all at the table and they all go to the window and turn their backs towards juror number ten, specifically juror numbers three and four. The play clearly shows a great representation of the problems in the modern day court system. These complications include biased jurors, ignorant and careless jurors, and lazy court-appointed lawyers. A major problem in the court system is, biased and close minded jurors can often slip through the interview process before the court case.

Juror Five takes offense to this because he was successful and born in the slums, and carries on to fight to break the stereotype in the. For instance, the third legal hearer has an irritated association with his "spoiled" child whom he has not seen for a long time. Thus, he trusts that "we would be in an ideal situation on the off chance that we "took these intense children and slapped them down before they raise hell. Spare us a considerable measure of time and cash. Rose notes in the stage bearings that "he has said more than he proposed. Not to do so would surely have led to madness. The stirring use of pathos here makes the audience feel not only for him, but for all others in similar situations. Through out the two films, Juror 3 and Abigail Williams are both motivated my their own personal desires and dislikes.

Both of them go about the film similarly, making threats towards the other characters. Generally, hearing how Lumet navigated the struggles I was running into myself—that was very encouraging. The following is an excerpt from Making Movies , by Sidney Lumet. Needless to say, this book is a must-read for any filmmaker. We had no money to make 12 Angry Men.

Once a chair was lit, everything that took place in that chair was shot. Well, not quite. We went around the room three times: once for normal light, a second time for the rain clouds gathering, which changed the quality of the light coming from the outside, and the third time when the overhead lights were turned on. They were shot seven or eight days apart. It meant, of course, that I had to have a perfect emotional memory of the intensity reached by Lee Cobb seven days earlier.

After two weeks of rehearsal, I had a complete graph in my head of where I wanted each level of emotion in the movie to be. But he hit the nail on the head. It is in the preparation. Do mountains of preparation kill spontaneity? Absolutely not. I had shot most of the scene by lunchtime. We broke for an hour, knowing that we had just a few shots to do after lunch to finish the sequence. During lunch, snow started to fall. When we came back, the park was already covered in white. The snow was so beautiful, I wanted to redo the whole scene.

I quickly restaged the scene, giving Plummer a new entrance so that I could see the snow-covered park; then I placed them on a bench, shot a master and two close-ups. The lens was wide open by the last take, but we got it all. Because the actors were prepared, because the crew knew what it was doing, we just swung with the weather and wound up with a better scene. Because everyone knew what he or she was doing, practically all of the improvisation wound up in the finished movie. It never occurred to me that shooting an entire picture in one room was a problem.

In fact, I felt I could turn it into an advantage. One of the most important dramatic elements for me was the sense of entrapment those men must have felt in that room. As the picture unfolded, I wanted the room to seem smaller and smaller. That meant that I would slowly shift to longer lenses as the picture continued. Starting with the normal range 28 mm to 40 mm , we progressed to 50 mm, 75 mm, and mm lenses. In addition, I shot the first third of the movie above eye level, and then, by lowering the camera, shot the second third at eye level, and the last third from below eye level.

In that way, toward the end, the ceiling began to appear. Not only were the walls closing in, the ceiling was as well. The sense of increasing claustrophobia did a lot to raise the tension of the last part of the movie. On the final shot, an exterior that showed the jurors leaving the courtroom, I used a wide-angle lens, wider than any lens that had been used in the entire picture. I also raised the camera to the highest above-eye-level position. The intention was to literally give us all air, to let us finally breathe, after two increasingly confined hours. A character shot in close-up is usually talking or reacting to one person or more.

Again, to help maintain reality and concentration, I like to have the off-camera actor or actors gathered around the camera to work with the actor being photographed. Clearly, this was a must in 12 Angry Men. Visiting a set one day, I saw the star feeding off-camera lines to a day player an actor hired for a small part on a daily basis. In fact, her attention was riveted on her crocheting. This can create very bad feelings on a set. Whenever I see it happening, I take immediate steps by talking to the off-camera actor as gently or firmly as is needed. This opens up an important area. When the actor is being photographed looking at someone off-camera, he can obviously see past him to the whole darkened studio.

Take 1 is over. I want to go again. The same process. Print it. Now, just for the hell of it, try whatever comes to mind. I always go along with that. About half the time the actor does do better. I do it as encouragement. This frees them for something more spontaneous. Obviously, certain shots in a movie require nothing beyond mechanical perfection. First, I place myself as close to the lens as possible. Sometimes I sit on the dolly, just beneath the lens. Then comes the hard part.

Then I focus my concentration on what the actors are doing. From the moment the actors start working, I play the scene along with them. I say the lines inside my head, I sense their movements and feel their emotions. If at any point in the take my concentration breaks, I know that something has gone wrong. You bet it is. One of the most complex lighting jobs was the first shot inside the jury room in 12 Angry Men. The shot lasts almost eight minutes. We meet all twelve jurors. The shot starts over the fan, which will matter later in the movie, and at one point or another moves into at least a medium shot of each person. I did it on a crane.

The base of the crane the dolly had thirteen different positions moving in and about the small set. The arm the boom on which the camera sat had eleven different positions left and right and eight different positions up and down. Boris Kaufman needed seven hours to light the shot. We got it on Take 4. Generally, the construction crew four grips, two carpenters go to lunch an hour earlier than we do. They put wall C back and pull out wall A. Everything has to move—chairs, makeup tables, sound boom, camera dolly; the dressing curtains, shelves, pictures, et cetera comes down off wall A and has to be put back up on wall C.

The paint, plaster, or wallpaper on the walls gets damaged from constant movement and has to be repaired. If ceiling pieces are being moved, the old ones have to be removed and new ones put in. The floor becomes filthy during shooting and has to be swept. Dolly tracks have to be taken up. Every lamp has to be disconnected. The main power cable has to be rerouted to the opposite side of the set.

The break is usually welcome. The actors warm up and, like a good fullback, get better as they work more. Many eat a slow lunch, and since the wall move will take more than an hour, they get a chance to nap. When the AD calls lunch, I head for my dressing room. I find it hard to sit down on set. I long ago stopped drinking coffee all morning. A buttered bagel will do nicely at about eleven. In my dressing room, lettuce, tomatoes, a hard-boiled egg, and some sliced ham or turkey await me. And then I go to sleep for fifty-five.

Again, after all these years, I wake up about a minute before lunch hour is over and go back on set. The actors are called. They are usually out of costume, and their makeup needs repair from whatever they did during lunch hour. We start by walking through the new shot. Again I tell them not to work full out. We make sure all props are placed. Then, with stand-ins watching carefully, we go through the shot again, only this time for camera. If the camera moves during the shot, we mark the camera positions with tape on the floor.

Sometimes there are eight or ten camera moves in a shot, so that the moves have to be numbered on the floor. Camera height changes are also marked. In addition, places where the actors come to rest are marked with tape, a different color of tape used for each actor. The stand-ins take over so Andrzej can start lighting, and the actors head back to their dressing rooms to get ready.

The afternoon passes quickly. The amount of work done in any day depends on so many factors. Henry Fonda never went to rushes in his whole career. In fact, he rarely saw the movie until it had been out for over a year. But on 12 Angry Men , he was also the producer, so he had to come. Pacino always comes. He sits on the side, alone, and an icy calm comes over him. Sometimes actors use rushes self-destructively.

They get sidetracked by how they look. The slightest hint of bags under the eyes will send them into a fit of depression. When I see this happening, I ask them not to come anymore. Some actors contractually have the right to come to rushes. For some reason, I still remember that I made setups in 12 Angry Men. Over half of those setups were to be used in the last half hour of the movie. The cutting tempo was accelerating steadily during the movie but would break into a gallop in the last thirty-five minutes or so.

I had a bit part in it. Sidney did it without affectation, like breathing. This background gives him remarkable rapport with actors, who tend to let their guards down with Lumet. Indeed, the DGA has given him its highest, most prestigious prize—the D. Griffith Memorial not awarded every year —for an entire body of work; only twenty-three directors in the world have received this. Honored by retrospectives all over the world, Lumet was designated by the French government as Commander of Arts and Letters. It is a method of working that a great many of the top silent directors used, and many of the best sound directors as well.

However, practically no directors do it now, and so Lumet has become, in yet another way, a connection to a fine craft already diminished and not getting better. As an aid to would-be picture makers—and instructive to practicing ones too—Lumet published in an extremely useful, well-thought-out book on the various phases of film production: Making Movies Knopf should become a standard text. The first part of our interview appeared, in a different form, in Film Quarterly June , after Lumet had made only four features.

The next time we talked was thirty-five years later over the phone, coast to coast. Show business is such a strange and intense fraternity and one of its more pleasant qualities is that, because show-biz folk are like gypsies—forever transient—most of them always act as though they just saw each other a few days ago rather than having had no contact for perhaps three and a half decades.

Our first interview, commissioned by Film Quarterly , was conducted in Mr. I asked which of his first four features were released as he had envisioned them… 12 Angry Men and The Fugitive Kind. On the other two Stage Struck ; and That Kind of Woman ; the editing was disastrous—they took the editing back to California. That Kind of Woman was a series of fights that went on all year between myself and the producers. On what level? I fought like mad about the editing and the scoring on that, but the enmity between the producers and me was so total that they just went back to California and cut spitefully—to prove to me that certain scenes were not necessary.

It got to that petty a level. It was one of the things, I must say, that scares me about going to work for a major studio—the fact that that can happen. Actually, it was not a bad picture; it had a kind of lovely atmosphere about it. But the old idiocy of you-make-it-good-by-making-it-fast is nonsense, because some of the longest pictures I have ever seen are sixty-five-minute bad pictures. How was the situation on 12 Angry Men? Well, it was just me and Reggie [writer-producer Reginald Rose] working by ourselves, and it was angelic. Then you must be against the showing of movies on TV. And what [Howard] Hawks did in terms of the reality of a cattle drive is, to me, on the level with what [John] Ford did with Stagecoach [].

The majesty of what Hawks does is lost. What are the differences you found in directing for the stage and movies? To me, far more things can be interchanged between TV and motion pictures than between theatre and motion pictures. The theatre, for all its attempts at realism for the past thirty years, is a totally unreal medium—its essence is really poetic rather than literal.

The screen can become poetic but, God knows, the majority of the good work has been devoted to literal and realistic, representational art. There are a great many artists who are marvelous in one and not in the other. What have you found to be your main obstacle in film work? For myself the main obstacle is the setup, the film in America. The financial setup, the method of making motion pictures, and the method of distribution is one that conspires to defeat freedom and good work. What if your piece needs a sumptuousness and a sensuousness as part of its dramatic meaning? And, you know, documentaries and semidocumentaries are not the only method of work in film. Many fine directors—Huston, Wilder, Bergman, Welles, Kubrick—either write their own screenplays or collaborate extensively with others on scripts.

On Fugitive Kind, for instance, there was a good deal of rewriting between the original draft and what wound up on the screen. Oh, yes. Looking back over an extended period, I think, my God! Also, you go to a piece for many different reasons. It was shot that way, done that way, right from the opening title shot with the kid getting touched on the shoulder by a wand.

That place has no reason for being. So, when you start adding that, all of a sudden the thirty-two-day or Fallacies In Sidney Lumets 12 Angry Men shooting schedule is no longer Fallacies In Sidney Lumets 12 Angry Men miraculous. This film was adapted Fallacies In Sidney Lumets 12 Angry Men the teleplay 12 Angry Men which was named by Reginald Fallacies In Sidney Lumets 12 Angry Men, written and co-produced by Rose himself and directed by Sidney Lumet. He shouldn 't have handled his problems like that because Fallacies In Sidney Lumets 12 Angry Men again, Abigail Williams To Blame killed a man. I do it as encouragement. Physical blindness is exhibited in "the Fallacies In Sidney Lumets 12 Angry Men Tale", January Fallacies In Sidney Lumets 12 Angry Men made physically blind we can we see this from "biraft hym bothe his yen", which means he deprieved from both his eyes. Cairo In The Maltese Falcon Words 5 Pages To this Cairo embodies a contradiction to what Tweed Marijuana Inc. Business Analysis think or might think is a mod-ern day stereotypical man is supposed to Tom Brady Writing Style.

Web hosting by Somee.com