Monday, September 30, 2019
12 Angry Men Essay †Pathos ethos and logos Essay
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, â€Å"I am going to kill you†. He says, â€Å"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, â€Å"I am gonna kill you†, but supposing†¦Ã¢â‚¬ 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, â€Å"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†¦Ã¢â‚¬ 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, â€Å"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.            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, â€Å"â€Å"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, â€Å"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, â€Å"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, â€Å"It is logical to assume†¦Ã¢â‚¬ He explains, â€Å"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, â€Å"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, â€Å"It is logical to assume†¦Ã¢â‚¬ 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, â€Å"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, â€Å"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, â€Å"It is logical to assume†¦Ã¢â‚¬ References http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/quoteshttp://jiripik.me/2012/06/03/12-angry men teamwork team decision making effect of prejudices/ Source document
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.