In Twelve Angry Men the prejudice of the jurors is of significance as it drives the plot. In presenting the dynamics of prejudice, the film finds a variety of instances in which the men use both inductive and deductive rationale for their beliefs. The paradox in this is that belief is the antithesis of the logical cornerstone of the legal situation. The cornerstone is the notion of innocent until proven guilty. The main character begins by citing this as the basis of his abstinence in relation to the majority belief of the rest of the group.
This is the basis of the psychological pressure that motivates the main theme of challenging conformity (Brehm, 1999). Through maintaining his stance of innocent until proven guilty the main protagonist is able to slowly reveal to the others that their belief in the subject’s guilt is simply that; a belief. By doing this, the prejudice of the other characters is exposed. The emphasis is shifted from the protagonist’s doubt to each character’s doubt. A degree of prejudice emerges from this through going through each scene of the crime.
This ranges from casual reasons, such as wanting to get to prior engagements, to discriminatory prejudices. The latter is exemplified in the final two characters who have maintained their doubt throughout. However, while one character bases his doubt on what he deems a definitive piece of evidence, his counterpart is exposed as having a resentment towards young ‘kids’. On raising doubt in each scene, only the most prejudiced character remains in denial. View the films Malcolm X and Gandhi.
Write a 350 word paper comparing the two lead characters with respect to differences in leadership styles, handling of conflict, relations with others, and the evolution of their political views. The figures of Ghandi and Malcolm X are in contrast. Ghandi is shown to reject the notion of religion and religious dogma in matters of social policy, showing a clear separation between political and spiritual idealism. Contrastingly, Malcolm X indulges religion as a driving force of a political separation between what he deems his people and the powers that dominate his people.
Although both films chart the rise of the two historically significant figures, they use different themes in doing so. Essentially, we can see that the film depicting Malcolm X charts the many discrepancies in Malcolm X’s life that come to inspire him and change his views. In this, the religion pertaining to Islam is given as a catalyst to his views on social inequality and righteousness. These are twinned with the conditional factors that inspired his revenge and sense of injustice.
This is in direct contrast to Ghandi who is depicted in a much more philosophical, logical and idealistic sense. He applies his philosophical rationale in every situation interpreting the factors that emerge. In this, Ghandi maintains and accords his logical rationale that the state must be secular regardless of any of the individual spiritual views or those of the religious majority, and that in state life and law making the morality of religious ideology must not have any effect.
By comparison, Malcolm X is portrayed as a radical opposing the authority and utilising his experiences that he uses as a motivation. Whereas Ghandi tries to implement an ideal that he believes must be the premise of social law. In this, the role of leadership and relations are deeply influential to Malcolm X, whereas these roles are idealised in Ghandi. Bibliography Bream, S. , et al (1999) Social Psychology, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company