Rhetorical Analysis of "12 Angry Men" and "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"

There are many ways for a producer to make a point through a film; even the most subtle details and things that may seem insignificant at first can all add up and merge together into supporting and emphasizing the central message. Of course, an individual has to pay attention and watch out for these details in order to fully appreciate the producer’s efforts, and I’m sure that I missed quite a few things when I was watching the two films, 12 Angry Men and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. But from what I gathered, even though the two films are significantly different in terms of plot, they both used the devices of the Aristotelian appeal to  logos and pathos, and juxtaposition, all used to convey the worth of unyielding persistence.

The Aristotelian appeal is very apparent in the two movies, logos more so in 12 Angry Men than Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and pathos more so in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington than 12 Angry Men.

In 12 Angry Men, use of logos is more common than pathos because persuasion was a goal for the twelve men and they all often used the appeal to logic than to the emotions. Arguments and disagreements were circling around and around throughout practically the whole movie, and often times the men found themselves back at square one after a heated debate. However, the sole juror who voted non guilty and the other opinion-changing jurors later on together found the smallest details and proved them wrong with a series of logical arguments; the volume of the train, the time it takes for it to pass, the distance the witness had to walk to reach his door, the glasses imprint on the woman’s face, the angle at which the knife was plunged in to the father’s chest, all of these details were deftly proven wrong and worked towards the advantage of the boy’s innocence. The extent to which one particular juror had been resistant to these logical proving further stressed the fact that there was indeed nothing for the anti-not-guilty jurors to have a foundation for their opinion on the boy’s guilt. I found that these consistent approaches to logic that the jurors used were good at pointing out any personal prejudices that got in the way of the case, and as these biases were all rooted out I could see the extent to which the jury had changed from the beginning, when they were all hot, tired and annoyed at the supposedly simple case that was taking too much time, to the end, when they were all chastened into admitting the facts and making the right decision thoroughly and without backing down.

In Mr. Smith Goes to Washington I didn't really get to notice a lot of instances of logos because the excerpt was pretty short, but pathos was clearly demonstrated in the clip. From the beginning when Smith was standing alone in the court room till the end, when Smith was bent over the table, being barely able to speak due to exhaustion and strain, I found that I was often sympathizing and empathizing with Smith. His stubborn stance on how corruption should change was an admirable thing, and as the clip progressed I got to admire and respect him for his 23-hour long filibuster. Besides the sympathy and admiration that I personally felt, it is also clear that the people in the movie were emotionally moved as well. In the beginning people weren't very supportive towards Smith, but thanks to the printing and circulation of the newspapers, the outside world was shifting towards Smith’s side. This usage of pathos was a successful move in the producer’s part because it made the impact of Smith’s persistent words and actions more significant to me, and it also helped stress the extent to which his actions were causing a ripple of change in the American society.

Juxtaposition is also apparent in both films; in 12 Angry Men, the stages of changes and development of thought among the men concerning whether the boy was guilty or not was noticeable and the differences were practically laid there side-by-side because the arguing was continuous throughout the whole movie. The lack of change in the setting or characters especially helped me to notice this progression of the jury’s thought and decisions; the consistency and stability of the movie was good for me to understand the plot a bit better because there weren't any alternations between different places or anything like that. I could see how a certain point was different the other, and how one man was consistent in this aspect of the argument while another man hardly had any good footing in his points at all. The producer worked this use of juxtaposition to his advantage because it helped him to emphasize how successful or correct the direction towards the decision-making for the case.  

For juxtaposition in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, the scenes of Smith at court and the different scenes of the people’s reactions to Smith helped in making connections between them. The excerpt swiftly escalated in terms of the extent to which the public was responding because in the beginning things were pretty stagnant, but the newspapers were a stimulus to change because thanks to the circulation, the public was now riled up and aware of Smith’s cause. Soon marches were organized and signs were waved as the people were wanted to support Smith. Following right after these scenes were the parts when these positive movements were being suppressed. These three different types of scenes together made an impression on how the situation progressed from the beginning to the end.  The short, abrupt shots of people running around, newspapers printing, Smith speaking, etc all helped to bring into light the differences the excerpt’s parts had and the overall effectiveness of Smith’s filibuster and how this effectiveness affected society.

Even though the producers of both films obviously used more rhetorical devices other than the Aristotelian appeals and juxtaposition to help prove their point in their films, those three were the clearest ones that I was able to catch. Logic, appeal to emotion, and side-by-side placement of different scenes stressed the aspects of the characters and the plot, particularly the development of both as in the two films there were escalation and change going on in the jurors’ opinions and the public’s perception of Mr. Smith.