In the movie Twelve Angry Men each character, or juror, has varying personalities. In particular, Jurors 8, 10, and 3 stuck out to me the most. All three of them are completely different people, with little in common. Some are prejudiced, some are not. Most people think: Oh, if you’re on a jury there should be no prejudice whatsoever or it won’t be fair. But is that really a bad thing? In other words, everyone views the world differently, and although this may lead to some personal prejudice, these different opinions can give different sides to each story to help solve a case. In the movie, Juror 8 stands alone. When all other jurors vote for the teenager to die, he is the lone opposer. He is strong, but not overly sharp, as he doesn’t get …show more content…
Juror 10 in the movie is a racist bigot. He doesn’t care what others think, even if they’re bringing up perfectly good points. Whenever someone contradicts him, he brushes them off. In the movie, Jurors 8 and 5 bring up a very good point about the use of switchblades. Afterward, there’s a vote, and the vote is nine to three in favor of acquittal. Instead of asking questions, Juror 10 breaks off into a racist speech. He says, “I don 't understand you people. How can you believe this kid is innocent? Look, you know how those people lie. l don 't have to tell you. They don 't know what the truth is. And lemme tell you, they don 't need any real big reason to kill someone either. You know, they get drunk, and bang, someone 's lying in the gutter. Nobody 's blaming them. That 's how they are. You know what I mean? Violent!” (Twelve Angry Men). He is inconsiderate, not listening to anyone other than himself. He is stubborn and sharp. Therefore, Juror 10 would best be symbolized by a triangle. The thick, black border symbolizes that he hides behind a veil of racism and prejudice. The triangle is gray because Juror 10 is just empty. His description at the beginning says, “a man who has been nowhere and is going nowhere and knows it deep within him” (Twelve Angry Men). There is a small yellow circle in the center, symbolizing his core. Yellow is known to mean several things, but a big one is cowardice. The movie says, “A bigot who places no values on any human life save his own” …show more content…
Juror 3, though not as bad as Juror 10, has his fair share of flaws. He is rude to other jurors and doesn’t listen to reason. He gets angry easily. Whenever someone somewhat disagrees with him, he instantly holds a grudge. His main reason for acting this way though, is due to all of the emotional baggage he brought with him into the courthouse. Juror 3 has his heart set that the boy is guilty, only because his own son left him years ago. In the movie he explains, I 've got a kid. When he was eight years old, he ran away from a fight. I saw him. I was so ashamed, I told him right out, ‘I 'm gonna make a man out of you or I 'm gonna bust you up into little pieces trying.’ When he was fifteen he hit me in the face. He 's big, you know. I haven 't seen him in three years. Rotten kid! You work your heart out” (Twelve Angry Men). Every single other jury member has some reason as to why they voted, whether it be prejudice, gut feeling, based on the evidence, or just voting with the majority so they can all go home. Juror 3 is different. While everyone else contributes something about the case into their reason, Juror 3 simply chooses guilty based on events in his past. Nothing else. He’s different than the other jurors. He doesn’t quite fit in. Accordingly, Juror 3 would best be symbolized as a trapezoid. The trapezoid has a thick, red border to symbolize the layers of anger and sadism Juror 3 buries himself under. When accused of being a sadist, he succumbed to his
Daja McLaurin Benton TA: Yiwen Dai Communications: 250 1 April, 2016 12 Angry Men Assessment After viewing the movie 12 Angry Men the group was able to implement the ideas of group think immediately during the start of the movie. Since the men briefly established a relationship from the time of witnessing the trial to start of deliberation n the empty room and reaching a unanimous decision, they found that all of the men initially achieved a verdict of guilty accept for juror 8. After this surprising decision the men began to show their true colors and distinguish how one may believe something and another juror may believe another. The group takes time in pleading individual opinions while deciding on the guilt or innocence of a young boy
The Film 12 Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose, is a film written about the American jury system. In the film, as in any part in life, emotions are a tricky thing; This is especially true for the 3rd, 7th, and 8th jurors. One of the main themes in the film questions that of the emotions of the jurors. That question is: Is it possible to keep personal prejudice and emotions out of a trial? Is this even a good or bad thing?
As the play went on, Juror Eight started proving how the boy was innocent. In the end Juror Eight changed all the other juror’s minds, except for Juror Three’s. Juror Three ended up changing his vote, not because they changed his mind but because he gave into peer pressure. He still had his prejudice influenced decision, he only gave in because he didn't want it to be a hung jury. Another example, from the same play, is Juror Eight.
He seems in a way relatable to William Golding’s character, Simon, in The Lord of The Flies. Simon is seen as a sort of christ like figure, and while Juror 8 isn't anywhere near that level, he does seem to portray a sort of thoughtfulness and compassion that Simon does as well. All of the jurors are affected by peer pressure in different ways, and how they are effected is important to the
What is worth our attention in this movie is how in the beginning they are trying to convince each other to vote guilty. 11 juror voted guilty and only one voted not guilty. Their judgments were based upon either their past personal experience which created their thoughts and behavior or upon facts. Juror 8 represents the conscience. He stood up for his inner feelings that the accused young boy is innocent.
People act upon what they think. Within “12 Angry Men”, all of the jurors have an opinion but some voice their more than others. 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. It is clear that Juror Ten’s uncompromising belief that the accused is guilty is because of his dislike for the boy’s race.
The script introduces the viewers to the typical behavior and the state of mind of these jurors, who surprisingly turn out to be the last to change their opinions from “guilty” to “not guilty”. Juror#3 the frustrated father whose personal conflicts and experiences influence his view of the accused’s crime is very desperate to make it clear that his mind is already made up before the deliberations even start. Similar
William Jennings Bryan once said, “Never be afraid to stand with the minority when the minority is right, for the minority which is right will one day be the majority”. Standing up to the majority is vital, it gives individuals the opportunity to express their individual, unique opinions and experiences. It allows the majority to become open to diversity and the cultures that come along with it. This has been shown throughout history, Martin Luther King Jr’s “I Have a Dream” speech, is an instance of this. This speech encapsulated all that he was fighting for, for the African American minority in America and their rights.
8th juror appeals to their sense of pathos and pity by saying “this boy’s been kicked around all his life… He’s had a pretty terrible sixteen years. I think maybe we owe him a few words. That’s all.” While this has nothing to do with the case, he hopes to appeal to their humanity in order to get them to give him a chance in these deliberations.
It is about whether the jury has a reasonable doubt about his guilt. When the first ballot is taken, 10 of his fellow jurors agree that defendant is guilty while there is only one Juror had different view that defendant is innocent. Juror No. 10 begins a racist rant. As he continues, one juror
Juror Eight was the only man from the beginning of the play who stuck by his belief that the kid was innocent. He stood alone in front of the other jurors and defended himself from the other jurors, such as Juror Three and Juror Ten. Jurors Three and Ten were adamant that the kid was guilty and refused to listen to Juror Eight’s “nonsense”. Juror Eight’s evidence and speeches persuaded all the other jurors to change their vote from not guilty, except for Juror Three. The only reason Juror Three had it out for the kid was because he himself had some issues with kids respecting their parents, and specifically their fathers.
What if one day, twenty years from now you were chosen to discuss the fate of an eighteen year old boy. What would you do? Would you take your job and do it responsibly, or would you do it like some of the Jurors in 12 Angry Men and blow it off so you can finish early and leave. Even though there was a lot of controversy in that jury room, I noticed that Jurors 3,7, and 9 used their personalities, beliefs, and views of their responsibilities to bring the boy on trial to justice. This very excitable juror is the last to change his vote, and while his stubbornness could be seen as being based more on emotions than facts, he starts off with his little notebook with facts of the case and tries to insist that he has no personal feelings on the matter.
People tend to base characteristics of people pretty quickly; likewise, their personalities. Most people base their opinions on stereotypes. Reginald Rose and his play “12 Angry Men” demonstrate how people are quick to judge other people based on looks. In the movie all twelve jurors must decide if a young boy is guilty or innocent. At the beginning of the movie/play-write, only one juror, juror eight, decides the boy is innocent.
This process continues throughout the course of the movie, and each juror’s biases is slowly revealed. Earlier through the movie, it is already justifiable to label juror 10 as a bigoted racist as he reveals strong racist tendencies against the defendant, stating his only reason for voting guilty is the boy’s ethnicity and background. . Another interesting aspect of this 1957 film is the “reverse prejudice” portrayed by juror
He’s slipping through our fingers!” Juror 8 told Juror 3 that he wants the boy to die because of his own desire rather than the actual