Many people, if asked what they would prefer, would prefer to read the book instead of watching the movie. It could be because the movie will always leave some parts from the story out. It seems like directors of the movie always leave out parts from the book, only incorporating the important parts from the story. Some also say that they prefer to leave the descriptions of things in the book up to their imagination. Also, when you are reading the book, you get to read the main characters point of view on things.
In his play Twelve Angry Men, Reginald Rose brings us back in time to 1957, to a jury room of a New York Court of Law where one man, Juror #8, confronts the rest of the jury to look at a homicide case without prejudice, and ultimately convinces Juror #2, a very soft-spoken man who at first had little say in the deliberation. Throughout the play, many of the jurors give convincing arguments that make one think about whether the boy is “guilty” or “not guilty.” Ultimately, one is convinced by ethos, logos, and pathos. We can see ethos, logos, and pathos having an effect on Juror #2 as he begins as a humble man and changes into someone brave at the end. Although all three modes play a part in convincing Juror #2, pathos was the most influential
“12 Angry Men,” written by Reginald Rose, is a drama or play about a boy who is put on trial for murdering his father. 12 jurors are put into the jury room to discuss and come up with the boy's verdict, but they can't come up with a unanimous decision. Juror 8 stands alone with his opinion of “not guilty,” but he isn’t the only one who convinces the rest of the jury for “not guilty.” Juror 9 also has an impact on the vote to be unanimous in favor of “not guilty.” Juror 9 played an important role for the verdict to be “not guilty” by trying to prove other points against the boy being “guilty.”
Sydney Price Ms. Teeling English I 20 January 2023 The Danger of Detachment in Reginald Rose’s 12 Angry Men What would you do if you sat in a cramped, sweaty room for hours with all the pressure on you and your fellow jurors to make one decision: the life or death of a young boy? The jurors of Reginald Rose’s 12 Angry Men face this very predicament, forced to decide on the innocence of a boy on trial for murder.
The Power of Three Perspectives One can be easily mislead or persuade in a direction they do not agree with. However this is not the case with Juror 8 (Mr. Davis) in the film 12 Angry Men. In this film, twelve jurors try to identify whether or not the convicted eighteen year-old boy is guilty of murdering his father with a switchblade knife. If the puerto-rican boy is found guilty, he will be sent to the electric chair and sentenced to death.
In Reginald Rose’s play, Twelve Angry Men, he depicts a story of 12 jurors quarreling to decide the fate of a 19-year-old boy who stands accused of murdering his father. Juror 3, a stubborn man characterized by his dogmatic and uncompromising personality, is one of those jurors. Rose uses Juror 3, along with his prejudices, past, and the clashing of opinions, to demonstrate the themes of personal accountability and diverse experiences. When debating if the boy should get a second chance because of his unfortunate past, Juror 3 mentions his son “When he was fifteen he hit me in the face” (Rose 20). Juror 3’s past illuminates how his personal biases affect his judgment toward the boy.
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
His prejudice is clear when he says that “I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say” when speaking about the boy (16). Juror Ten’s prejudice causes him to disregard all of the facts that are presented to him by Juror Eight that can prove that the accused is not guilty. Juror 10 allows his prejudice to blind him of the truth. That is until he is called out by his fellow jurors.
"12 Angry Men" is a play by Reginald Rose that explores several themes related to the American justice system and the human condition. The play takes place in a New York City courtroom as jurors deliberate to reach a verdict in a murder case. Through the interactions and perspectives of the jurors, Rose sheds light on important themes such as the pressure of conformity, the influence of personal biases, the value of critical thinking, and the fragility of justice. One of the central themes of the play is the pressure of conformity.
In Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, the central idea is that pride and prejudiced blind us from the truth. Twelve Angry Men is about twelve jurors chosen to determine the verdict for a sixteen year old defendant for a premeditated murder trial. These twelve jurors are asked to deliberate diligently, separating the facts from the fancy. However, holding different opinionated views on the trial; they bicker all day long until a shocking confession is revealed. For example, Juror 10 voted guilty until the last pages of the play.
For example, when Juror 8 presents a new perspective on the case and casts doubt on the prosecution's evidence, the other jurors are initially resistant to accepting his point of view. This is because their prejudices have caused them to be so set in their ways that they are unwilling to consider alternative explanations. In conclusion, "Twelve Angry Men" exposes various forms of prejudice, including racism, class prejudice, and age prejudice, that affect the jurors' decision-making process. The prejudices of the jurors cause them to be more resistant to changing their minds and to view the evidence in a biased manner.
In 12 Angry Men, the movie begins in a courtroom where the case is being discussed by the judge, who seems fairly uninterested. The jurors are then instructed to enter the jury room to begin their deliberations. They take a vote and all but juror 8 vote guilty. The jurors react violently to the dissenting vote but ultimately decide to go around the table in hope of convincing the 8th juror.
Many people now a day’s get offended really easily like if a women or african American were to watch or read 12 Angry Men they would probably get upset, but the truth to the matter is you shouldn't be because every single person is different even if they do look alike. An example would be jurors eight and three they think and act very different many times throughout the story like in this quote “(shouting) ‘Shut up! (Lunges at eight, but is caught by two of the jurors and is held. He struggles has eight watches him calmly. Then screams) Let me go!
‘Twelve Angry Men’ written by Reginald Rose, is based on the story of a jury who have to come together to determine the fate of a young boy accused to have murdered his own father. Initially, eleven of the jurors vote not guilty with one of the juror being uncertain of the evidence put before them. As the men argue over the different pieces of evidence, the insanity begins to make sense and the decision becomes clearer as they vote several other times. Rose creates drama and tension in the jury room, clearly exploring through the many issues of prejudice, integrity and compassion, in gaining true justice towards the accused victim. These aspects have been revealed through three character who are Juror 10, Juror 8 and Juror 3.
The movie “Twelve Angry Men” illustrates lots of social psychology theories. This stretched and attractive film, characterize a group of jurors who have to decide the innocence or guiltiness of an accused murder. They are simply deliberating the destiny of a Puerto Rican teenaged boy accused of murdering his father. Initially, as the film begins, except the juror Davis (Henry Fonda), all other jurors vote guilty. Progressively, the jurors begin trying to compromise on a point that everybody agree because the decision of the jury has to be unanimous.
