12 Angry Men: Compare & Contrast

During the time Reginald Rose wrote the play Twelve Angry Men America was not an equal place for all people. A democracy is founded on the ideology that all Americans should be given a fair trial in court before being declared guilty. The twelve jurors in the play come from various backgrounds but initially, all but one vote in favor of the boy’s unforgivable sentence; while two other jurors lift two strong social stigmas and overcome their bias. One juror decided to stand up and take the time out for proper reasoning that resulted in teaching the others two jurors a lesson. Final verdicts should be made on justifiable grounds or the foundation of America’s society could be left at risk for collapse. Justifiable final verdicts are skewed

The capacity of human beings to possess different viewpoints, opinions beliefs and choices is what draws the line between man and animal. During the course of Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, the viewer sees exactly what makes up the unique and complex nature of man and how these individualities can compare and contrast when combined. The message she conveyed by her depictions of the opinions of each of the jurors was that with twelve different people comes twelve different viewpoints that everyone included can learn from. By using the Marxist and Historical lens, it reveals that even though the jurors are seen as a collective, their individuality is what propels the story into a study of human nature and interpersonal communication.

People's bias and predispositions can affect their opinion of different circumstances and different people. This is very evident throughout the play. After the first group vote and juror 8 votes not guilty, a discussion ensues. It is there that

Reginald Rose’s ‘Twelve Angry Men’ is a play which displays the twelve individual jurors’ characteristics through the deliberation of a first degree murder case. Out of the twelve jurors, the 8th Juror shows an outstanding heroism exists in his individual bravery and truthfulness. At the start, the 8th Juror stands alone with his opposing view of the case to the other eleven jurors. Furthermore, he is depicted as a juror who definitely understands the jury system and defends it from the jurors who do not know it fully. At the end, he eventually successes to persuade the eleven other jurors and achieves a unanimous verdict, showing his

The play "Twelve Angry Men", By Reginald Rose, is a play about 12 jurors that in an

Juror 3 was basing his failed relationship with his son on the accused boy. The reason that he had such a bad relationship with his son is because when the boy was young, he ran away from a fight and Juror 3 said: “I’m going to make a man out of you or I’m going to bust you up into little pieces trying”. Later on, when his son was older, they got into a fight and Juror 3 hasn’t seen him since. This experience probably left him the impression that all kids take their loved ones for granted, and that they deserve severe punishments. Juror 3 is not the type to provide the sharpest evidence or information, but he is very determined to prove that the accused really did murder the victim. Juror 8 practically gives nothing away about his real life, probably because he did not want to add his own prejudices to the case. Juror 3 gave both his ill-mannered personality and bigotry away in the play.

A boy may die,” and changes his vote to “not guilty” which is another instance where the boy gets a fair trial. The 12th and 7th juror find it difficult to decide on which way to vote and therefore vote “not guilty” so that the boy is not “sent off to die.” The 12th juror’s lack of a defined and consistent point of view reflects America’s post war materialism. The 4th juror believed that the defendant was guilty for most of the play but then was the 2nd last juror to change his vote and admitted that he had a “reasonable doubt.” Although the audience never finds out whether the defendant was “guilty” or “not guilty” the jurors give the “kid from the slums” an honest trial.

In Summary, with these three examples it is shown that the play and the movie contrast quite a bit. Most of the story line and the dialogue were very similar to the original story in the movie but some things were changed, possibly to shorten the story to be able to make

Juror three, labeled as the sadist, was the last man to vote not guilty and held on to his guilty decision because of his ego. Juror three was involved in ego conflict with most of the other men. However, juror three was especially excitable and in defense of his ego against juror eight. It was not until the end of the film that juror three finally realized that his ego was the only reason why he was voting not guilty.

The jurors are transformed by the process of deliberating. Eleven men voted guilty because of their prejudices, fears, laziness and insecurities, but they are eventually persuaded by reason to give up these limiting beliefs, to see the potential in the facts, and to find justice. The critical turning points in the jury votes occur, not when there is passion and anger, but when there is reasoned discussion, as the rational Juror 8 triumphs over the prejudices of his fellow jurors. The facts of the case do not change, but the jurors come to see the facts differently, and change by the process they go through. Despite the hostility and tension created in this process, the twelve men end up reconciled, and justice is done.

Twelve Angry Men, is a play written by Reginald Rose. The play is about the process of individuals and a court case, which is determining the fate of a teenager. It presents the themes of justice, independence and ignorance. Rose emphasises these three themes through the characters and the dialogue. Justice is the principle of moral rightness or equity. This is shown through juror number eight who isn’t sure whether or not the boy is actually innocent or guilty, but he persists to ask questions and convinces the other jurors to think about the facts first. Independence is shown through both juror number three and ten. They both believe that the defendant is guilty until they both realise that they can not relate there past experiences with

The play showed the theme of “Stereotyping in the World” through the characters’ proper reasoning, communicating, and believing in good faith. Twelve Angry Men allowed the views of many different men to see past the outside of a person and look at who they actually are. The play will put the test of each of the jurors’ character and show that the clear theme in the play is “Stereotyping in the World.” The boy has been out in a life where he has no other way out of the setting and must live in. Even though he lives in the area does not mean that he is that category and so does the

Reginald Rose’s ’12 Angry Men’ brings 12 jurors together in a room to decide whether a young foreign boy is guilty of killing his father. The play is interwoven with dynamic characterisation, striking symbolism and intense moments of drama. Although Rose positions Juror 8 as the hero, the strongest character is in fact Juror 4, who is an independent thinker, rational and calm even as tension begins to build. Although Juror 4 initially votes guilty, he is able to admit his fault and change his vote.

The seventh Juror was described as a sports guy in the play, and it shows it in the movie. The conflict in the film is presented differently in comparison to the novel. When something big happens or someone has an idea, the camera angle will

Firstly, the removal of unnecessary details helps improve the movie when the dialogue is removed during Juror #10’s rant, and when Juror #7’s anti-immigrant personality is omitted from the movie. When Juror #10 starts talking about “that type” of people and how “life don’t mean as much to them,” (Rose 64) in the book the other jurors try to tell him to stop, which conveys the wrong feeling because it shows they are listening to him. On the other hand, in the movie, they simply walk to a corner of the room and ignore him, which shows that they don’t want to listen and will continue to ignore him, which actually showed how they felt better than when they tried to talk.