12 Angry Men

12 Angry Men

Every man put on trial is considered innocent until proven guilty. In 12 Angry Men this theory can almost be considered false to the jurors involved in this murder case. But one man can be credited with sticking to the innocent until proven guilty theory that most likely saved a man’s life. This juror must show 11 other jurors that he can prove with enough valid evidence that this boy is be wrongfully accused of killing his father. Reginald Rose shows us how that one mans integrity can prove to make a big difference in a kid’s life.
Juror #8 can be credited with saving someone’s life. Under intense and hostile scrutiny juror #8 is the only juror to vote not guilty on the stabbing death of a boy’s father. #8 doesn’t believe straight out that this boy is innocent of this crime. #8 believes that it would wrong to send a boy off to be executed without discussing it first.
Jurors #3 and #10 are the most hostile of the jurors. They believe deep down that this boy killed his father. They believe that everything they heard in the courtroom holds true and they don’t really want to see this kid live any longer. Juror #8 still had reasonable doubt about the murder. He doesn’t want to vote guilty until he has enough evidence that this boy did indeed kill his father.
Many different points are made about the boy who supposedly stabbed his father, that are cross examined well by juror #8 who still stands alone at not guilty. All of the evidence that the 11 jurors found contains flaws in them. For instance the woman who supposedly witnessed the stabbing wasn’t wearing her glasses. Also the stab wound in the boys father was made so that a taller man or boy could have made that type of wound with a switchblade knife. When these key pieces of evidence becomes clearer to the 11 jurors we start to see jurors questioning there own guilty vote. #9 is the second juror to vote guilty, because he too has some reasonable doubt. As more evidence is put on the table the 12 jurors come together and decide that this boy is innocent.
In conclusion, juror #8 believes that every person is innocent until proven guilty. He was given many pieces of key evidence that showed this boys guilt but the evidence was examined carefully, and as more evidence was put out more jurors believed this boy was indeed innocent bringing them all together to believe this boys innocence

Read More......

12 Angry Men

12 Angry Men

This essay will compare & contrast the protagonist/antagonist's relationship with each other and the other jurors in the play and in the movie versions of Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men. There aren't any changes made to the key part of the story but yet the minor changes made in making the movie adaptation produce a different picture than what one imagines when reading the drama in the form of a play.
First off, the settings in the movie are a great deal more fleshed out. In the play, the scene begins with the jurors regarding the judge's final statements concerning the case in the courtroom and then walking out into the jury room. In the movie, the audience is placed in the role of the invisible casual observer, who for perhaps the first 5 minutes of the movie, walks throughout the court building passing other court rooms, lawyers, defendants, security officers, elevators, etc. Not able to remember much about this particular part of the movie, I believe this introductory scene's purpose was to either enhanced the realism of the setting by emphasizing the court building's efficient, business like manner or to provide a timeslot in which to roll the credits for producer, director, stars, etc. The settings aren't only built upon through use of scenery and extras in the movie. Invisible and distant in the play, we see in the movie the judge, bailiff, those witnessing the trial and most importantly of all- the defendant. This is an important change because in the play, we are free to come up with our own unbiased conclusions as to the nature and identity of the defendant, whom we only know to a be a 19 year boy from the slums. Seeing his haggard and worn face in the movie changes all of that, yet for better or worse, it engages the audience deeper into the trial as they surely will sympathize with him and can gain some insight into why, later, Juror 8 does so as well. Of final note in this summary of points concerning the differences in setting, the jurors all mention the heat wave affecting the city when they begin, and as it agitates them, it serves to heighten the tension between each other and their resentment or other feelings towards jury duty. Oh- also lastly, I think we can infer that the movie takes place in Manhattan, New York City. Which jurors are from which boroughs is easily obvious and yet I'm hesitant to say that the defendant could be from any of them- slums were persistent in those times.
Concerning the characterization of the cast and their conflicts with each other, the movie holds true to the play's guidelines. For the most part, each character I saw in the movie matched up with the picture my mind's eye had painted whilst I was reading the play. One thing irked me however: all the jurors seemed at least 10 years older that I had imagined them. For instance, I had seen Juror 8- the protagonist of the play and Juror 3- his rival, the antagonist as being perhaps 30-ish or so and spirited and vibrant in their arguments. While somewhat vibrant they were, their age made them seem to come across as being more stubborn and grumpy (at least in, Juror 3's case) than lively. Even Juror 2- the meek, weak and timid-spoken one, I thought would be so because of the age disparity between him and the older (and thus, supposedly- wiser) jurors. Yet he is portrayed as such a man but balding and smoking a pipe. His voice, however, fit nicely to its role. The conflicts in the movie, while also being more fleshed out than in the play, did match up essentially but there was one point- I thing just before Juror 8 asks for the diagram of the apartment- that the movie's directors took the liberty to take dialogue from later in the play and put it there, greatly confusing me and hampering my ability to follow along.
In analyzing the differences in the antagonist's and protagonist's relationship with each other and the other jurors, it too held to the play's guidelines with the various alliances and verbal sparring making sense in light of each juror's moral alignment and personality. There was one difference, a minor or major one depending how it was viewed. Detached from the ending, Juror 3 being more humanely portrayed in the movie than in the play was a minor change. Seen in relation to the movie's ending, Juror 3's inner conflicts and humanness is a very a major change.
Finally the endings are to be discussed. Here, the play and the movie are obviously very different. The director with his poetic license makes a very obvious change only hinted at subtly earlier on and the impact it has on the audience's conclusions at the end of the movie and the differences between that and those garnered at the end of the play are great. He tells us that Juror 3 was an abusive and uncaring father who, because he caused him to run away, has not seen his son- very similar to the defendant- in over 2 years. Ah, now we can see where his biases stem from: past negative experiences with his son, the rebellious nature of which justifies the execution of the defendant. Yet at the very end of the movie we sympathize with Juror 3 just as we did with defendant. We see his brutish, sadistic demeanor is just a façade, and at one point he too was an innocent father who simply made wrong choices. I think that the change in the ending was for the better because it clarified Juror 3's motives greatly. The play's ending did not- one got the feeling that Juror 3 was simply pressured into voting not guilty. We come away from it with a greater feeling self-satisfaction at the resolved trial.
So, save for, but also including the ending, the changes made in the move adaptation of Rose's play, "12 Angry Men"- the enhanced setting, great character casting and tense conflict and resolve- only served to enhanced it's quality and make it enjoyable to watch.

Read More......

Twelve Angry Men

12 Angry Men

Thank you Ladies and Gentlemen for all your time and service. I believe my
client is innocent of these charges and you must keep in mind that if you have a
reasonable doubt in your mind that this boy is innocent then u must vote not
guilty and save his life. Keep in mind if you are doubtful and you vote"guilty" this boy’s life will be taken away from him and you will always
wonder. Ladies and gentlemen how can you be so sure this kid is a killer? The
eyewitness couldn’t have seen the murderer perfectly. Think about it; she
didn’t have her glasses on and it was through the windows of a passing

El-train. How could she have been so sure it was the boy under those conditions?

She could’ve seen anybody and just fit the boy into the picture. No evidence
was so clear that there cant b a reasonable doubt in your mind. Ladies and

Gentlemen shall we go over each piece of evidence. Lets exam the knife and the
stabbing. It was said before the knife is unique, meaning its one of a kind, but
down the block at a local store u can buy the same knife. It is the same exact
knife as the one the boy owns, which means the store owner was wrong when he
pointed out there was only one of its kind. Now, lets talk about how the father
died. The knife was left in him in a downward position. This explains two ways
it couldn’t have been my client. One way is the father is taller then his son,
how would my client stab the father in a downward position if he was shorter
then him. It would’ve been in a upward due to the position of the knife, my
client would’ve had to reach all the way up in the air and he still wouldn’t
have a chance to stab downward on such the angle it was. Another way it proves
it was not my client was because my client is an experienced knife fighter,
unfortunately. An experienced knife fighter holds a switchblade with a upward
position and if the knife was left in the father with a downward position then
it was obviously by an inexperienced knife fighter and as you all know he has
his share of knife fights. With all the event’s my client has gone through he
has only learned from, therefore we come to the conclusion that he is street
smart. If my client is street smart then why would he yell I’m going to kill
you and then stab him in a downward position. Another way I can prove the killer
was no street smart was because why would a person who is street smart yell

"I’m going to kill you" and then whip the fingerprints off the knife. The
killer couldn’t have been street smart if he would do something like that.

Ladies and Gentlemen it doesn’t make sense; my client does not fit into the
mold the prosecution has made. Now there were other witnesses that work at the

Movie Theater where my client was on the night of the murder. There are a lot of
faces at a Movie Theater, would you remember one face after seeing hundreds of
different faces all day? My client could’ve sneaked into the movies and been
too embarrassed to say it. He also doesn’t remember the movie he saw but you
must remember he just got into a huge fight with his dad; his mind probably was
not on the movie at the time. He could’ve been so distracted with the argument
that he didn’t bother paying attention to little things like the title of the
movie. Also, it was a late night so he might’ve just went to the movies to get
away from his father and end up falling asleep in the Movie Theater for a while
and not remember the movie. There are many possibilities, which should leave
reasonable doubt in your mind that means you must vote not guilty Ok lets go
over the old man that claims he heard my client yell and claimed he saw my
client run out of the apartment. People this man heard my client yell, "I’m
going to kill you" with an El-train passing by his window? When a El-train is
passing you can’t even hear yourself think, there is no way this man heard my
client clearly say "I’m going to kill you", and distinguish it was
definitely my client. Ladies and Gentlemen if he did hear a voice it would sound
like a muffle and he would not know it was my client who said it. If this
doesn’t leave reasonable doubt in your mind then I don’t know what will.

Ladies and Gentlemen, there is no way you can possibly have no reasonable doubt
in your mind. Do you honestly think that all of these pieces of evidence is that
strong enough to leave no reasonable doubt in your mind? Keep in mind if you
vote guilty you are taking this young boy’s life away from him, and if u vote
guilty with reasonable doubt in your mind then you should be on trial for
murder. Thank your for your time.

Read More......

12 Angry Men

12 Angry Men

Every person may have his own way of defining the term "reasonable
doubt." In the play "Twelve Angry Men", by Reginald Rose, one
juror, number Eight, stands alone against 11 others to convince them that the
boy is not guilty. He looks beyond the given testimonies in order to give the
boy a fair trial, though this is more then the others think the boy deserves. If
the jury finds a "reasonable doubt", it must declare an innocent
verdict. A young man stands accused of fatally stabbing his father, and his fate
now lies in the hands of his "peers:" 12 men from all walks of life,
each with his own agenda, fears and personal demons. At first, based on their
conversation, it seems that it will be a unanimous conviction.The first vote is
taken and one man stands out; his confidence to stand alone is strong. He is the
only man voting not guilty. His opinion is reasonable; he feels that there is no
way to prove it was the boy, saying the testimonies given were shaky. The others
do not agree on this, arguing that the boy comes from a slum and one can't
expect more from someone with this upbringing. Eight goes into the case assuming
the boy is innocent, while the others attribute guilt to him. He first brings in
a knife directly like the one used in the killing, to prove that it was not one
of a kind. He discounts the testimony of the old man, saying it was impossible
for him to hear the boy scream over the roar of the passing El-train. He also
makes a point of demonstrating that it was impractical for him to reach his door
in 15 seconds, in order to see the boy running down the stairs. To some this and
other logical arguments proved to be a "reasonable doubt", and in
consequence they changed their votes to not guilty. By the end, Juror Eight has
everyone convinced, besides Juror Three, who holds true to his ground. Eight was
the juror responsible for giving the boy a chance. If he would have given into
the others in the beginning, the boy would have been falsely convicted of
murder. Juror Three is the last juror to change his vote; nothing anyone says
can convince him that there is a "reasonable doubt" in the case. This
man was the most stubborn of all. He refused to pay attention to things that
were being stated in order save the defendant from death. It was as if the word
guilty seemed to dwell in his mind and was unable to be altered. He becomes
outraged that the others are changing their votes and letting this kid
"slip through their fingers." He says that the whole case is based on
the testimony of the woman across the el-tracks. The jurors play out the murder
to themselves, and talk about the lady across the street. They notice several
things about her. The lady claimed that she saw the murder through the last two
cars on the train that was passing. A juror also noticed that she had indents in
her nose which means she wore glasses. She never mentioned the glasses in the
trial. It was finally agreed with eleven jurors that there was "reasonable
doubt" that the lady could not have successfully seen the murder without
her glasses, and through a train. Everybody is angered and the votes gradually
change to not guilty, some come from people that honestly believe it and others
who just want to leave and get it over with. Juror Three, who deadlocked the
jury, was full of anger. He finally gave his plea of not-guilty when, angered,
he shouts out that he is entitled to his opinion and shall have it. A couple
minutes later he caves in, most likely due to the anger he has combined with
frustration. He had gone into the case thinking the boy is guilty, before any
evidence was even resgistered into his head. The Juror acted as if no ones
opinion counted but his, and talked above everyone else. Juror Three gave into
the pressure of the jury, realizing that he shouldn't have voted guilty to
punish the boy for the memories he had of his son. He brought his personal life
into play, following his heart instead of his head. There are some people in
life who like to make things more difficult for others, the way Juror Three did.

He was stubborn and did not wish to see anyone else's point of view. One will
always have a "Juror Three" in his life. It is up to a person to take
a stand like Juror Eight, and fight for what he believes in even if it is
against the majority.

Read More......

12 Angry Men

12 Angry Men

As Thomas A. Kempis says, "Such as every man is inwardly so he judgeth
outwardly."" In other words, how someone feels inside reflects his or her
thoughts and opinions. This is true in the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald

Rose. In Twelve Angry Men, a boy is accused of murdering his father, and it is
the job of the twelve members of the jury to decide his fate. Jurors eight and
ten have strong feelings towards the boy that affect their votes. Juror eight is
a calm, thoughtful man who fights to see that justice is carried out. Eight is
the first to state that they should at least review the facts of the case before
they send him off to die. He also points out holes in the old man’s testimony,
and proves that they cannot put all their trust in what the old man has to say.

One of the last pieces of evidence that juror eight brings to attention is the
way the boy’s father was stabbed. Juror eight gets it into the other jurors
minds that there is reasonable doubt, and saves the boy’s life because he opts
to review the facts of the case with the jury. Unlike juror eight, ten is a
boisterous, angry bigot who is not fond of they boy, and this affects his vote.

Ten believes that he’s guilty up until the end of the play, and is constantly
referring to the boy’s racial group as "them," and "those people." He
also thinks of the boy as being ignorant, and a slob. Ten is not a fair man, and
is very prejudice towards the boy and says that he does not value human life.

The negative feelings that ten has against the boy cause him to vote guilty for
the majority of the play. As a result of the feelings of jurors eight and ten,
their votes are affected. How the jurors feel inside reflects their thoughts and
opinions, and as Kempis says, "Such as every man is inwardly so he judgeth
outwardly."

Read More......