More handpicked essays just for you.
The psychological phenomena in 12 angry men
The psychological phenomena in 12 angry men
The psychological phenomena in 12 angry men
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Characters with widely different personalities and beliefs create a number of diverse and tense relationships among characters in the play 12 Angry Men written by Reginald Rose. The opposing personalities of juror number eight, juror number two and juror number three greatly influence the direction and message. The main theme is the differences of jurors, which helps to bring a more human verdict. Due to the fact that
Juror eight is one of, if not the most, important character in the play. He’s calm, knows how to argue while still maintaining his cool, and has a strong sense of morality that does not waiver. He is also the only completely static character. While the other eleven jurors decide the defendant is guilty with nothing more than
…show more content…
One of his very first lines is, “I’ve never seen a guiltiter man in my life,” (12 Angry Men) when expressing his initial opinion of the defendant. It seems like he’s intent on sending this man off to die without even giving the case so much as a second glance, and at first it appears he might very well get his way. Luckily, eight sweeps in to try and reason with three and again save the day. While juror eight’s argument is based mostly on facts, juror three’s argument seems to be built on stereotypes and prejudices. Even after hearing evidence upon evidence about why the defendant is guilty, three stubbornly doesn’t budge. Until finally it’s revealed why. “It’s the kids...they don’t listen. I’ve got a kid. When he was fifteen he hit me in the face. Haven’t seen him in three years. Rotten kid! I hate tough kids!” juror three eventually admits. In other words, three is taking his anger about his relationship issues with his son out on the defendant. This is an example of a juror bringing past emotions and prejudices into the courtroom, much like juror two. Three’s frequent bursts of anger and lashing out at other jurors is represented in diagram one by the thick, pointy, dark red line that borders his prickly and sharp figure. Inside the shape, the diagram shows red to represent anger and bitterness. The blue oval represents that three’s anger comes from sadness. This is best shown at the end of the play when three rips up a picture of his son into pieces in anger. Then later he breaks down on the floor, crying out “Not guilty.” Deep down three knew that the defendant was not guilty, but his anger and sadness towards his son drove him to want to see the boy punished, even if it was for a crime he never actually
Not able to remember much about this particular part of the movie, I believe this introductory scene's purpose was to either enhance 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 the 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 case, 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 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.
For example, the third juror states in his monologue “Yeah, well I've got one. He's twenty. We did everything for that boy… When he was sixteen we had a battle. He hit me in the face. He's big, y'know. I haven't seen him in two years. Rotten kid.”(page 18) This quote alone proves that juror number eight
Juror 6 seems to be part of one of the characters’ whose intentions exhibit otherwise. He proclaims vociferously, “It’s pretty obvious, I mean, I was convinced from the first day”. This sentiment provides compelling evidence as to what the Juror’s intentions and perspectives were, towards the alleged sixteen-year-old. In addition, an important factor that can be taken into consideration is the factor of civic responsibility, which he didn’t uphold properly. In fact, it was proved to have biased, prejudiced and pre-conceptualised
Juror number eight is the main protagonist, he also a reserved with his thoughts, yet very strategic with them. He is the defender of the down trodden victim. He has a calm rational approach to everything and he reveals the gaps in the testimonies placed against the defendant. These examples would be; that the old man couldn’t have seen the boy run out of the house, as the old man had a limp and therefore could not make it to the door in time. The old lady across the road could have never saw the boy stab his father, due to she wasn’t wearing her glasses and it was pitch black. Number eight is a man that s...
Even before the jury sits to take an initial vote, the third man has found something to complain about. Describing “the way these lawyers can talk, and talk and talk, even when the case is as obvious as this” one was. Then, without discussing any of the facts presented in court, three immediately voiced his opinion that the boy is guilty. It is like this with juror number three quite often, jumping to conclusions without any kind of proof. When the idea that the murder weapon, a unique switchblade knife, is not the only one of its kind, three expresses “[that] it’s not possible!” Juror eight, on the other hand, is a man who takes a much more patient approach to the task of dictating which path the defendant's life takes. The actions of juror three are antagonistic to juror eight as he tries people to take time and look at the evidence. During any discussion, juror number three sided with those who shared his opinion and was put off by anyone who sided with “this golden-voiced little preacher over here,” juror eight. His superior attitude was an influence on his ability to admit when the jury’s argument was weak. Even when a fellow juror had provided a reasonable doubt for evidence to implicate the young defendant, three was the last one to let the argument go. Ironically, the play ends with a 180 turn from where it began; with juror three
Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.
There is a red frame around the square to show that his opinionated anger is the only personality that shows on the outside for the majority of the movie. He is so driven that he states, “I never saw a guiltier man in my life. You sat right in court and heard the same thing I did. The man's a dangerous killer. You could see it” (12 Angry Men). After the perimeter, there is a gradual red fade into a broken heart. This shows how juror three gradually gives up and changes his vote to not guilty. Close to the beginning of the movie, juroe three explains his background by saying, “You’re right. It's the kids. The way they are—you know? They don't listen. 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.... All right, let's get on with it” (12 Angry Men). With this prejudice still in his mind, he then breaks into tears at the end of the movie pleading that the boy is not guilty. To sum it up, juror three brings to the jury a dictatorial attitude that has had past experiences similar to the
I do not think the third juror is a sadist. He just wants this whole thing to be over, and he is siding with the bigger side, so if the life of the kid goes into a vote, he can be on the winning side. The eight juror is still stuck up about no one but the fifth and eleventh juror joining his
Despite knowing how angry the other men would be at him, the 8th juror stood up for the defendant and did what he could to make sure the boy had a fair trial. From the beginning, Juror eight was clearly confident in what he believed in and did not care about how foolish he looked. The confidence he showed brought the other jurors to rethink their vote. Juror nine was the first person to recognize the amount of courage it took for juror eight to stand up against the men. After being the first to change his vote nine explains “This gentleman chose to stand alone against us. That’s his right. It takes a great deal of courage to stand alone even if you believe in something very strongly. He left the verdict up to us. He gambled for support and I gave it to him. I want to hear more. The vote is ten to two.” The 9th juror agreed with the eight juror about wanting justice. By standing up for justice he gave nine the courage to stand up for the same reason. Juror eight continued to be consistent with what he believed in. Never did he
People tend to base characteristics and personalities of people pretty quickly. 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. Based on the evidence gathered from the case everyone agrees the boy is innocent except one man, juror three. He eventually breaks down and tells the truth. The viewers can tell that this movie/play is full of emotions. Each of these emotions can be described as something more than what comes to the eye.
Juror #3 : This juror is a man he is a small business owner, he strongly states that he started his business from the ground up and he is very satisfied with himself I feel like, and now has thirty four workers now working in his business. In the early stages of this movie we learn that he doesn’t have a good relationship with his own son and they are no longer speaking, he is a stubborn old man and I felt like he is taking his own experiences into avvount and that leading him to believe that the boy really did stab his father and he is the last to be convinced to vote not guilty.
These two jurors are almost the plain opposite of each other. Juror 3 appears to be a very intolerant man accustomed of forcing his wishes and views upon others. On the other hand, Juror 8 is an honest man who keeps an open mind for both evidence and reasonable doubt. Since these two people are indeed very different, they both have singular thoughts relating to the murder case. Juror 8 is a man who is loyal to justice. In the beginning of the play, he was the only one to vote ‘not guilty’ the first time the twelve men called a vote. Although his personality is reflected on being a quiet, thoughtful, gentle man, he is still a very persistent person who will fight for justice to be done. Juror 8 is a convincing man who presents his arguments well, but can also be seen as manipulative. An example would be when he kept provoking Juror 3 until he finally said “I’m going to kill you" to Juror 8. He did this because he wanted to prove that saying "I’ll kill you" doesn’t necessarily mean that Juror 3 was actually going to kill him. Juror 3 is a totally different character. He is a stubborn man who can be detected with a streak of sad...
Sometimes in life your professions reflect on your personalities. Twelve Angry Men is an example of where this occurs. Twelve men are brought together in a room to decide whether a boy is guilty of killing his father. Whether they brought good or bad qualities from their profession, they all affected the outcome. The leadership skills of Courtney Vance, the compassion of Dorian Harwood, and the opinionated Tony Danza affected the actions and decisions in the jury room.
In viewing 12 Angry Men, we see face to face exactly what man really is capable of being. We see different views, different opinions of men such as altruism, egoism, good and evil. It is no doubt that human beings possess either one or any of these characteristics, which make them unique. It is safe to say that our actions, beliefs, and choices separate us from animals and non-livings. The 20th century English philosopher, Martin Hollis, once said, “Free will – the ability to make decisions about how to act – is what distinguishes people from non-human animals and machines 1”. He went to describe human beings as “self conscious, rational, creative. We can fall in love, write sonnets or plan for tomorrow. We are capable of faith, hope and charity, and for that matter, of envy, hated and malice. We know truth from error, right from wrong 2.” Human nature by definition is “Characteristics or qualities that make human beings different from anything else”. With this said, the topic of human nature has been around for a very long time, it is a complex subject with no right or wrong answer. An American rabbi, Samuel Umen, gave examples of contradictions of human nature in his book, Images of Man. “He is compassionate, generous, loving and forgiving, but also cruel, vengeful, selfish and vindictive 3”. Existentialism by definition is, “The belief that existence comes before essence, that is, that who you are is only determined by you yourself, and not merely an accident of birth”. A French philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, is the most famous and influential 20th - century existentialist. He summed up human nature as “existence precedes essence”. In his book, Existentialism and Human Emotions, he explained what he meant by this. “It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will be something, and he himself will have made what he will be 4”. After watching 12 Angry Men, the prominent view on human nature that is best portrayed in the movie is that people are free to be whatever they want because as Sartre said, “people create themselves every moment of everyday according to the choices they make 5”.
However, juror 3 did not maintain control after discussions with juror 8. For example, when juror 8 made a personal attack on juror 3, juror 3 lost his cool, requiring restraint from the other jurors to the point of yelling, “Let me go! I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him!” (Flouri & Fitsakis, 2007, p.459). His emotional intelligence (Budjac Corvette, 2007, p. 29) was a superior negotiation tactic throughout the deliberation process.